Irrelevant argument- as it must be as any fool can see that a president will be substantially cheaper than the 350 million this useless lot cost us.
There’s no need for you to post so aggressively, you know Novella. It’s not an irrelevant argument at all. As I’m sure you know, there are various posters who argue fervently that Harry needs his protection to be paid for by taxpayers because of the high level of threat to him in the UK. This, plus our terrible record of people in public office being targeted and killed because of their roles means that any Head of State, and their family will need to be protected while they are in office, and afterwards also. So on the basis that you have a rotating head of state, the number of people needing protection will stay about the same as it is now (if not more, if it’s say Boris Johnson and his indeterminate number fo children!).
Are the teenagers and other adults killed on Mountbatten’s boat also scorned by you? Security for the people in public also also aims to reduce collateral impacts like that, you know.