Harry and Meghan what they’ll do next

[PelicanPie]

Let’s strive to keep on topic and not engage with posts designed to disrupt.

Good point about B & E and their order in the line of succession. I think Harry still top trumps that be being the sob and brother. But still. It’s a good argument given H&M have drawn an implicit comparison to B&E.

Sorry typo. Son not sob. (Can I just point out that I absolutely was not one of the posters going SOB on other threads - I stopped posting for a bit in small part because that was getting on my tits.)

Recent press reports state that their security bill could reach £20,000,000 per annum.

If that is to be an ongoing expense, and they are no longer UK based working senior royals then I hope it is discussed in parliament, with full accounts provided.

As the Duke and Duchess are currently recognized as Internationally Protected Persons, Canada has an obligation to provide security assistance on an as-needed basis. At the request of the Metropolitan Police, the RCMP has been providing assistance to the Met since the arrival of the Duke and Duchess to Canada intermittently since November 2019. The assistance will cease in the coming weeks, in keeping with their change in status.

This implies that they will no longer be recognised as 'internationally protected persons' doesn't it? I wonder if that's accurate when their Royal status changes. It seems Canada are using this as the reason for no longer providing publicly funded security. Good on Canada.

I do agree they need some security and wouldn't be opposed to some taxpayer funding as we do with ex-PMs etc but as we've discussed already, for taxpayers to fund an A-list lifestyle choice is not on.

Harry, according to government website

10,000 signatures, the government will respond

100,000 signatures, it will be considered for debate in Parliament (apparently it will almost always be debated)

I think there would be enough people signing this

Well there’s extra, and then there’s being as young people put it, “sooo EXTRA”.

Agree that they need security but feel they should definitely contribute to at least half the costs if not more.
Funnily enough there is a novel by Celia Brayfield called The Prince, published in 1990, whose title is Prince Richard Duke of Sussex (imaginary 4 son of The Queen) served in the army and then marries an American actress (who has won an Oscar) and wants to take a job working at a charitable foundation.

Agree that they need security but feel they should definitely contribute to at least half the costs if not more.

Put simply they can't afford it.

Even HMQ is going to struggle to find an extra £17m per year....

DeRigeur

Their egos are writing cheques their bank balances can't cash
Great phrase, I'll be knicking that.

Peach Funnily enough there is a novel by Celia Brayfield called The Prince, published in 1990, whose title is Prince Richard Duke of Sussex (imaginary 4 son of The Queen) served in the army and then marries an American actress (who has won an Oscar) and wants to take a job working at a charitable foundation.

Whaaat!! How crazy is this! I wonder what else this author predicted wrote.

Beatrice and Eugenie ... had their personal protection officers removed and Andrew pays for them personally. The reason given was they were not full time working royals. When this happened Beatrice was 6th in line and Eugenie 7th. Harry is now 6th and Archie 7th

This about sums it up for me. I take the point that Harry will be son and brother of future monarchs, but that doesn't apply ATM - so why are we paying for security now, when we don't for others with the same proximity-to-the-throne ranking?

Puzzled

Because they’re HARRY and MEGHAN, duh

Or, or, because male heirs are perceived as more valuable?

Beatrice and Eugenie ... had their personal protection officers removed and Andrew pays for them personally. The reason given was they were not full time working royals. When this happened Beatrice was 6th in line and Eugenie 7th. Harry is now 6th and Archie 7th

This is very interesting, because it throws into extreme relief the difference between the institution (being xth in line to the throne) and the humans (the King's son). Logically, the former doesn't merit public expense...or perhaps it does when the way to the King's heart is via his son or grandson?

Harry and Archie didn't ask to be born to the future King/his son - don't they deserve public expenditure by virtue of being direct descendants and therefore capable of putting the King at risk?

Meghan did ask to marry Harry (you know what I mean) - should she get protection? It'd be churlish and cruel to deny her - Harry's entitled to a wife.

Of course it's all guff in the modern world. We're hardly living in Tudor times.

I think the British taxpayer is going to end up paying for it all.

DeRigueurMortis I get what you're saying at 18.47, but regardless of who pays for it I'm not sure why travelling CPOs are needed - as I said on the deleted thread, why not employ Canadian personnel if they have to employ anyone st all?

Actually Worfsie you’ve probably got a point there...

Very naughty! 7 , you know what you're doing!
Can I ask? How is the president protected , does anyone know ? How much does that cost? .
I just don't get why it's so expensive, the figures floated here are astronomical and surely can't be maintained, other famous a listers have security don't tell me they're all paying that!

The thing is this never would have come to light or bothered most of us if they just stayed here and hot on with it .

Sorry got not hot 🥵

This “internationally protected persons” business, can someone explain it to me? It seems to me that if they actually wanted a quiet life and bought a house we’d all be thrilled to live but that did not cost $20million (or just stopped at one of the free extra homes the Queen owns in the UK) & retires from public life and lived cozily on the £34million or so they already have, then interest in them would decline and so would the need for so much protection.

Shouldn’t the “internationally protected persons” thing be for people who are doing necessary work that puts them in the line of fire? Not for semi-ex HRH’s who have moved abroad? The term is new to me, though, so what am I missing?

I'm confused on that too Rita

From reading about it, I think that some of the difference between HAM (as I’m calling ‘em - Harry, Archie & Meghan) and other A Listers is:

*HAM all require security but A Listers’ children and their spouse might not, just the famous one.

*HAM are likely to often be in 3 places at once.

*HAM probably require more security than A Listers. One person probs isn’t enough.

It has just been reported that Canada will not be paying towards the security costs and providing security detail in the next few weeks.

HAM (as I’m calling ‘em - Harry, Archie & Meghan)

Puzzeled

Well that's an interesting question especially in light of the announcement from Canada.

H&M in their "declaration of independence" made much of retaining security indefinitely because they were "Internationally protected persons".

Canada has come right out with it and said no. If you are not royal you are no longer IPP's.

As to why you wouldn't just have Canadian (or US for that matter only security) for IPP's is not because they are inferior or incapable. Far from it.

Rather the issue for an IPP is that there should never be a conflict of interest wrt their protection, something only their "home country" can provide as the principle security provider.

This is why Canadian CPO's can support the Met whilst they are in Vancouver but they won't take point.

If there is now a general understanding they are not IPP's then the Met (much like the Canadians) has no obligation to provide free security.

But that still doesn't change who Harry is and the fact he needs security but if he's not an IPP then theoretically there should be no issue with Canadian security (which the U.K. taxpayer could fund at current levels with H&M or the RF topping up).