Harry & Meghan what they’ll do next - Thread 2

[DandyAF]

Carrying on the conversation as the last thread finished mid-discussion.

It’s entirely true they would be safest in the UK with the comparatively bargainous protection they have now. And I really think Harry would have been happy to step back to a nice country estate where he could have had raucous house parties with his oldest friends if his wife were a standard issue, Home Counties, ex-public schoolgirl who went “this bad press is doing my nut. Shall we chuck it in for a quiet life of tweed and dogs and straightforward shooting weekends?”

I think Harry and Meghan are forgetting that the royals will be wary of precedent with anything funding related.

That's a massive part of why they couldn't continue to do official engagements that weren't funded from the Sovereign Grant.

Security is another thing. There has to be a clear line between who pays for what because otherwise people start questioning more and more of their funding.

So, we fund security for working royals, but not non-working royals. Beatrice and Eugenie don't have paid for security. The range of security for working royals varies as well - the most senior have 24 hour security whereas I believe the Wessex's don't have full time security (there was an incident a few years back where Sophie had her bag pinched when she was out solo).

If the Queen and/or Prince Charles started paying out of their own pockets for Harry and Meghan to do some engagements, and also stump up for their security regardless of what they do then there will be questions of "Why do we pay for Anne's security?" "Why do we pay for security for Louis and Charlotte?"

There's a balance to be found between the high profile Harry has and the fact that he can't just expect everything in the game (security, funding, engagements) to stay the same whilst he re-writes the rules for his part in it.

HMQ and PC might have the wealth but they don't have the disposable income to drum up £17m a year "extra".

I think the bigger issue is that whilst they could do that for H&M they can't do that for H&M, Archie & his family when he's older, Charlotte and her family, Louie and his family, plus the families of any other children that it's needed for because that £17m will soon become £100m within a generation.

Then once they are paying for that level of royals the questions of "Why do we pay at all?" begin

Princess Anne’s security is well worth it. Though it took a passer by to really put a stop to that kidnapping!

And no amount of taxpayer money stopped that chap getting into the Queen’s bedroom either, come to think of it.

If they can't afford to live in Canada/USA within the confines of current taxpayer contributions and their own private wealth isn't the obvious solution to change their plans to a lifestyle they can afford? Isn't this what any private individual has to do?

THIS. It's what we all have to do as private individuals. They have said that's what they want. So...don't expect other private individuals (with far less in the back) to subsidise you!

Haha @Justmuddlingalong - this is a good point and we shall soon see whether it was all a bit of "style over substance".

Absolutely Lyra

Though I doubt they can even find that money H&M without some drastic measures they certainly can't afford it for every other member of that family that cries "time out" on being Royal.

As I've said the potential costs in the long term of this setting a precedent are enormous.

20 years of enhanced security for just H&M is £340m (not taking into account inflation). If you add in 10 years for Archie when he becomes and adult that's £460m. Then let's say for good measure Louis emigrates to the US as an adult - that's 5 years. So in a 20 year period the bill could be £520m extra. The total bill would be £700m.

This is not pocket change....and moreover it's not necessary. H&M can be kept safe for a fraction of that in the U.K.

My mind boggles at anyone thinking this is acceptable...

My mind boggles at anyone thinking this is acceptable... Yes. This is nothing about being a hater or a racist. It's about cold, hard cash.

Princess Madeleine of Sweden lives in a gated community in Florida and the king of Sweden has removed the HRH from 5 grandchildren apart from Crown Princess Victoria’s children who are expected to work.

The other big issue DeRigeuer is that social media and 24 hour news is one of the reasons Harry's profile is so high and that's going to be more of a factor with Archie, George, Charlotte and Louis.

When the Duke of Gloucester went off to Australia in 1945 the media profile of the royal family was relatively limited. There was no social media and there was limited exposure of the children. The next generation were more known, now the following generations are even more know.

Archie, George, Charlotte and Louis are going to grow up in an era of serious exposure worldwide because of 24 hour news and social media. We don't see a lot of photos of them because of the agreement the royals have with the British press, but that's unlikely to apply to Archie. There are photos of them abroad on days out with nannies and on the school run (which we know happens because here you sometimes see photos of Kate returning from the school run so it's obvious the photographers aren't just waiting on the way back, they just don't print the photos including the children here).

Those children are growing up in an age where it'll be far more difficult to keep them away from the press, therefore they'll be in even more need of security than William and Harry were as children.

More security will mean more costs. Which means they doubly need to be careful because the combination of more well known royals, but less working royals (if Charles' plan to slim the monarchy is followed by William) will absolutely lead to more and more of these issues.

The longevity of the royals, plus ever increasing advances in medical care means we could regularly see royals living to 100+

For the Swedish RF..
The British RF all live in clusters so security can be shared.

Kensington Palace is accessed by the same private road as a load of embassies.
The rest of the royals, when they’re not at their country estates, either live at BP or St James palace.

I actually think the children are more at risk from kidnapping.
I have no idea how Harry and Meghan could leave their child thousands of miles away, on quite a few occasions.

