King Charles III began 2026 with a low‑key but closely watched appearance at Sandringham, stepping out with Queen Camilla for Sunday service at St. Mary Magdalene Church in Norfolk on 4 January.
The quiet church visit came just as a years‑long battle over Prince Harry’s U.K. police protection appeared to shift, potentially reshaping how—and whether—his young children can safely spend time in their father’s home country.
First Outing
The Sandringham church service marked the King and Queen’s first public outing of 2026, and their first appearance since the traditional Christmas Day service at the same church.
Charles, 77, wore his well-known brown overcoat, while Camilla, 78, chose a cream coat and a fur-trimmed hat, underscoring the routine, almost understated nature of the engagement—even as political and legal tensions surrounding Harry’s security simmered in the background.
Quiet Timing
The royal walk to church came around the same time as a Mail on Sunday report—relayed by People—claiming an internal panel had concluded Prince Harry, 41, now meets the criteria for full‑time armed police protection when he visits Britain.
The government has not yet issued a formal announcement, leaving the security development largely in the realm of insider briefings while the Sandringham appearance dominated royal photo coverage.
The Five‑Year Battle
Prince Harry’s security dispute dates back to 2020, when he and Meghan stepped back as working royals and lost their automatic taxpayer-funded police protection in the U.K.
Since then, protection has been offered on a bespoke, trip-by-trip basis, depending on advance notice and risk assessments.
Harry challenged this framework through a judicial review rejected by the High Court in February 2024 and an appeal dismissed in May 2025, cementing a protracted “security war” with the state
Panel’s Shift
The central development is a new risk assessment ordered in December 2025 by the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (RAVEC), the body responsible for overseeing such protections.
According to coverage from Home Office and Mail on Sunday sources, a review panel has reportedly concluded that Harry meets the threshold for full-time armed police protection when he visits the U.K., with one insider calling the reinstatement “a formality” and another stating that security is “nailed on.”
No official decision has yet been confirmed publicly.
Trigger Incidents
The December 2025 review followed what sources describe as new evidence of risk. Reports highlighted a September 2025 incident in which a female stalker allegedly came within feet of Harry twice during charity events in the U.K., raising concerns about his exposure at public engagements.
Such episodes, combined with earlier documented threats and prosecutions, strengthened the argument that his threat profile had materially changed since 2020.
Human Stakes
Harry has repeatedly argued that the current security regime affects not only him but also Meghan and their children, Prince Archie, 6, and Princess Lilibet, 4.
He has said he will not bring them to the U.K. without adequate police protection, citing credible threats and racialized abuse directed at his family.
Multiple individuals have been jailed over related threats, underlining that the danger is not theoretical for his young children.
The Kids’ Return
If full‑time armed protection is confirmed, it would remove a key obstacle to Archie and Lilibet returning to the U.K. more regularly.
Coverage suggests this could enable one to three extended family visits per year, allowing the children to strengthen ties with their British relatives, including the King, while travelling under official protection rather than relying primarily on private security.
Taxpayer Question
Any reinstatement raises sensitive questions about taxpayer‑funded protection for a non‑working royal living abroad.
Harry’s critics argue that public money should prioritize current working royals and high‑risk political figures.
Supporters counter that threats against him stem directly from his royal status and past service, making state involvement appropriate. The government’s bespoke system aims to balance cost, fairness, and risk—but this possible shift could test that balance
Not a Legal Win
Media shorthand has sometimes framed the likely upgrade as a “win” for Harry. Analysts note, however, that courts have repeatedly upheld the Home Office’s approach.
The new trajectory stems from an administrative reassessment based on updated threats, not a reversal of those legal defeats.
In that sense, Harry appears to be succeeding by working within the system he once denounced as unfair, rather than overturning it.
Inside RAVEC
RAVEC typically conducts full‑scale reviews only when circumstances change significantly, relying on intelligence from police, government departments, and subjects’ own teams.
Harry long argued that his risk was being underestimated, but it took fresh incidents to trigger this 2025 reassessment.
Home Office insiders briefing the press suggest internal discussions have now moved toward granting higher‑level protection, even as some in government weigh precedent and resource pressures
Palace Dynamics
Formally, King Charles does not control RAVEC or police decisions, which are made by the Home Office and specialist committees.
Yet royal watchers note that resolving Harry’s security impasse could ease family tensions at a time when the King faces ongoing health challenges.
Allowing safer visits by Harry and his children would support a more personal reconciliation narrative, even if Palace influence is exercised only indirectly through tone and relationships.
Wider Royal Precedent
Experts note that if Harry secures automatic armed protection as a non-working royal, it may set a significant precedent.
Future relatives who live more privately—such as Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, and eventually younger Windsor generation members—could point to his case when arguing for similar arrangements.
That possibility makes the current review not just about one prince, but about how the monarchy manages risk and cost for the extended family.
Life Under Review
Even with an upgraded status, Harry is still expected to operate under practical bespoke arrangements when travelling from his California home.
Specialists stress that “full‑time” in this context means eligibility for armed protection whenever he is in Britain, not officers permanently assigned while he lives abroad.
Advance notice, availability of specialist officers, and event‑by‑event planning would continue, albeit from a higher baseline of assumed risk.
What Comes Next?
With insiders describing reinstated protection as “a formality,” attention now turns to when—or whether—the Home Office confirms any change publicly.
An announcement could open broader debate about who merits state‑funded security, how threats to royals are evaluated, and what this means for Harry’s relationship with his father and the institution he left.
If Archie and Lilibet soon return under police guard, will public opinion welcome or resent the shift?
Sources:
People Magazine Jan 4–5 2026 royal coverage
Mail on Sunday Jan 3–4 2026 security report
Hello Magazine Jan 4 2026 Sandringham coverage
New My Royals Jan 4 2026 church service report
The Fascinator Substack Jan 6 2026 analysis
BBC Dec 8 2025 RAVEC review report
UK High Court Feb 28 2024 judicial review ruling