Prince Harry’s relationship with actress Meghan Markle is so serious that he is poised to finance protection for her out of his own funds.
The fifth in line to the throne is ready to hire a retired Scotland Yard personal protection officer to shadow the woman he loves when she is in the UK. Miss Markle, 35, is said to be “relaxed” about the situation and believes that such a move is “charming” but unnecessary.
But Harry, 32 – still haunted by the death of his mother Princess Diana while she was being pursued by foreign paparazzi – is understood not to want to leave his girlfriend’s personal safety to chance.
One senior inside security source said: “There have been initial discussions about this matter. “Harry has made it clear that he believes Markle’s personal safety is paramount and that the behaviour of some elements of the media and press has been grossly unacceptable.
“But in the end it comes down to a matter of cost, who is paying for what. Protecting the royal family is a hugely expensive business.”
There is a precedent for senior royals hiring retired officers from the elite Scotland Yard department to watch over their loved ones. Most notably the Prince of Wales hired his trusted former personal protection officer, the late Sergeant Andy Crichton, to watch over the Duchess of Cornwall when, as Camilla Parker Bowles, she was reportedly pelted with bread rolls by upset women in her local supermarket. 
Another well-placed source told the Standard: “Scotland Yard operates the royal diplomatic department. It is an elite corps of officers and is therefore not cheap to run. Like any-where in the publicly funded sector, they have been subject to stringent government funding cuts.
“That means even blood royals such as Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie – while still protected round-the-clock – do not have their protection totally funded by the taxpayer.
“Their father the Duke of York has to contribute to protection when they are off duty. Of course the mainstream royals – the Queen, Duke of Edinburgh, Prince of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, the Cambridges and Prince Harry all still get 24/7 protection provided by Scotland Yard and SO14.”
Markle – known for her star role in the hit American TV drama Suits – has been dating Prince Harry for about two months and has been staying with him at Kensington Palace recently.
Last week Harry instructed the palace to issue an unprecedented statement confirming the relationship and attacking “abuse and harassment” to which he felt his 35-year-old girlfriend was being subjected.
Princess Diana’s former personal protection officer Inspector Ken Wharfe, now a security consultant and best-selling author, told the Evening Standard: “It is extremely unlikely that Scotland Yard would fund protection for Markle at this stage. 
“In America and Canada, where she lives, she is well used to the attention she gets as a star actress. But nothing can prepare a person, even a Hollywood actor, for the attention they get once they are associated seriously with a member of the British royal family – especially if they are in the sights of the paparazzi and the tabloid press.
“The bottom line is that if it is believed Markle is a serious contender to be Prince Harry’s bride then of course the reporters and photographers of the press will do their job. That is fair enough.
“But in this day and age it does leave her a little exposed.”
Wharfe went on: “Should, however, Harry fund a retired, and therefore unarmed, ex-S014 officer to accompany Markle while she is in the UK I think that it would be a sensible move.
“The expertise in dealing with situations and associations with existing officers in the department and appreciation of our policing systems could prove timely and, yes, crucial. Prince Harry received more than £10mn – his share of the inheritance from his mother Diana – when he turned 30 on September 15. The cost of paying to hire a retired freelance SO14 officer full time would be approximately £50,000 annually, as they would already receive a final salary pension. A Kensington Palace spokesman said: “We wouldn’t comment on private matters.”