Prince Harry Is the Target of Six Terror Plots, And Britain Still Won’t Give Him Proper Security

The security report is damning. Prince Harry is the focus of six terrorist plots, five of which originated in the UK. An al‑Qaeda document specifically called for his assassination. Nearly 500 potential stalkers are being tracked by the Metropolitan Police, half of whom have demonstrated a threat against Harry, Meghan Sussex, and their two young children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet. Former counter‑terrorism police have confirmed that genuine threats existed against Meghan.

And yet, when Harry arrives in the UK next week for a series of Invictus events, he will have no state‑funded police protection. He has been offered a liaison officer’s phone number. Nothing more.

Here is what ITV News reported:

Prince Harry is the focus of six terrorist plots, five of which originated in the UK, according to a highly sensitive security report seen by ITV News.

The revelations come as the Duke of Sussex is preparing to travel to the UK, and has still not decided whether to bring his family to his home country, which he considers is unsafe.

The report, commissioned by Harry’s own private security firm, details dozens of threats and potential attacks facing the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and includes an al-Qaeda document which called for his assassination.

The document was submitted to the UK security committee tasked with deciding whether Harry should get state-funded protection when he travels in the country.

A copy of the report, which has been obtained by ITV News, found that there are “at least six plots against The Duke from jihadist and right-wing threat actors that have targeted other high-profile Britons”.

The “Threat and Vulnerability Risk Assessment” marked “Confidential” reports that the UK’s Metropolitan are aware of nearly 500 potential stalkers targeting the Royal Family, of which half have demonstrated a threat against Prince Harry, Meghan and their two children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet.

Despite Harry and his children being fifth, sixth and seventh in line to the throne, he had his automatic royal protection removed in 2020.

The revelations come as the Duke of Sussex is preparing to travel to the UK, and has still not decided whether to bring his family.

Harry’s security company does provide personnel to accompany him when he travels overseas, but their report acknowledges that the protection team cannot carry guns on UK soil and concludes that “UK authorities are much better positioned to provide him with more comprehensive protection”.

Without being able to carry “lethal weapons”, it concludes, Harry’s private protection officers are prevented from “adequately responding to an armed attack from a terrorist, criminal, or mentally unstable actor. Only UK police, with authorisation from RAVEC, can carry lethal weapons while protecting The Duke”.

Its assessment is that “the only way to mitigate residual risks to The Duke is to provide him with state-backed security”.

The System Is Failing Harry, And Britain Should Be Embarrassed

Prince Harry’s security situation becomes more disturbing the longer it goes on. This is not about accommodation. It has never been about whether he can sleep in a royal residence or stay at Althorp. Security does not follow a building. It follows the person at risk. And because Harry is clearly a person at risk, his presence in the UK could potentially endanger the public as well.

This is a man who served two combat tours in Afghanistan. He was publicly identified as having killed Taliban fighters during war, something the British press had already reported long before Spare. He has been targeted by extremists. His wife has faced far‑right threats. Their son was targeted in a neo‑Nazi podcast. Former counter‑terrorism police have confirmed that genuine threats existed against Meghan.

It is shameful that this security limbo continues while King Charles has the influence and moral authority to press for a proper, current assessment of the risks facing his son’s family. Queen Elizabeth managed to provide security when needed. Charles could do the same. His cruelty toward his first wife is well documented, and he now appears to be extending that same cruelty toward their son.

Prince William’s office also cannot be treated as irrelevant to the process. The ITV report noted that three members of the RAVEC committee come from Charles’s and William’s offices. That means William’s staff are actively part of the process that denies Harry protection. His silence is not neutrality. It is participation.

Final Thoughts

The issue is not whether Harry is liked. The issue is whether a high‑profile British prince, his biracial wife, and their two young children should have a proper, current risk assessment before entering the UK. That should not be controversial. It is a basic public safety issue.

What makes it worse is the reported delay around the Risk Management Board review. If RAVEC itself determined that an independent assessment was necessary, then why has it still not happened? Why is Harry being told to give notice, negotiate every visit, and hope the system decides he is worth protecting each time?

And people are allowed to compare this to Diana. Not because the circumstances are identical, but because the emotional pattern feels familiar. A royal who surpasses the institution itself, then leaves the system entirely, inevitably finds their safety becoming conditional, politicised, and wrapped in resentment.

The Palace and the British government may want to pretend this is about procedure. But the optics are awful. Other high‑profile people receive protection when credible threats exist. Other countries manage to host Harry and Meghan without turning basic security into a national psychodrama. Yet in Britain, the country Harry served, his family’s safety is treated like a privilege he must beg for.

That is why the public trust is collapsing. Harry is asking for a credible security process. He is asking for his wife and children to be able to visit the UK without their safety becoming another weapon in the royal briefing war.

And if the establishment cannot provide that, then it should stop pretending this is about duty, family or national respect. Because when a country cannot protect its own prince from known threats, especially one who served in its military, the embarrassment is not Harry’s. It belongs to Britain.