Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
The royal family
Original poster

Do H&M actually need security protection?

85 replies

Snog · 19/05/2021 10:03

UK government only pays for 24 hour security for the queen, Charles and Camilla and the Cambridges.

Other royals have paid protection whilst they are on official duties only.

I'm a bit surprised that H&M and Archie all seem to need 24 hour protection and that this is always cited as the key reason they need to make lots of money just to pay for it.

Are they really in so much danger or is this about prestige? Plenty of famous people don't have 24 hour security including many royals. If H&M do receive death threats this is surely similar to most people who have a big presence on social media- I imagine Piers Morgan probably gets more.

OP posts:
Divebar2021 · 19/05/2021 10:09

In what way do the RF not have 24 hour protection? Do you mean personal protection because all the palaces / houses have protection. If you’re sleeping at Windsor, Kensington etc it’s protected. H&M are accustomed to an environment of armed officers outside and patrolling the perimeters (not to mention the military presence ) so presumably feel exposed without that element.

FrangipaniDeLaSqueegeeMop · 19/05/2021 10:33

I understand that Frogmore Cottage has decent security anyway so I doubt they needed it in the U.K. in the US they probably will - but like other celebrities they will have to pay for their own.

I could never understand why they thought Archie needed security. If they have security what does a baby need an extra person for? It like he's going out in the tiles every night.

Original poster
Snog · 19/05/2021 10:45

I guess I'm asking is there a real and substantial threat to them over and above say social media personalities who receive death threats but who have zero security provision.
It all seem way OTT to me.

OP posts:
GlencoraP · 19/05/2021 10:45

I think they probably do, they would be prime targets especially given their current high profile . My suspicion is that the RF will eventually pay them an amount towards their security costs in exchange for their silence on family stuff.

Sh05 · 19/05/2021 11:05

I think as Harry was a member of the armed forces there will always be a threat.

MiddleParking · 19/05/2021 11:09

Are you kidding? I dread to think how many lunatics there are in this country who would love to murder her. And many, many more people who wouldn’t murder her but would think she deserved it.

silentpool · 19/05/2021 11:12

I am not sure how they expect it, seeing as they've moved away from the country. It seems entitled.

Original poster
Snog · 19/05/2021 11:15

I'm not convinced there are any more lunatics likely to carry out a death threat to H&M than to a huge number of other people on social media who also get regular death threats but have zero security. This happens even to non professional youtubers with relatively small followings.

OP posts:
PurpleBiro21 · 19/05/2021 11:17

They were receiving white supremacist deaths threats weren’t they?

I think they might be a target for the far right.

MiddleParking · 19/05/2021 11:21

A controversial black woman who’s a senior member of the British royal family and has openly criticised that institution doesn’t carry the same level of security risk as ‘non professional youtubers’ or other celebrities Confused

MonsterMash2210 · 19/05/2021 11:26

With the amount of backlash they seem to be attracting in this country and now (apparently) the US I would assume they probably do now.

bakingdemon · 19/05/2021 11:32

The question is who provides their security. The Royal Family's is provided by the Metropolitan Police and funded by the taxpayer because they are public servants. As Harry and Meghan no longer wish to carry out public duties, it is no longer appropriate for their security to be taxpayer funded. The Royal Family could of course choose to make a contribution to providing private security, and I imagine it's one of their largest outgoings.

Meghan's faux outrage in the Oprah interview about Archie's security was at best ill informed and at worst wilfully misrepresenting the situation. But then she has never shown any understanding of the unwritten contract between the Royal Family and the British public.

sashagabadon · 19/05/2021 11:34

Yes I agree they do but it’s for them to pay for it not the British taxpayer.

Roussette · 19/05/2021 11:39

I guess I'm asking is there a real and substantial threat to them over and above say social media personalities who receive death threats but who have zero security provision
It all seem way OTT to me

It's OTT for Andrew too then. His cost is £300,000 for three 24 hour security officers, paid by the Queen, meaning us.

