Meghan and Harry trashed Britain for years and now expect us to protect and pay for them

Thank you for subscribing!

This RAVEC review looks less like security policy and more like a reward for disloyalty, writes US columnist

British taxpayers should be seething. RAVEC has ordered a full security risk assessment for Meghan Markle — her first since she walked away from royal duties — and another for Harry because the pair have moved back to Britain as private citizens.

They've been told to hand over every detail of their daily lives: the school runs, the routes, the addresses, the timings. After years of publicly attacking this country, the Royal Family and the late Queen, the British state is once again turning official attention toward protecting them.

You are being asked the impossible — to forget what was said, forgive the damage, and now consider footing the bill or providing the shield. It is an utter disgrace.

The Monarchy still stands for duty and continuity in a world that prefers performance. The late Queen lived that standard better than anyone. She simply did the job. While she was still carrying it, the Sussexes chose a different route. They stepped back in 2020, left for California, and spent years painting the family as racist. Those claims sold books, interviews and streaming deals. They left real damage while the Queen was alive and working. That is not something a country is obliged to erase the moment the same people change address and ask for consideration.

They're back. The children are starting school. After just two days, Archie and Lilibet were pulled out and moved. The original commute was too long and the traffic too heavy. Vehicles ended up static on the road, exposed. Their private security team couldn't keep the convoy tight. The team had checked the school over the summer but only discovered the full problem once term began.

Sources stressed it was no reflection on the school — the children had liked it — but the daily journey simply could not be made secure. That episode shows exactly what they are: private citizens dealing with the practical consequences of their own arrangements.

Yet the official process is already under way. Harry spent years in court trying to restore automatic taxpayer-funded protection after he and Meghan quit as working royals. He lost. The principle was settled. Returning as residents does not reset the account. Most of Britain already understands this. Polls show roughly two-thirds believe the couple should pay for their own security. Only a tiny fraction want the taxpayer covering everything. That is not harsh. It is basic fairness.

The working royals still carry out public duties under genuine threat. The Sussexes left the duty, turned the departure into a commercial project, and are now hitting the predictable difficulties of a repetitive school run. Treating that as reason for a formal state assessment looks like rewarding the very behaviour that weakened the institution.

From this side of the Atlantic, the entitlement is glaring. California gave them a platform and an audience ready for stories of institutional failure. The attacks travelled well. What never crossed the ocean was any lasting sense of obligation to the country that raised Harry and gave Meghan the platform she later used against it. Britain is not a place where you can attack the Royal Family, monetise the criticism, return, and then expect the public to protect and pay as if nothing happened. Loyalty is not a one-way street that reopens on demand.

The deeper problem is what this does to the institution itself. Every special process for this couple turns the Monarchy into a supporting act in someone else's ongoing drama. It distracts from the people who are actually doing the work. It suggests that public criticism and commercial exploitation can be followed by a soft landing and official consideration. That is corrosive.

RAVEC exists to assess threat, not to manage feelings or tidy up the results of choices freely made. Asking for the precise details of a school run that their own team could not secure only makes the point sharper. The reviews do not guarantee protection. But the fact the machinery is turning at all, after everything that was said, looks like hesitation where there should be a clear line.

The Monarchy has never survived by accommodating every demand or offering automatic forgiveness. It survives by knowing what membership requires. Private citizens can live there, raise their children and run their businesses. They are not entitled to reclaim protective privileges after years of attack, especially when they have only come crawling back after rejecting service to Britain and insulting it. Holding that line is essential. It tells the working family that their service still matters more than the noise. It tells taxpayers their money is not an apology fund. And it tells the world that the Crown still understands the difference between duty and a performance that expected no consequences.

The late Queen never needed a committee to know what the job demanded. She simply did it. The institution she left behind deserves the same clarity now. Expecting the public to protect and potentially pay for those who spent years undermining it is more than tone-deaf. It is a disgrace. Britain has already paid enough.