Over several years Prince Harry has repeatedly said that he and his family would not return to this country without the assurance of police protection.

Since the Government, backed by the courts, has steadfastly refused to provide such protection – the cost of which is put at up to £5million a year – it seemed we wouldn’t be seeing Harry, Meghan and their two children on British soil for the foreseeable future.

Yet, lo and behold, they are about to arrive on our shores, and are rumoured to be looking for a suitably grand house somewhere in the Cotswolds. Somehow the thorny issue of the Sussexes’ security appears to have gone away.

Is it conceivable that Harry and Meghan have privately been told by the authorities that they will be looked after by the police? Or are they simply confident that this matter is going to be dealt with to their satisfaction?

My suspicions have been raised by at least three developments. Andy Burnham said last week that the couple’s security arrangements were ‘a private matter’, but he didn’t rule out the possibility of them receiving taxpayer funding on their return. The door is clearly still open.

Then, over the weekend, a gaggle of Labour MPs dominated by the redoubtable Dame Emily Thornberry suggested that the Duke and Duchess should be given police protection paid for by you and me.

Meanwhile, it has just emerged that a new risk assessment of the Sussexes’ security was completed on the orders of the Royal and VIP Executive Committee only a month ago.

Do I smell a rat? Is it possible that we are about to learn that the long-withheld police protection will be granted after all, and it was with this expectation that Harry and Meghan decided to come back?

If this is the case, there would be a justifiable outcry. I believe that the monarchy would be damaged by such a development – and Harry and Meghan would become even more unpopular than they already are.

A poll in yesterday’s Mail on Sunday found that 68 per cent of respondents believe the Sussexes should pay for their own security. This confirms what we already knew. Most of us are fed up to the back teeth with the couple, and don’t see why we should have to fork out for their protection.

We don’t like the way they cut and run, having turned their backs on their royal duties. We don’t appreciate the sour manner in which they spoke about our country, and the monarchists among us can’t forget their frequent barbs against the Royal Family.

In recent days, comparisons have been made between Harry and the Prodigal Son of the New Testament, who returns to the embrace of his father having behaved in a thoroughly odious and irresponsible way.

But many of those who gaily invoke this parable miss the point. The Prodigal Son is deeply contrite for all his sins, whereas Harry has so far not uttered a word of regret, and plainly sees no need to do so. By contrast, the King is as forgiving as the father in the parable.

Some of us may need to be reminded just how hurtful Harry has been. In an interview with the Telegraph in January 2023, the errant prince demanded that the Royal Family apologise to Meghan.

In the tones of a schoolmaster dressing down an unruly pupil, he said: ‘Because you know what you did, and I now know why you did it. And you’ve been caught out, so just come clean and we could then all move on.’ He continued: ‘That’s the saddest part about it – it was all so avoidable. But they just couldn’t help themselves.’

It seems incredible that someone who spoke in such terms less than four years ago should swan back to this country without a word of apology, at least so far, while seemingly expecting ordinary people to pay for his and his family’s protection.

I don’t doubt that, as a member of the Royal Family who once fulfilled his official duties, he might be at risk from some lunatic. As an ex-soldier, who bravely served in Afghanistan, and unwisely wrote in his autobiography that he had killed 25 Taliban fighters, he could conceivably be a target.

Indeed, as long ago as 2014 convicted criminal Ashraf Islam was jailed for three years after admitting that he had plotted to kill Prince Harry.

And in 2019 teenagers Oskar Dunn-Koczorowski and Michal Szewczuk were both jailed. They had shared violent far-Right posts, including swastikas, while Szewczuk created an image of the Duke of Sussex with a pistol to his head against a blood-spattered background.

So Harry and Meghan would be wise to take precautions, as they have done in the United States, paying a reported £2million a year for private protection. America, it should be noted, is a far more dangerous country than Britain with a much higher incidence of gun ownership.

If private security was thought adequate for the Sussexes across the pond (President Trump refused to provide official protection), why wouldn’t it be considered viable here?

It is true that, unlike in the United States, private bodyguards in this country aren’t allowed to carry firearms, and so probably offer a lesser degree of protection. On the other hand, it is what Nigel Farage, almost certainly more at risk than Harry or Meghan, has had to put up with.

Such security doesn’t come cheap – which, by the way, is why Farage’s acceptance of a £5million gift, supposedly for his own private protection, doesn’t seem out of line.

The Sussexes may not be as rich as they were, and Harry faces potentially large liabilities as a result of losing his case against Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Daily Mail, but they were able to afford the costs of private security in the United States.

If they can’t now do so here, the King could step in, supporting Harry and Meghan out of his large private fortune. That would be an act of great generosity in view of the many brickbats the Sussexes have sent flying in his direction.

My fear, though, is that the decision has already been taken in principle by the Government for the taxpayer to stump up. If I am right, there is bound to be a good deal of public outrage.

Many people will recoil at the prospect of this opportunistic couple, having tired of life in America, getting their security paid for by the public purse while still declining to undertake royal duties.

The sight of them feathering their nest in whichever English county they come to rest – making money wherever they can while benefiting from Government support – would undermine the already slightly shaky popularity of the monarchy.

As for the Sussexes, their acceptance of publicly funded security without any willingness to serve the public, combined with their inability to show any awareness of the damage they have caused, would only lead to further discord.

In fact, a row over taxpayer-funded police protection would confirm our worst fears that the second act of the Harry and Meghan show has arrived, and is likely to prove just as unedifying as the first.