Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s recent tour to Australia has raised questions about the taxpayer-funded security Harry says is his birthright.

This summer, Prince Harry is expected to return to the UK to mark the one-year countdown to his 2027 Invictus Games in Birmingham.

He is very much hoping to make the event a family affair and, if the government agrees to reinstate his taxpayer funded police security – a decision which is still pending – he could very well bring wife Meghan Markle and their children Prince Archie, six, and Princess Lilibet, four, with him.

Harry is even said to be hoping to take the youngsters to Sandringham to enjoy some “family time” with their grandfather the King, but has repeatedly said that it’s not safe for him to bring his family here from their home in California unless he is given full armed protection.

But could Harry and Meghan’s recent quasi-royal tour to Australia – specifically Meghan’s decision to combine charity engagements with commercial opportunities – have any bearing on the outcome of a security review that is still ongoing?

The level of security the Sussexes are entitled to is under review after Harry appealed a High Court decision backing a Home Office’s decision that downgraded his level of protection. Its RAVEC (Royal and VIP Executive Committee) decided that the automatic round-the-clock Metropolitan police protection Harry enjoyed as a working member of the royal family was no longer appropriate, given he is living in the US and no longer on the royal payroll.

Harry argues that, as the son of the King, full security is his birthright and that the risk to him and his family is so great that they deserve nothing less.

But the Duke and Duchess’s trip to Australia has muddied the waters. Eyebrows were raised when Meghan announced she had partnered with the Ai driven shopping platform OneOff to advertise the various outfits she wore during the visit, giving her a cut of the profits.

These included a dress she wore to a homeless shelter and a shirt and trouser combo she wore to meet survivors of last year’s Bondi Beach terrorist attack – and which was later quietly removed from the site after a barrage of criticism.

If Harry wins back the right to taxpayer funded security for him and his family, how will that play out when he and Meghan visit the UK? Will Meghan use those visits – which might be filled with charity engagements – as an opportunity to generate income too, as she did with the couple’s Australian tour?

If she does, critics would rightly question whether taxpayers should be footing the bill for security.

It’s certainly something that might give the Home Office food for thought. After all, this was exactly the kind of situation the late Queen was trying to avoid when she told Harry back in 2020 that there could be no “half-in, half-out” arrangement when it came to being working members of the royal family.

She recognised that Harry and Meghan’s plan to carve out “progressive new roles” within the institution and pursue financial independence while still carrying out charity work was fraught with complications and told her grandson that it wasn’t possible, prompting him and Meghan to make the decision to sever ties with the institution.

Now they are no longer on the royal payroll, they have to fund their own lifestyle – as well as their substantial security costs. After multi-million dollar deals with Netflix and Spotify came to an end, Meghan is now busy building her lifestyle brand As Ever. Giving fans access to her wardrobe could certainly prove a lucrative sideline.

But with a final decision on security still hanging in the balance, some might view her decision to monetise her public appearances as a blunder Down Under.