the point is, try to imagine that you just quit your job, you insist your former employer will continue to pay your mortgage, but you also insist that you are moving to a much bigger house so the mortgage payment will be higher than it was when you worked for them. when they refuse, you threaten to damage the company irreparably, and set about doing it.
They are not just employees, and the RF isn't just their employer.
Everyone who is just an employee of the RF signs a ND agreement.
To deny family members security was nasty and very ill-advised.
The RF should be seriously embarrassed that a private citizen of another country took it upon himself to provide that basic necessity for them after their location in Canada had been exposed along with the news that they had no security.
A better analogy than the inaccurate employer/employee/mortgage one you offer is a family member finding the family is refusing to hand over medication once they leave. Yes, they can get a new prescription. Yes, they can buy more medicine. But in the interim they are vulnerable to an underlying illness.
Fwiw, there is no way H&M could safely move into a little old Chicago brick bungalow or tract housing in some suburb of LA, or even an apartment building in NYC. There would be endless gawking, endless paparazzi stalking; a huge security nightmare for local police, state police, CIA and FBI.
Their choice of a gated community was a financially responsible one and one which was considerate of the needs of their neighbours too - neighbours don't like finding photographers or stalkers or out-and-out obsessive weirdos along with potentially well armed haters hiding in their gardens. The place they bought met their desire for privacy and also lowered the burden on local policing and national agencies.
FYI, gated communities don't come cheap, and there are few houses in the area where they live that are smaller and were on the market when they were looking.
If the claim that the RF are supported by the taxpayers is true, and therefore in effect they work for the British public, then the way they choose to spend the money accorded to them should be open to public scrutiny.
Refusing to pay for security for members and those who marry in and are subsequently born into it even when risk or threat level remains, regardless of location, strikes me as a decision that needs urgent scrutiny, and calls to examine the decision-making process within the family would be warranted. Terrorism is an ever present danger, and members of the RF are targets. It's too late to wring hands and condemn violence after something awful happens.