Taylor Swift to the rescue? Prince Harry could enter a new era in the U.K. thanks to superstar setting key precedent

Prince Harry‘s bid for state-funded security in the U.K. could be helped by a new precedent set by pop star Taylor Swift during the U.K. leg of the Eras Tour.

GB News claimed an unnamed source close to Prince Harry’s case against the U.K. government said decisions made by Met Police in August 2024 for the singer’s Wembley Stadium shows “demonstrated that exemptions to security policy could be made.”

Taylor Swift received state-funded security for Wembley shows in August

Swift received taxpayer-funded police escorts following previous terror threats targeted at her concerts. Met Police initially denied the request, but Swift’s mother, Andrea, and politicians threw some weight around to ensure security measures would be taken.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan, and politicians Yvette Cooper and Sue Gray were reportedly involved with informing the talks. Meanwhile, Andrea Swift “negotiated” by threatening to cancel the events altogether.

Considering the Manchester, England terror attack a few years prior during an Ariana Grande concert, an alleged terror plot that forced Swift to cancel three sold-out Vienna, Austria shows, and the legitimate risks involved, police eventually agreed to provide protection.

The security service, which is typically reserved for politicians and Royal Family members, bending to political influence and aiding a celebrity was divisive, with some believing taxpayer money shouldn’t have gone towards it. Furthermore, the source claims it reopened the door for Harry to argue his case.

Harry had requested (and was denied) similar protection months earlier

Harry lost a battle with the Home Office earlier in 2024 over his right to automatic protection following his official leave from royal duties. He deemed it unfair that his protection should be removed on those grounds, particularly considering the racism and misogynistic vitriol lobbed at his wife, Meghan Markle.

Harry is set to appeal the decision in April 2025. He reportedly wants to address what he believes is a lack of transparency in the Royal and VIP Executive Committee’s decision-making, as well as feeling singled out. Some perceive the lack of security for his U.K. visits is retaliatory on account of his criticism of the monarchy.

Former Met assistant commissioner Neil Basu told The Telegraph he would have made the same decision to protect Swift’s show, then questioning, “But the same logic applies surely to the youngest son and family of our King?” He also added that during his time with the Met from 2018 to 2021, the threat against the Sussexes were “very real” and “disgusting.”

“The dangers to Taylor Swift were and are real, but so are those faced by Prince Harry and his family,” he argued. “There may well be no imminent threat, but there is always risk, risk that can be mitigated by the tactics used by the Met Police on the day.”

“There remains a broad spectrum of threats from online actors/trolls stirring hate as well as organized terror groups against prominent public figures, and the Sussex family will be one of the most prominent targets,” he added.

Basu’s balanced assessment rings true. Despite how hated the Royal Family are by people who assert British colonial injustice has never been properly accounted for, the U.K.’s public image of the remaining family vs. that of Harry and Meghan is starkly different. The couple are often the purported villains of the royal feud, with unsubstantiated claims of their toxicity and Meghan’s supposed succubus-like wiles the driving force behind rage-bait clicks.

It’s understandable Harry would have safety concerns, especially after welcoming two young children into their family. And while his legal battle is more about who is deemed fit for automatic protection, the debate likely to be sparked following the outcome is whether those with large amounts of wealth should pay for it themselves or not.