Do H&M actually need security protection?

[Snog]

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.

Well...... what do you suggest? I try and look at a broad spread of news sources as opposed to just DM one.

Isn't that like anything? I imagine the worst of the MSM would have ferreted it out if they weren't paying for it.

They definitely do, and I think the RF should be funding it privately for them. It's not their fault they're targets, Harry was born into it and Meghan gets targeted by racists.

I know a fairly wealthy celeb, and they have to have 24-hour security protection, including separate bodyguards for their dc. They've received numerous threats over the years.

Of course H&M and their dc need security. It would be absurd to think it isn't needed.

I would imagine, for instance, the Beckhams have security. They're worth a lot and there's always possible threats.

Even more so for M&H given their position.

I just think we don't know a lot about security details for anyone, it's kept quiet for obvious reasons.

I would say they do but not funded by the RF. they decided to move to the US, they can continue to pay for their own security.

@anon12345678901

I would say they do but not funded by the RF. they decided to move to the US, they can continue to pay for their own security.

And they need to make money to pay for security themselves, yet when they do they're criticised for "doing deals" and trying to "cash in" etc

The RF can well afford to provide them with protection. The question for me is why on earth they wouldn't, when there are credible threats against these two (or three with Archie) family members?

@Snog

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.

I agree.

And as people who are very wealthy in their own right I don't see why they shouldn't at least subsidise some of their security. When 1 in 4 children are in poverty in the U.K. we shouldn't be forking out for bodyguards for millionaires

Which is probably why we're not, at least for them we're not.

I read that too ChiefInspector, great book. I don't remember about the celebrity security though, how did they approach it back then?

I agree there's no real justification for their security to be publicly funded by the UK now that they're no longer working royals and are living abroad. I just think the RF have enough private wealth to fund it, and should have as the decent thing really. But maybe it's for the best as it's given H&M the impetus to make, hopefully, a clean break. I also can't believe they had to pay back the Frogmore renovations which were needed anyway and are owned by the RF, but that's for another thread. Suffice to say I can see why they're nursing a few wounds just now. Obviously they're all far wealthier than any of us so I'm not suggesting we should be crying into our cornflakes, but I do think there's a genuine grievance there.

A further thought: it could be argued it's a vicious cycle, as the things they're doing atm to earn money (partly in order to fund their security) are increasing their visibility and potentially increasing the security threat along with that.

I agree on Frogmore. They've paid for all the renovations and I think one of the York girls is living or was living there.

As I read a while back, these renovations were desperately needed as the place was in a poor state of repair (floor joists, rewiring, ceiling beams and even gas and water installation)
Why on earth HMQ couldn't have paid for all that I don't know, given the £7.5M Andrew needed for Royal Lodge renovations (cinema, indoor swimming pool etc)
I'm too, not surprised they have been miffed at all of this.

The £2.4m is just the part that came from the Sovereign grant . The Queen paid personally for a considerable further amount and apparently Prince Charles also paid for over a £1m as well . They may have paid all the contributions back, we don’t know , the only public part is the taxpayers funding.

They paid back over £2million.

Yes but what I am saying is that they have paid back all the taxpayer funded part, the £2.4m, but the total cost was much more , some of that was paid by the Queen, some by PC and some by M&H . It may be that they have paid back the Queen and PC as well , who knows but as it’s not taxpayers funds it’s not our business. Just pointing out that the Queen did pay for some of it .

As long as they pay their own security bill, who cares?

@Roussette

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'.

I did Google but haven’t seen anything that confirms that they are. They are usually pretty quick to squash rumors about these things so it’s interesting that they haven’t actually stated outright that they are paying their own security now. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. I don’t think it’s a certainty.

There is no rumour. Only from you. Would you like me to link the source after source after source on my front page of Google if I put in 'are Harry and Meghan paying for their own security?'

Ok. Here goes

Here
Here
Here
Here
Here

Now.. no doubt.. in amongst those sources, you will find one little thing to dispute the fact they are paying for their security. I haven't read every single word on every page.

Who do you think IS paying for it, given it was discussed in the OW interview?
And if it's the taxpayer or Charles, why do you think the press over here hasn't been all over it like a rash?
Curious

I did check the links you kindly posted but it’s a lot of It has been reported that... and It’s been said that... I think the press is just speculating. The reality is that since they moved to Montecito no one knows who is providing their security and who is paying for it. As you said, they mentioned the security issue in the OW interview but never clarified if they were paying for private security now. I do agree that if they aren’t paying for it themselves, then they know there will be a big deal made of it, so probably want to keep it under wraps. My point was just that it’s unclear who is providing and paying for their security and until they actually come out and say it, it’s just down to speculation.

@CrazyCatsAndKittens

Who do you think is paying for it then?
Given there is nothing on this anywhere saying they aren't paying for it themselves?

Just curious because it sounds like just another stick to beat them with and not a valid one to be honest.

What is it they are keeping under wraps and how?

As much as I always try to answer qquestions directed at me on stuff to do with M&H, maybe you can too?
Because your assertions are purely speculation and they are directly at odds with all the press out there.

I'm not speculating on something that is completely unsubstantiated.

Are you saying the RF/the taxpayer are paying and all the press sources are wrong?

I understood that when they were in the UK, they DID have security funded by the police (and therefore us, the British tax payer)..
Then also in Canada. This caused some problems because the police were on rotation and were flying back and forth.
This ended, (I think), when they stepped back from the RF (ie they no longer wanted to be working members of the Royal Family), and then moved to LA.
The police cannot do their security in the US, because in the US, the police are armed, which would cause danger to our police, and anyway, was no longer warrented because they are no longer working members of the family.
So, the question is, if they have private security, who pays?

They pay.

As has been said in numerous news sources.

Id imagine everybody who is anybody needs protection in the USA.

The difficulty is that their means of creating income is to spill the beans on the royal family and Harry's life which generates interest in their private life requiring security. It's a viscious circle.

I'm increasingly uncomfortable with how Harry is bearing his soul and I think he is emotionally vulnerable and subject to manipulation by people who want to make money from him but that's a whole other thread.