ON
← Back to feed
Harry and Meghan’s security funding on UK return is private matter, Burnham says
United Kingdom🏛️ PoliticsLean Conservative2 days ago

Harry and Meghan’s security funding on UK return is private matter, Burnham says

Andy Burnham, the UK's deputy prime minister, stated that security arrangements for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle while residing in the UK are a 'private matter' and declined to comment on potential security funding. The couple, who relocated to North America over six years ago, plans to move back to the UK this month, with their children already enrolled in British schools. King Charles III reportedly supports the move to spend more time with his family. Security funding has been a contentious issue, with Harry losing a legal battle last year over his entitlement to taxpayer-funded protection. The Home Office maintains that decisions on royal security are made by an independent committee, and there are no current plans to provide the couple with armed protection.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are set to return to the United Kingdom after nearly six years abroad, marking a dramatic shift from their earlier decision to leave the country. The announcement came as US media outlets reacted with headlines declaring the end of what some called "our long national nightmare." The couple, along with their two children, Prince Archie, seven, and Princess Lilibet, five, are preparing to move back to the UK, where they plan to enroll their children in British schools starting in September. The timing of the return appears to coincide with upcoming events, including Harry’s participation in the Invictus Games in Birmingham next year. News of the Sussexes’ planned relocation broke on Wednesday evening, prompting immediate attention from major US publications. The New York Post led its front-page story with the headline "Throne back!" accompanied by the phrase "Our long national nightmare is over," referencing the couple’s initial departure from the UK in 2019. The paper framed the return as a "reverse Megxit," drawing parallels to the couple’s earlier exit from royal duties. The story also noted the couple’s continued presence in the public eye through their lifestyle brand, As Ever, which includes products like Raspberry & Lavender Honey Yogurt Parfait and Blackberry Spread. Online comments on social media platforms reflected mixed reactions, with some viewers expressing relief at the couple’s return and others joking about the "door hitting them on the butt." Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times highlighted the move under the headline "Goodbye, Montecito," referring to the couple’s longtime residence in Santa Barbara, California. Other publications, including People magazine, characterized the decision as a "shocking move," underscoring the surprise and significance of the couple’s return. CBS News correspondent Dick Brennan described the development as a "stunning turnabout" for the Sussexes, noting that while Harry has found success in his role with the Invictus Games, many observers believe he has struggled to fully integrate into life in the US. Some local residents reportedly expressed happiness for the couple upon hearing the news. The Sussexes are expected to reside in a private, non-royal home outside London, with speculation pointing toward the Cotswolds as a potential location. They currently live in Montecito, California, and also own a holiday home in Portugal. While the couple has not publicly disclosed the reasons behind their decision to return, insiders suggest that their recent visit to the UK in July played a role in their choice. A source close to the family indicated that the timing aligns with ongoing projects, including Harry’s involvement in the Invictus Games, and that the move reflects a sense of alignment with their personal and professional goals. Security arrangements for the couple remain a key point of discussion. In the UK, the issue of funding for their protection has been a subject of prolonged debate. Prime Minister Andy Burnham confirmed that the matter is a "private matter" and emphasized that the decision rests with Harry and Meghan. The couple, having previously received taxpayer-funded security in the US, will now rely on private arrangements in the UK. Last year, Harry challenged the Home Office over the withdrawal of automatic security protections following their departure from royal duties. His legal argument centered around the safety of his family, particularly his children, and the importance of ensuring their well-being in the UK. A senior judge dismissed his appeal, citing insufficient grounds for reconsideration. Despite the lack of official statements from the Sussexes, the move signals a renewed connection with the UK, where King Charles III is believed to be welcoming the family. The couple retains their properties in California and Portugal, and Meghan is expected to continue managing her lifestyle brand from the UK. Whether she will resume public appearances or charitable activities remains unclear, though the focus appears to be shifting toward a more settled life in England. As the Sussexes prepare for their return, the public continues to watch with interest, eager to see how their lives unfold in the land they once left behind.

2 reports

The Guardian (UK) logoThe Guardian (UK)IndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 853 days ago
Harry and Meghan’s security funding on UK return is private matter, Burnham says

Andy Burnham, the UK's deputy prime minister, stated that security arrangements for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle while residing in the UK are a 'private matter' and declined to comment on potential security funding. The couple, who relocated to North America over six years ago, plans to move back to the UK this month, with their children already enrolled in British schools. King Charles III reportedly supports the move to spend more time with his family. Security funding has been a contentious issue, with Harry losing a legal battle last year over his entitlement to taxpayer-funded protection. The Home Office maintains that decisions on royal security are made by an independent committee, and there are no current plans to provide the couple with armed protection.

Bias read (Center): The article presents information from multiple perspectives, including statements from Andy Burnham, King Charles III, and the Home Office, without overtly favoring either side. While the topic involves a politically sensitive issue related to royal family matters, the framing remains balanced, with

Why factuality (90): The article provides detailed information about Harry and Meghan's security funding situation, referencing statements by Andy Burnham and mentioning the legal challenges related to security arrangements. It accurately reflects official positions and includes specific details about the couple's reloc

Why objectivity (85): The article maintains a neutral tone, presenting information based on official statements and reported events without introducing personal opinions or emotional language. It focuses on factual updates and quotes from officials, contributing to an objective reporting style.

Daily Mail logoDaily MailIndependentConservativeFactual 75Objective 602 days ago
'Our long national nightmare is over': US media react as it's revealed Harry and Meghan are leaving America

US media outlets, particularly the New York Post, have reacted to Prince Harry and Meghan's decision to return to the UK after six years in the US. The New York Post used headlines such as 'Our long national nightmare is over' and 'Throne back!' to frame the event, referencing historical contexts like the American War of Independence. The article highlighted the couple's children starting school in the UK and criticized their lack of acceptance in the US, mentioning their Netflix deal and lifestyle products. Other publications like the Los Angeles Times and People magazine also covered the news, using terms like 'Goodbye, Montecito' and 'shocking move,' suggesting varied reactions to the couple's return.

Bias read (Conservative): The article frames the return of Harry and Meghan as a positive outcome for the UK, using phrases like 'long national nightmare' and 'Throne back.' It references historical victories and portrays the couple's time in the US negatively, implying a sense of triumph for the UK. The tone suggests a pro-

Why factuality (75): The article reports on Harry and Meghan's planned return to the UK and mentions their children starting school in September, citing a source close to the Sussexes. It also references the New York Post's coverage and uses phrases like 'long national nightmare' and 'Americans have beaten the British a

Why objectivity (60): The article uses emotionally charged language such as 'long national nightmare' and 'Americans have beaten the British again,' suggesting a biased perspective. The focus on the 'reverse Megxit' narrative frames the event in a way that may not be neutral, potentially influencing reader perception.

How each side covered it

The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.

How each side covered it

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Covered around the world

The same event as reported in other countries.

Covered around the world

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Claims check

Key factual claims, and how many sources assert vs dispute each.

Claims check

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Keep the news honest.

ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.

Become a Supporter

Related stories