The difference re: H on security vs. B&E is that H is not only the grandson of the reigning monarch but unlike them, will in time be the son and then brother of the monarch.
That relationship is the basis for any threat and additionally the need for security.
I've no issue whatsoever with continued taxpayer security at current levels in lieu of the above.
What I do have an issue with is that as a result of lifestyle choices they have made, they have an expectation of continued security at over 5 times the current cost (from an estimated £3m to £20m).
Over 5 years alone that's an extra funding of £85m and presumably they expect that indefinitely. Over 25 years that's £425m.
This is not small change. They certainly can't afford it.
Their egos are writing cheques their bank balances can't cash.
As I posted on the zapped thread, this uplift isn't fundamentally about their travel.
It's about the lack of efficiency in the Met having to provide protection abroad on a permanent basis.
CPO's (close protection officers) are highly trained and skilled (and thus rightly highly paid). They have families.
Even if any are prepared to re-locate that costs money and even then relocated where? No one really knows where H&M will settle.
That means a rotation of U.K. CPO's. That incurs travel, overtime and accommodation costs.
Worst still you can't staff that on the basis of day to day needs. In the UK if plans change, a PCO is sick or there's an emergency issue the Met can quickly draft in extra staff. They can also "balance" the pool of PCO's across the royal family as needed. In a crisis they can call in the army/SAS.
None of this is possible if H&M are in Canada. They have to staff the security to cover all eventualities - effectively creating a mini Met CP office across the pond.
So aside from having to "over staff" H&M's protection that ALSO depletes the pool of CPO's for everyone else - that pool will have to be replenished.
So when they estimate H&M will need 12 CPO's going forward (rather than 4) they also have to replace that uplift to provide security for everyone else.
That's why the cost is so high and something H&M won't have considered.
I honestly don't know what the answer is. They do need security- I don't dispute that but my goodness the figures involved just don't seem sustainable especially when is a result of choice (in living outside the U.K.) rather than need.