Harry and Meghan’s Return Highlights Britain’s Restrictive Gun Laws

Commentators note that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s reported move back to the United Kingdom after six years in the United States has revived debate over their personal security. The couple previously left Britain in 2020 citing safety concerns, and Harry’s 2025 BBC interview emphasized the “duty of care” they feel has been abandoned. Their planned relocation now spotlights a legal obstacle: British law bars private armed protection, even for those willing to fund it themselves.

Reason

British firearms regulation is governed by the Firearms Act 1968, which imposes a strict licensing regime and expressly excludes self-defence as a legitimate reason to own a gun. Consequently, even highly trained private teams cannot carry firearms while operating in the UK.

Reason

According to the article, just over half a million people in England and Wales—fewer than 1 percent of the population—hold a firearm or shotgun certificate. Licences are typically granted for hunting, pest control or target shooting, and handguns are largely prohibited. Police officers are similarly unarmed; only about 4 percent of officers in England and Wales are designated as operational firearms officers.

Reason

The government’s guide reinforces the view that allowing private firearms for protection would likely raise violence levels. It extends this rationale to representatives of banks, firms protecting valuables, and private security personnel, thereby maintaining a monopoly on armed protection that the state provides.

Reason

• “I can't see a world in which I'd be bringing my wife and children back to the U.K. at this point,” — Prince Harry

Reason

• “Look at the risks. Look at the threat. Look at the impact. If anything was to happen to me, my wife or my father's grandchildren—if anything was to happen to them—look where the responsibility lies, you know? So there's a duty of care that has been completely thrown out the window,” — Prince Harry

Reason