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.

Yes they need security.

I think if they had opted for a quiet life, in somewhere less celeb based than California, and were actively staying out of the press, then over time that need would dwindle although probably never be totally removed.

As they have decided for a more high profile and controversial life then they are going to need security indefinitely.

Compare them with the Obamas. Despite being a former president, day to day you don't hear much from them (maybe it's jot reported so widely in the uk), whereas H&M are speaking out several times a week at the moment and it's generating a frenzy.

I'm pleased to see that the UK press have decided against buying the paparazzi pictures of Archie though. I thought it would be open season on those pictures but they haven't shown them here, which I think is a good choice.

The Obamas regularly speak at lectures for a tidy sum for each speaking engagememt..Barack earns 400,000 dollars every time he gives a speech. Also, every former American President is entitled to Secret Agent protection until they die. All paid by US taxpayers.

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

The British police were travelling for a while to LA when they first moved. Once H&M “protected person” status was removed then the protection officers needed to be withdrawn as they had no longer had jurisdiction. It was nothing to do with firearms... British protection are armed.

I think they do need some form of protection because Harry is still a member of the royal family despite no longer having a formal public role. Therefore he is still the grandchild of a reigning monarch and if the monarchy continues, he’s the son and brother of future monarchs. As a result, he would have required some form of protection regardless of who he married or where he was in the line of succession. But having married to the first mixed race woman and apparently receiving death threats from what I’ve gathered on previous threads, I would have that they would have required a higher level of protection. Their children would most likely have been covered by their security detail. Also, I’m not sure if the royal family would have had a say about whether Harry and Meghan should have had protection whilst they were residing in the U.K. as I believe that is for the Metropolitan Police to decide if the threats are credible. Whist they were in Canada, it was reported that Charles had foot their security bill but I’m not sure when that had apparently stopped. I do understand the need to work to pay for their security as I doubt it would be cheap. My only worry is that they might be exploited by people who are going to use them for their own personal gain. They will need real life support and good counsel and not just fair-weather friends.

@custardbear
They've been paying for their own security for at least a year so your post is incorrect

They aren't bullying anyone for this

ExitChasedByABee
They had security. Just not in the states. Apparently initially security was offered by Tyler Perry along with the free house. I think they’re now footing their own bills. I understand official British tax-payer security was withdrawn when they decided to move to a gun toting country as it’s too dangerous and inappropriate to offer British style security in the US.

They’ve now chosen to live in a very open property in the US. They could be living in a less risky instead of some kind of secure compound. Had they done so, their security costs would be less.

They do need security but living where they live and with lifestyle they lead, these personal choices have made security more challenging ergo more expensive.

Instead of should be instead eg

@Mummyoflittledragon I agree that their security costs might be lower were they to live in a secure compound. But wouldn’t those be very expensive as well? I don’t think Harry and Meghan have limitless funds even though they may have a lot of money, I don’t think they amount they have is even remotely close to the top 10 richest people in the world.

the*

I’m sure they don’t have limitless funds but unfortunately they have put themselves in the position of needing to pay for their own security. Many of the Royals do not have security unless they are out working for the RF, but their homes are within Royal palaces which will have security provided as they are places that will be subject to potential terrorism / burglary etc and are historic buildings of importance to the Nation. It is not practicable for the UK to provide security for someone who permanently lives in another country anyway. The fact that Harry is a Royal Prince by birth is irrelevant. He has removed himself from the protection provided by the met police and the UK taxpayer. So if they feel they need security, which would seem to be a reasonable assumption given that they live in a large house which may well be a target for crime, they will have to pay for it.

Asking them to repay some of the costs of Frogmore Cottage was petty and a knee-jerk reaction. As to security, like any high-profile family in LA, it's obvious that they need it and it's equally obvious that, as they no longer work for the RF and can afford to to live in a multi-million pound mansion, it is their responsibility to source and pay for it (which they do). Cutting the cost by living in a secure compound would be a miserable way to live and I can't imagine it was ever a possibility. Oh, and they're no longer 'senior members of the RF' as was stated upthread.

Who "asked them to repay" 2.4 million of tax-payers' money spent on Frogmore Cottage? I know they said they would and I have read that they have repaid it, and I know the papers went on about it, but who asked them? At the time I assumed that there are at least 30 million tax payers in this country and I divided £2.4 million by 30 million and I got 8p a person, but I might have got the point in the wrong place.

@upinaballoon If I remember correctly, it was in the plans with Harry and Meghan stepping back from their public roles.

I think there was some rumblings if disapproval over tax payers money being used for Frog cottage, so they offered to pay it back. No one made them do it.

www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a33942909/prince-harry-meghan-markle-frogmore-cottage-pay-back/

Ah I see. I think I read it here so I must have assumed it was part of their formal plans to step back. Wasn’t the original plan a trial period of a year?

I thought this was a thread about H&M the clothes shop!

@RedSquirrelsAreAwesome I feel the same when posters use DM to mean the Daily Mail, or most recently OW for Oprah Winfrey. My brain keeps on saying “other woman”

Why should I give 8p or even 1p to somebody who has 20 million in the bank and lives in the USA.

@Viviennemary. I agree. They chose to leave and not work for the RF anymore so they are not entitled to taxpayers money for a house they no longer require imo. Harry only stayed there during the funeral because he had to quarantine. If it were not for PP’s funeral, they would not have used Frog Cottage again.

I don't know whether they need 24 hour protection or not, they probably feel more secure having it. Its not a problem, they can easily afford it.

IMHO, a perfectly fair arrangement would be for the BRF to pay for whatever their security costs would have been had they stepped back from public duties and lived a quiet life at Frogmore or another family property that was already secured. That won't be very much, and might well be zero, just as it's zero for all the other non-working royals. If they want to live in a giant mansion in a very expensive residential area of an expensive foreign country, and if they want to pay for it all by causing whatever controversy is necessary to ensure a constant media presence, those were choices they made that weren't caused by Harry's birth or family. Those choices may mean that security costs more than it would have if they'd chosen differently, but that's for them to figure out and budget around. It's not anyone else's responsibility to pay for it.

It's not anyone else's responsibility to pay for it

Why is this being discussed when they are paying for it themselves?

It isn't zero for other non working Royals. The Q made a point of electing to pay for PA's security at £300K a year, 3 PPOs 24 hours a day.

But of course... that will be different.

Two non working Royals.. one supporting himself and his family and paying for his security. The other not, and bankrolled by his Mother and the taxpayer whilst he dodges being served papers for a civil lawsuit.

I think moving to LA, trying to be ‘celebs’ and constantly trying to raise your profile shows it’s right that they are paying it themselves.