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

[DandyAF]

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

they might have to be more open about the risk assessment made on H&M

An interesting point, but even if the extreme confidentiality around security could be overcome I'm not sure how it would help, when so many still take the view "they chose to walk away so why should we pay?"

As with the Windsor fire renovations it's notable how so many of the major outcries over the RF come down to money, but FWIW "pay the Canadians to do it" is something I also suggested ... only some felt they couldn't be guaranteed to have the same loyalty as UK staff

Harry is currently high profile because they’ve only just stepped down.
Will there really be as much interest in A minor Royal travel agent / bit part actress.

My preferred outcome is simple.

If Harry is no longer a working royal he is no longer an IPP which means the Met and foreign governments are obliged to provide free security.

Having said that as grandson of the monarch, but far more importantly son and brother of future monarchs we should acknowledge he will need security.

Thus we agree to give H £3m per year (the reported cost of their current security) and its up to them to make appropriate life choices to enable that budget to meet their security needs.

If that means paying the Canadian govt to provide it that's fine. If it means they top that up themselves, that's fine. If it means cutting down on the number of "split" visits they can do, where they can live or "high risk" locations they can attend then so be it.

They curb their lifestyle to fit the budget available rather than expect the taxpayers to provide a blank cheque to fund security for a lifestyle they aspire to.

Good point lyra if Andrew agrees to be interviewed by the FBI, he'll require 24 hr protection.

Sorry first sentence should be "not" obliged.

Puzzelled yes in theory due to conflicts of interest you'd always want the Met to take point over Royal security.

But if you take the view that they are no longer royal or IPP's then I think you can argue this is a moot point.

Puzzled I was one of the people who mentioned this issue with the Canadians doing security
some felt they couldn't be guaranteed to have the same loyalty as UK staff
BUT it's not that that's my personal view - I have read that that's the stance taken by govt and the civil service. They want to themselves have vetted the people doing the job. At least in the past - who knows what will become acceptable if costs have to be cut?

Perhaps the Sussexes could be given a budget to cover a certain amount of overseas travel with security, and beyond that they have to pay themselves. Bit like expenses limits when you travel for work.

I’ve said this on previous threads but the obvious solution to me is to pay them what the current security cost is and they make up the shortfall.

They will no longer be representing Britain by being working royalty so I don’t see why Britain should be financially supporting them.

That makes sense derigueurmortis ....with a tail-down to self funding as their enterprises become established if they remain outside the UK?

I'll stop spouting soon

No need, lyra; I don't suppose I'm alone in enjoying your insightful posts, and that was certainly an interesting point about Andrew

They curb their lifestyle to fit the budget available rather than expect the taxpayers to provide a blank cheque to fund security for a lifestyle they aspire to

A noble idea, DeRigueur, but do you really think it'll fly with the couple? I could be wrong, but sort of get the impression that their attitude is "this is what we're doing - deal with it"

I see what you mean, Buttery - apologies for ascribing something to you which was actually someone else's view

No problem Puzzled. It's hard to keep track when threads are long and discussion ranges but then loops back to earlier points.

So, tomorrow is the day they do a royal assignment. Do we know if MM is in the UK?

A noble idea, DeRigueur, but do you really think it'll fly with the couple? I could be wrong, but sort of get the impression that their attitude is "this is what we're doing - deal with it"

No I don't think it will fly.

Looking at their website they make much of still being Royal despite the lack of title (citing Harry being 6th in the succession) and M being high profile in her own right.

I think they believe they are entitled to security in perpetuity - however much money they make.

But here's the thing - it's the Govt not the RF that will make decisions on security in conjunction with the Met. Its not an emotional decision - it's about budget, risk, reputation and public opinion.

The choice the RF have is not to dictate what this decision is but rather to state their opinion and then potentially fund and top up needed.

In other words it a political decision now that sets (as discussed) a significant precedent.

