Prince Harry followed by “fixated” stalker in UK, but officials rule he’s not owed protection

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have been told they are “not entitled to security” despite the Duke of Sussex being relentlessly followed by a woman described as a “fixated individual”. The claim has ignited fierce debate over whether the couple, who stepped back from royal duties five years ago, should receive taxpayer-funded protection while visiting Britain.

The alarming revelation emerged this week after it was reported that a woman had repeatedly stalked Prince Harry, even coming within yards of him during his recent trip to London. According to accounts, Harry’s private bodyguards were forced to intervene when the stalker slipped into a “secure zone” at a hotel. Two days later, the same woman was spotted just a “stone’s throw” from him as he attended Imperial College London’s Centre for Blast Injury Studies.

Despite the clear threat, some commentators insist the Duke and Duchess of Sussex no longer merit the same security afforded to working royals. Journalist Jane Moore argued in The Sun that Harry and Meghan are now “mere celebrities,” pointing to their lucrative commercial ventures in the United States as proof that they should not expect taxpayer-funded police protection.

“I sympathise,” Moore wrote, “but the right to state-backed police protection is decided by Ravec — the executive committee that concluded Harry is not entitled to it. As he’s no longer a working royal, the same rules apply to him as to any other celebrity.”

The couple, who left Britain for California in 2020, were informed that any future visits to the UK would require a bespoke security arrangement. Under the agreement, they must provide 30 days’ notice of travel plans, allowing threat assessments to be made on a case-by-case basis.

However, Moore’s comments have drawn attention to a troubling reality: celebrity status does not shield individuals from genuine danger. “With alarming frequency,” she wrote, “the papers are filled with stories of other celebrities, particularly women, tormented by stalkers — and they don’t get state-funded police protection either. If Harry did, why shouldn’t they?”

Recent examples underline her point. Strictly Come Dancing judge Shirley Ballas was forced to move her mother to a different home after enduring the obsessive attention of 37-year-old Kyle Shaw. Though Shaw was convicted earlier this year, his 20-month prison sentence was suspended — a decision many criticised as too lenient.

Similarly, television presenter Myleene Klass revealed that her stalker had sent her disturbing letters and even an air pistol. The ordeal left her home feeling like “Fort Knox” and “Alcatraz”, she said this week, describing the lasting trauma of being targeted.

For Harry, however, the question of protection is far from settled. His supporters argue that he faces unique risks due to his royal lineage, past military service, and high-profile humanitarian work. Critics, meanwhile, insist that royal privilege should not extend to those who have chosen private life abroad.

The debate over his security reflects broader tensions between the Sussexes and the monarchy — a divide that has deepened since their withdrawal from official duties. For many observers, the stalker incident underscores the precarious position the couple now occupy: too famous to be ignored, yet no longer deemed royal enough to be guarded.

While police assess threats on a case-by-case basis, the chilling proximity of a stalker to the Duke of Sussex raises pressing questions about how far such policies can be stretched before tragedy strikes. Whether the royal family or the government will reconsider their stance remains unclear — but for now, Harry and Meghan appear to be navigating danger without the shield they once took for granted.