Why Did Prince Andrew Keep Police Protection While Prince Harry and Meghan Lost Theirs?

For years, the Palace insisted that security decisions were technical, independent and above emotion. Yet the facts tell a different story.

Despite stepping back from public life and being stripped of his military titles and royal patronages, Prince Andrew’s security remains linked to official structures. BBC coverage of his arrest showed Royal Protection Officers present as he left custody, while People has reported that both current and former protection officers are now being asked by police what they saw or heard during their time assigned to him.

Meanwhile, Prince Harry lost his taxpayer-funded security within weeks of leaving royal duties, despite documented threats and an elevated risk profile. The contrast is shameful. And the public deserves a formal explanation for why this is the case.

Bodyguards At Epstein’s Mansion

Emails reported by The Sunday Times suggest that taxpayer-funded Metropolitan Police officers assigned to Andrew were instructed to provide door security at a dinner party hosted by Jeffrey Epstein in 2010 — after Epstein had been convicted of a child sex offence.

“Metropolitan Police officers were instructed to provide security for a celebrity dinner party at Jeffrey Epstein’s New York home, according to newly released emails. Two royal protection officers from Scotland Yard appear to have been told by Epstein’s staff to guard the door of the Manhattan townhouse as guests, including Woody Allen, attended the dinner in honour of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor in 2010. It is also likely to raise further questions about the leadership of Peter Loughborough, the former head of the Met’s royal protection squad who is now one of the King’s most senior aides.”

They were there because they were protecting Andrew.

The question writes itself: what did royal protection officers know, and why has there been so little public accountability? The revelation that two Metropolitan Police officers, funded by UK taxpayers, appear to have acted as security at Jeffrey Epstein’s New York townhouse raises serious concerns.

Before anyone celebrates Andrew’s arrest as proof that the system works, it is worth remembering where much of this information originated — not from bold investigative breakthroughs in the British press, but from document releases in the US. And it forces a deeper question: why is a disgraced prince linked to Epstein still benefiting from protection?

Harry Said It First

In Spare, Harry made the hypocrisy plain.

“My uncle was embroiled in a shameful scandal, accused of the sexual assault of a young woman, and no one had so much as suggested that he lose his security,” he wrote. “Whatever grievances people had against us, sex crimes weren’t on the list.”

The Independent noted that Harry was the first royal to publicly criticise Andrew, highlighting what he saw as hypocrisy in how scandals were handled. Even after Andrew’s arrest, royal protection officers were reportedly in the car as he left the police station.

“… Prince Harry was the first royal to publicly criticise Andrew, highlighting what he saw as hypocrisy in the family’s treatment of different scandals. In his memoir Spare, he wrote that despite the allegations against Andrew, “no one had even suggested removing his security”. Indeed, even yesterday as he left the police station after being arrested, two royal protection officers were in the car with him”. – The Independent

When Harry and Meghan stepped back in 2020, their publicly funded police protection was removed. In Spare, Harry wrote that their threat level was high, comparable to that of the late Queen. Former counterterrorism chief Neil Basu later confirmed that the couple faced a serious and credible threat level.

“Harry stepped away from royal life six years ago, at a time when the institution was still closing ranks around Andrew – continuing to provide him with police protection, allowing him to remain at Royal Lodge and maintaining public silence amid mounting scrutiny. By contrast, Harry and Meghan Markle were stripped of publicly funded security after stepping back as senior royals in 2020, a decision Harry has said left his family vulnerable and one he has continued to challenge through the courts. – PEOPLE

Harry offered to pay for Metropolitan Police protection himself. RAVEC rejected that proposal. He challenged the decision in court and ultimately lost his appeal. RAVEC oversees royal and VIP security, and while it operates independently, representatives from the Royal Household sit on it.

At the same time, Andrew retained police protection long after serious allegations had emerged against him. That disparity fuels accusations of double standards.

Who Decides and Why

Security decisions sit with RAVEC, not the King personally. Buckingham Palace has said Andrew stepped back in 2019. For three years after that, the taxpayer still covered his protection. Since 2023, the Palace says the King funds it privately.

But royal protection is not ordinary private security. It involves state resources, intelligence coordination and public infrastructure. It is not the same as hiring a firm off the street.

Andrew retained his security long after the Epstein scandal engulfed him. Even following his recent arrest, protection officers were reportedly present as he left the station.

If security is based on risk, what calculus produced this outcome?

Andrew retained his police security long after serious allegations had been made against him – but Harry and Meghan were unceremoniously stripped of theirs after they decided they no longer wanted to be working royals. Harry wrote, “nobody had suggested removing his [Andrew] security. People may have a lot of grievances towards us, but sexual ofences weren’t one of them” …This characterisation stands out, because it is so markedly similar to how Harry describes existing inside the House of Windsor to feel in his memoir. Both Harry and Andrew were born into their royal positions, but the two men couldn’t have approached the difficulties that came with it more differently – despite the attempts in some quarters to compare or conflate them.” -Mirror

The media is only now asking why Harry and Meghan do not have taxpayer-funded protection. But Harry addressed the disparity years ago, in print and without hesitation.

Andrew kept his security despite serious allegations. Harry and Meghan lost theirs despite documented threats. That is the contrast.

The media helped fuel hostility toward the Sussexes in the first place, so their sudden softer tone now reads less like integrity and more like self-preservation. With international scrutiny fixed on the monarchy, government and press, this late concern feels hollow. Where were these questions years ago?

A non-working royal accused in connection with one of the most notorious trafficking scandals in modern history retained protection. A prince who cited far-right threats and documented hostility toward his wife and child did not.

The Palace hides behind “procedure,” but people remember the spin. “We are very much not a racist family.” “Recollections may vary.” Polished lines, little accountability. King Charles’ past association with Jimmy Savile and his own public marital history are part of the record. Critics see a pattern: close ranks, protect the insider, issue a statement, move on.

History does not move on so easily.

Until there is a clear and transparent explanation for why Andrew continues to benefit from state-linked protection while others do not, many will continue to see this not just as a double standard, but as a decision shaped by racial bias at the heart of the institution.