It boils down to the fact that Harry needs to be either a Anne/William type royal or a Prince Michael of Kent/Freddie Windsor royal

There isn't an easy middle ground. You either live in the senior line where you work and absolutely everything is funded as reward for working for the business. Or you are not in the senior line and the only perk is your Granny/Cousin/Great Aunt will pay your rent on a really nice pad on one of her estates and a few swanky outings each year to Trooping the Colour etc.

You can't muddle the two

The thing about setting a precedent is that one has already been set regarding non-working royals. If the Queen or taxpayers are stuck with the Sussexes’ entire security bill it would look as if it was done to placate two very high profile, spotlight-loving loose cannons who could make the RF look bad.

Thé non working Royals don’t get their rent paid anymore.
Prince and Princess a Michael of Kent had to sell their country house so that can afford to pay full market rent for their apartment at KP.

The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester work for the Queen, however they have shifted to a smaller apartment as all thei children are grown up.

I don’t think there will be many Prince / princesses in future generations.
They’ll probably stick to the Prince Edward Model, where he was made an earl and his children are non HRH viscount and lady.
Béatrice and Eugenie’s children will be commoners like Zara and Peter.

*If the Queen and/or Prince Charles started paying out of their own pockets for Harry and Meghan to do some engagements, and also stump up for their security regardless of what they do then there will be questions of "Why do we pay for Anne's security?" "Why do we pay for security for Louis and Charlotte?"
*

Actually that's a good point, lyra, but if the RF won't (pretend to) pay, the public won't wear ongoing extra costs and H&M choose to continue living elsewhere, I'm not sure what the answer is?

Will a point come where they have to be told we'll pay the equivalent of UK security costs but after that it's up to them, or is there some other solution the rest of us haven't thought of?

Apologies - bold fail on the header there

I don’t think there will be many Prince / princesses in future generations.

I think that depends on how many children George and Louis have (assuming Charlotte follows the Princess Anne route and has untitled children) and how many royal duties there still is.

If they each only have one or two children I expect they'll be titled as they need to be working royals to help George and his children, similarly to the way the Queen needed her cousins to help.

Currently the royal roll call is HMQ, Charles, Camilla, Anne, Edward, Sophie, William, Kate with back up from the Gloucester's, the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra. So 8 full time (down from planned 11) and 4 back ups.

In 30 years you'll have William, Kate, Edward (85yo), Sophie (85yo), George, George's partner, Charlotte, Louis and his partner. So 9. With no back-ups. Plus the wives (assuming they are wives) and Charlotte will presumably have maternity leaves

I've ruled out Charles, Camilla, Anne, the Gloucesters, DOK and Princess Alexandra as working royals as they'll all be over 100.

If George and Louis each only have two children I can see George and his heir looking to Louis children to be working royals as at some point you'll have elderly George, his wife, Charlotte, Louis and his wife, plus the next generation. If that's only George's two kids then they'll be a bit short handed when George's generation starts to age

Actually that's a good point, lyra, but if the RF won't (pretend to) pay, the public won't wear ongoing extra costs and H&M choose to continue living elsewhere, I'm not sure what the answer is?

I think what might actually happen is that they might have to be more open about the risk assessment made on H&M.

We fully accept the Prime Minister and their family are protected as we know there are threats against them. It's never detailed as it doesn't need to be. Same with the Queen and Charles. We don't question their security as we know the threats are there.

At some point there might actually have to a reveal of "This is why these two people need funded security because of X on Y date and Z on A date"

In the same way I assume there must be people who have protection because they need it who are not royal.

I do think Britain will end up paying it, I can't see the alternative because if the police say "This is needed" then it would be seriously iffy to not give it. I can see Britain paying Canada to provide it. That would be one way of getting away from the issue of officers being away from home

Ironic that the Mall attack on Princess Anne should be mentioned ... it's just been reported that Ronnie Russell, a passer by who stepped in to protect her, has sold his George Medal to help fund the costs of his illness and upcoming funeral

Quite a contrast to the expectations of some that we'll go on and on funding them ...

But we don’t know if it’s needed. I originally thought they should receive it as the son & brother of a king. But if Andrew, as a non working royal, isn’t going to receive/need it then IMO that sets a precedent that Harry, a non working royal, also shouldn’t need/receive it.

The royals need to be careful as this & Andrew are shining lights on the family that they may prefer to keep hidden.

Puzzled I meant to say, yes that AN Wilson article is superb isn't it? I really miss that sort of medium-form, excellently written and research journalism that The Independent did back in the day.

I think there's a gray area with security for royals because it's not strictly speaking working royals that have security - it's high profile royals, or royals at high profile events.

The children have security, but they are not working royals. They have security because they are high profile.

Harry is possibly the first time a properly high profile royal hasn't been a working royal therefore he's created an issue.

Pressed send too soon. I'll stop spouting soon

I think that's why Andrew still has his security, and why he'll keep it for a while.

He's not a working royal, but at the moment he's a high profile royal. And if people are worried he's going to start speaking to the FBI he's probably a member of the royal family with significant threats against him.

I imagine that anyone with the information he has and who has shown themselves to be a liability when asked questions will have made several important people very nervous about what he could say.