What leverage do H&M have in that context? They can't blackmail Gove and Johnson with a threat to speak to Oprah...

The only thing they can say is "how would it look if you don't provide security and something happens to us - do you want to risk it?".

Of course the answer is no, BUT if you provide them with the £3m for security they currently get and then THEY make choices that comprise their own security by not budgeting accordingly then any repercussions are theirs to own.

So I think if they choose to the Govt could absolutely take that position regardless on what will "fly" with the couple themselves.

General support then for continuing their current funding level but not increasing it. I think that's a position that would get widespread public backing. Someone send a link to Her Majesty's comms team! (And Sunshine Sachs)

some felt they couldn't be guaranteed to have the same loyalty as UK staff

I just googled and found one source that says the Mounties have to swear allegiance to the Queen. I don't know if that counts as loyalty. In any case, once H&M take off to the States, they'd have to address that problem again.

I'm not offering up any their services by the way, .

Answering my own Q: apparently not here yet. Harry seen leaving Buckingham Palace today after holding meetings.

I imagine one of the other issues that is why the royals take their own security with them is they know the royals and how they’ve been trained

It’s all very well telling the Mounties, or the Australian police, how Charles is trained to drop to the ground, or Kate tended to freeze in training, or that Andrew tends to need very firm handling because he’s cocky about risk etc. (These are examples lol, not facts before anyone accuses me of lying or pretending I know more than I do)

The Met will be trained in a set way and the royals will be trained and coached in that way.

The security issues really highlights all their choices. They could have had a quiet and wealthy life in the UK. They would have been supported to step back a bit, focus on their lovely baby and enjoy lovely rural surroundings. Harry's PTSD around cameras could be helped.
But this life would not accord with their vision of themselves as extraordinary, world changing people with messages that we all should hear. Somehow Hollywood is going to be better for their mental health than the constraints of the UK.

I'm finding everyone's contribution fascinating and very considered. What is becoming clear is how nuanced an issue this is, with all sorts of unintended consequences lurking round every corner.

The decision to let Harry go to Afghanistan is likely being bitterly regretted right now.

Removing security from the Queen's grandson/future King's son would, I imagine, be much less complicated if his military history didn't make him a legitimate (in their eyes!) target for Isis and Al-Qaeda. Much in the same way the IRA felt justified in targetting Mountbatten because of his military positions.

I doubt any royal who is potentially going to be in Harry's position will ever be allowed in a conflict zone again.

I think it’s likely MM arrived this afternoon on the BA from Vancouver.

What is becoming clear is how nuanced an issue this is, with all sorts of unintended consequences lurking round every corner.

Absolutely and it's exactly why when H first proposed this that PC asked him to put together a detailed plan that could be discussed in private and all the ramifications understood.

I can only assume that people supporting H&M's behaviour have less understanding/consideration of these issues than the couple themselves.

The reality is it's not personal. It's not about H&M per se. I don't want them to be unsafe or unhappily trapped in a role they find unfulfilling and personally intrusive.

I do however expect them to cut their coat based on the size of their cloth (which in their case is far from a small bolt of fabric).

It's a question of what you are entitled to as a blood royal - working or not and the conflict of interest between an individual freedom of choice and the costs those choices have on the taxpayer, the precedent that sets and impact of public perception on the institution of the monarchy.

it's the Govt not the RF that will make decisions on security in conjunction with the Met. Its not an emotional decision - it's about budget, risk, reputation and public opinion

Absolutely true, all of it, as was your point about H&M having no hold over the government (I'd add "whatever they may or may not have over any RF members")

We can only hope that those responsible choose a sensible response to this utter car crash, because if they don't I really can't see this going away

And this takes me back to a point I made either earlier on this thread or on the one before - that as soon as EU talks go south and Johnson needs a scapegoat for the country getting poorer, the Sussexes should be very worried about their cash.

As I’ve said time will tell. I actually think it’s better if the government are doing the decision as they are emotionally removed from the equation.