‘I don’t want my money spent on them!’ BBC star slams Prince Harry and Meghan Markle
Sharron Davies Says ‘Not With My Tax Pounds’ as Harry and Meghan Security Row Deepens
Former Olympic swimmer and BBC commentator Sharron Davies has strongly opposed using public money to fund security for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle following their return to Britain.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex arrived in the UK earlier this week with their children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet. Their extended stay has immediately revived the unresolved debate over whether the family should receive taxpayer-funded police protection.
No decision has yet been announced. However, several Labour MPs have argued that Harry’s position as the King’s son and his previous public service mean the family should be officially protected.
Davies firmly disagreed, accusing Harry and Meghan of publicly criticising Britain before choosing to return.
“This couple left the UK, slating it and its people at every possible opportunity, selling every secret they could, saying they wanted to live OUT of the spotlight… then proceeded to do the exact opposite,” she wrote on X.
She then made her position on the security bill clear: “I do not want my tax pounds spent on them.”
Add Post
Labour MPs support protection for Sussex family
Dame Emily Thornberry, a senior Labour backbencher, is among those who believe the Sussexes should receive state-funded security while living in Britain.
She argued that the priority should be ensuring Harry, Meghan and their children remain safe.
“I would want to be reassured that his family are going to be safe,” Thornberry said. “They deserve to be secure.”
The Labour politician pointed to Harry’s military and public service, as well as his direct connection to the monarch, when explaining why she believed the family faced a heightened risk.
“We have to remember the Duke of Sussex has made a contribution to this country through his public service and heroism,” she said.
“He is the son of the King, he has made a big contribution to our country through public service — that puts him and his family at risk.”
Labour MP Mike Tapp also questioned whether a formal decision had been made to withhold police protection.
“Prince Harry has landed in the UK, apparently with no police protection,” he wrote on X.
“Has a decision been made not to provide security? And does that decision stand up to scrutiny? Because if something happens to him or his family, it will need to. Sort it out!”
Critics point to other non-working royals
Royal expert Richard Eden rejected the argument that Harry and Meghan should automatically receive publicly funded protection.
He said the couple had “abandoned their public life” when they stepped back from official royal duties.
Eden also highlighted the arrangements applying to Princess Anne and Prince Edward, claiming they receive automatic police protection only when carrying out official engagements.
“Is this Labour MP aware that the King’s sister and brother receive automatic police protection only when they are undertaking official duties?” he wrote in response to Tapp.
“Harry and Meghan abandoned their public life.”
Reports suggest the Sussexes were not provided with a taxpayer-funded police convoy after arriving on Wednesday, August 26.
The family reportedly travelled to their new home in the Cotswolds while being supported by a privately funded security team.
Harry’s security arrangements changed after he and Meghan stopped working as senior royals and moved abroad in 2020. Since then, his protection needs in Britain have generally been assessed on a case-by-case basis.
The family’s decision to remain in the UK for an extended period has now changed the circumstances behind those earlier assessments.
Supporters believe Harry’s profile and relationship to King Charles justify state protection regardless of his working status. Critics argue that taxpayers should not cover the cost for royals who no longer perform official duties.
Until the authorities issue a final decision, Harry and Meghan are expected to continue relying on their own security team — while the political and public argument over who should pay shows no sign of ending.
