‘Stop telling everyone what you’re doing’: Harry and Meghan warned over security by ex-royal protection chief

Want LBC stories before everyone else? Set us as your Preferred Source on Google

Dai Davies, who oversaw Royal Protection for Queen Elizabeth II and the wider Royal Family during the 1990s, asked if the Sussexes needed to travel in convoy during routine journeys such as the school run.

It comes after Prince Archie, seven, and Princess Lilibet, five, were moved to another school just days into the new term, following reports that heavy traffic and the lengthy journey had placed the family’s security team under strain.

Speaking to LBC News’ Steve Holden, Mr Davies said: “If you keep a low profile, most people outside the school wouldn't know where you are, what they're doing, and all the rest of it.

“Do they really need to go in convoy with two little children on the school run?

“If they only just kept a little quieter, kept a lower profile, they'd be a lot safer in my view.”

The Sussexes returned to Britain from the United States a little over two weeks ago, with questions now surrounding what level of official protection the family could receive in the UK.

Mr Davies said any decision would ultimately rest with RAVEC, the committee responsible for assessing protection requirements for members of the Royal Family and other public figures.

“RAVEC will decide that, and a subcommittee of very expert people will take a cold, hard, unemotional look at what they need, when they need it, and should they get it in the first place,” he said.

Read more: Harry and Meghan security 'saga' 'beggars belief,' says former top cop as he says Duke has not 'helped himself' over Cotswolds school run

Read more: Meghan shares unseen pictures for Prince Harry's birthday as Sussexes move children to new school

Protection decisions are based on the threat and risk faced by an individual rather than simply their status, with intelligence and circumstances considered before decisions are made over the level of police resources required.

Mr Davies said proper protection planning should extend far beyond simply providing officers to accompany someone from one location to another.

Recalling his own time protecting members of the Royal Family, he said Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie had received protection at school when their father, Prince Andrew, was a working royal.

“I actually went to the school to check what contingency plans were there, and believe me, there were quite a few,” he said.

Mr Davies suggested a much more discreet approach could be taken to protecting Archie and Lilibet if the security assessment required it.

“I would employ a very highly trained nanny, and if you're that worried, put a protection officer in the seat with her and go to school anonymously,” he said.

“If anything changes, then clearly you would review it. You would review it on a weekly, daily basis if necessary.”

He also rejected suggestions that the Sussexes could be left without access to relevant police assistance or intelligence if a threat emerged.

“This nonsense that nobody will tell them anything about security and that they just have a phone number is nonsense, in my opinion,” he said.

“If there's any kind of threat, the police, both local and others, would take the appropriate action, but they wouldn't tell everybody.”

He added: “For once, stop telling everybody what you're doing.”

The question of whether the Sussexes should receive taxpayer-funded police protection is likely to become increasingly contentious if the family establishes a more permanent life in Britain.

Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds told LBC’s Nick Ferrari at Breakfast that the existing system was designed to respond to changing circumstances.

“I believe our system of protection is proportionate, it’s needs assessed,” he said.

“If there's been a change of circumstances and we need to look at that, I think the rules, the system would apply in that case.

“I wouldn't want anyone's children, no matter who they are, to be at risk, or circumstances for a family to have operated in this way.

“But there are rules in place, systems in place, to make sure people in public life are protected. I'm sure they'll apply in this case.”

Former Metropolitan Police Chief Superintendent Dal Babu said any review would be driven by intelligence and the risks which needed to be mitigated.

But he questioned how the family had apparently reached the point where Archie and Lilibet had to be moved between schools so soon after arriving in Britain.

“You've got two children and you're planning to live somewhere. You work out your school, you work out your route, and then a couple of days into it you're pulling these two poor little mites out of school and saying, right, you're off somewhere else because of security concerns,” he told LBC.

“It does beggar belief why they haven't really thought this through.”

Mr Babu said RAVEC would make any decision on additional security based on risk and intelligence, but warned the potential cost to the taxpayer could also become an issue.

“This is not just one security team, if it is decided that they'll be utilised, but there's four individuals,” he said.

“I suspect that there'll be some toing and froing, and there'll be some questions asked about should the public purse pay for private enterprise when they're doing their private engagements.”

But he explained that the safety of the family, and particularly the children, remained paramount.

“Ultimately we need to be looking at the security and safety,” he said.