Thank you for subscribing!
The Sussexes may be able to return to Britain but the public has drawn the line at taxpayer-funded security and a royal reset, writes the US columnist
The numbers are in, and they are brutal. A new poll commissioned by The Mail on Sunday has delivered a stark warning for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s reported plans to return to Britain after six years in California.
Just two per cent of Britons believe Harry should receive taxpayer-funded security. Two per cent. Sixty-eight per cent say the couple should pay for their own protection.
On the broader question of their homecoming, 34 per cent actively oppose it, only 27 per cent support it, and 39 per cent are undecided, making public enthusiasm lukewarm at best and opposition greater than support among those expressing a view.
Twenty-two per cent think the couple’s return will weaken the monarchy; only eight per cent think it would strengthen it. Forty-three per cent say the Sussexes should apologise for implying the Royal Family is racist. Only 16 per cent want them back as working royals. And just four per cent believe Prince William should make the first move towards any reconciliation.
For an American royal commentator who has long argued that, until their titles are removed, the Sussexes will continue to haunt the Royal Family, the message is unmistakable: there is no credible way back.
Harry and Meghan left Britain in 2020 amid claims of racism, media harassment, and institutional cruelty. They promised a new life of privacy and independence in California. What followed was the opposite. The Oprah interview, the Netflix series, the memoir Spare, the endless podcasts and speeches, each one layered fresh grievances onto the old ones. They painted the Royal Family as cold, bigoted, and uncaring. They turned private pain into public content. And they did it while retaining their titles, residual prestige, and the access associated with royal status.
Now, with their return to Britain gathering pace, the couple appears ready to test the waters. Some suggest security reviews by RAVEC and risk management boards might open the door to state protection.
A few politicians have floated the idea. But the survey suggests that the public has drawn a very different line on the most concrete question. Taxpayers will not willingly underwrite the protection of two people who spent years publicly attacking the family and institution that once supported them.
The 68 per cent who insist Harry and Meghan pay for their own security are not being mean-spirited; they are being consistent. The Sussexes chose independence. Independence has consequences.
The security numbers are the strongest expression of a deeper resistance. The poll shows that far more people see the couple’s return as a net negative for the monarchy than a positive. The institution has weathered scandals, health crises, and generational change. What it does not need is a pair of high-profile returnees whose primary public contribution has been division and monetised grievance. Thirty-six per cent of respondents believe financial reasons are the likely explanation for the move. That is public perception, not proven fact, but it feeds a widespread scepticism that is hard to dismiss.
Then there is the racism charge. Forty-three per cent of respondents believe an apology is owed. That figure is significant. The allegation, aired globally without the identity of the unnamed royal being disclosed, caused enormous controversy around the Royal Family. William publicly rejected the idea that the family is racist. Large numbers of Britons appear to side with him. Asking for accountability from people who demanded it of everyone else is not unreasonable.
And yet there are reports of efforts within the royal household to encourage reconciliation. A senior aide to King Charles has reportedly made repairing the rift between William and Harry a priority, although sources close to both the King and William have disputed those claims. The King may hope for peace between his sons. That is understandable. But reconciliation between two brothers is one thing; restoring Harry and Meghan to a position of public trust is quite another. The polling makes that distinction impossible to ignore.
Reconciliation talk is therefore equally misplaced if it means the restoration of the old arrangement. Only four per cent think William should initiate peace. Trust, once shattered by repeated public attacks, is not restored by a press release or a carefully staged walkabout. Harry and Meghan have shown little sustained interest in quiet repair. Their public record has been one of repeated criticism of the Royal Family followed by commercially exploited revelations and grievances. Why should the senior royals, or the public, pretend otherwise?
There is an important distinction that the poll numbers reinforce. Private residence in Britain and private family contact with the King and others are one matter. Public roles, taxpayer-funded security, and institutional rehabilitation are quite another. The survey suggests that the public is not eager to see the Sussexes restored to the working fold. They are not willing to subsidise the risk that comes with their profile. And they are not prepared to forget the years of public attack.
Harry and Meghan face a steep climb. The obstacle is not primarily logistics or risk assessments. It is credibility. Credibility is hard to rebuild when the public has already heard their story, watched what followed, and formed its own judgement.
There is no way back to the previous arrangement. The couple can live in Britain if they choose. They can pay for their own protection, manage their own brands, and keep their private lives private. What they cannot expect is a royal reset on their terms.
The door to Britain may be open. The door back into royal life is another matter entirely.