As Harry and Meghan no longer wish to carry out public duties, it is no longer appropriate for their security to be taxpayer funded

They pay for their own security, surely you know this? It's been discussed on here for a long time.

But see above... Andrew another non working Royal has his paid for by us.

Yes I agree they do but it’s for them to pay for it not the British taxpayer

Which is why they have been for at least a year Hmm

WisconsinRaw · 19/05/2021 11:42

I'm not a Harry and Meghan fan at all (STOP WHINING) but this is pretty much BS.

When Meghan was pregnant two Neo-Nazi terrorists were jailed for inciting racial hatred and for plotting to murder Harry for being a "race traitor". Meghan had ten times more death threats than all the other royals. Their home address in Canada was posted online and being shared on white supremacists forums like Stormfront. Their property in Santa Barbara was broken into or had intruder alerts nine times.

The reason royal children need their own security is so they can sometimes go out with a nanny or grandparent, and so they can go to pre-school and school. Because otherwise they'd need a parent with them 24/7 and could never go to the park with their nanny or their grandma or even go to school. It's the reason the three Cambridge children all have their own individual security detail. Both George and Charlotte have bodyguards with them at school at all times and they have a whole security team whenever they go out with their nannies.

The Cambridges have 24/7 security not just when working. Their security is discreet and they are highly trained to be invisible, that's why you don't notice. Pp who have seen Kate shopping in Waitrose for example have reported she seemed to be alone but when pp have tried to take a sneaky photo they're immediately surrounded by three or four plainsclothes bodyguards who confiscate their phone and delete the photos. Even Beatrice and Eugenie have security (paid for by the Crown until they were adults then Andrew took over paying for it).

sashagabadon · 19/05/2021 11:48

Yes I know they pay for their own security rousette. (They clearly didn’t want to or think they’d have to though - remember all that “we are internationally protected people” stuff on their website, since deleted.)
And it should stay that way too.

Roussette · 19/05/2021 11:50

Sorry, I misintepreted what you meant, I thought you meant they must pay for it and not us like now.
Just crossed purposes here.

Gingerkittykat · 19/05/2021 11:51

Are the claims that Archie would not have his own security in the UK true? He absolutely would need to protected at least until he is 18 so that he could safely go out with nannies, go to school and have some freedom to go out when he is a teenager.

I agree they should be paying for their own protection now though.

sashagabadon · 19/05/2021 11:51

No problem RousetteSmile

Spudlet · 19/05/2021 12:12

I normally stay out of these threads, but come on - they’d have all the nutters that go after the Royal Family generally (I used to work for a charity with a royal patron and we had a brief brush with an obsessive - wow, is all I’ll say 😳) plus the racist nutters on top of that. I find them both rather annoying as they currently present themselves as I don’t really like gushing, but they clearly do need some form of security, no matter who pays for it.

CrazyCatsAndKittens · 19/05/2021 12:16

Has it actually been confirmed that they are currently paying for their own security? Does anyone have a link? I read that they were currently getting their security from the local police.

i do think they have had a lot of scary threats made against them, so I think they probably do need a high level of security. A lot of famous people have security. It's really not unusual.

Roussette · 19/05/2021 12:20

No. Don't have a link. Would prefer it for you to post a link saying they are not paying for it, because it is all over the press that they took this on and they do pay for it. Just google 'are Harry & Meghan paying for their own security'.

SueSaid · 19/05/2021 13:09

They absolutely do need 24hr protection. So many terrorists and extremists out there that would jump at the chance of murdering Harry or kidnapping their dc.
I just hope whoever they use know what they're doing, not like the Al Fayeds who seemed a bit reckless in who to trust.

Crackoflightning · 19/05/2021 13:14

because it is all over the press that they took this on and they do pay for it. Just google 'are Harry & Meghan paying for their own security'

Good job we can trust what they say. I would have doubted it otherwise.