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.

Which they are and have been

@Roussette

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.

Because someone suggested the royals should pay for it because it was necessary due to Harry's being born into that family.

The Queen can do what she wants with her own personal funds. My understanding is that taxpayers are no longer directly paying for Andrew, and that was why the Queen started paying for it. If they are, then IMHO they shouldn't be. But even if they are, Andrew is living on a family-owned property and almost never leaves it, so he's done what he can to minimize that expense - very different from Harry and Meghan.

That said, I do think there's a difference between freely choosing to quit working as a royal, and being effectively forced out due to unproven allegations that he vehemently denies. If Andrew is lying about some key details, then of course he's at fault for his situation. But it's also possible that he's telling the truth, and in that case, he's less at fault for his situation than Harry is for his own. Personally, I think the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. But it doesn't really matter what any of us thinks - it only matters what the truth actually is. We're unlikely to ever know that, which is why I don't think it's fair to presume that Andrew is worse than Harry, because that requires assuming some pretty big disputed facts.

Whether Andrew is worse than Harry or not, there is no doubt in my mind what is going on with him will do and has done far more damage to the Monarchy than H&M.

The Queen's 'personal funds' rely on the Duchy of Lancaster which is owned by the Crown. It is not hers personally and is held by the Head of State, i.e. the Queen. She can't sell it, she can't touch the capital, she can't pass it on as an inheritance, she can only take an income from it and use that money for the likes of A's security.

Are the claims that Archie would not have his own security in the UK true?

No. He would have received protection when with his parents (as they did) and it would be reassessed based on need. He would not have been automatically entitied, as there isn't really such a thing. But appropriate official protection advice would always have been available.

Now that they are no longer working Royals, they will not receive it as a matter of course. And of course not all the 'magnificent 7' (the current core senior working Royals) have a full time presence (the Princess Royal and the Wessexes) but they are all protected according to need.

It's over 35 years since the kidnap attempt on Princess Anne - it doesn't seem that long ago to me, but I suppose it seems like history to some. And of course others get targeted too - Lord Mountbatten for example. So it is taken very seriously

The public will never be told if British officials are continuing to support the Sussexes with threat assessments, that will assist them in deciding what sort of protection they need. I suppose they may still get some provision when in this country if at public family events.

I suppose they may still get some provision when in this country if at public family events.

Harry was indeed met by security when he arrived for the funeral of the DoE. Any claims that Archie would be denied security because he does not have the title “Prince”are entirely spurious. Scobie seems to be implying in his epilogue that the Sussexes did actually want a title for Archie so as to ensure his security but this is clearly nonsense. If it were only necessary to have a title to obtain security, then the UK would be obliged to provide it for Harry wherever he may be which is obviously not happening. M also said in the interview that she pleaded for security for Harry because he is a Prince. I’m not sure why this fundamental misunderstanding persists, unless it is an attempt to guilt trip the RF into paying for security for them even though they have effectively resigned 🤷‍♀️

At first glance I thought this was about the shop H&M 😂

Their property in Santa Barbara was broken into or had intruder alerts nine times

I've seen this mentioned before, but does anyone know what the source of the claim is?

Yes - unfortunately they are a target for racists, so they do need protection.

They are a target for people wanting pics to flog to the mucky media and some bottom feeders will stop at nothing to get them to flog to the gullible masses

Without security either of them or Archie or Lily could be kidnapped and held to ransom and the kidnappers could even make demands of the Queen to pay. As much as I can't stand the royals, yes they do need security