King Charles to pay for Duke of York’s private security

[tatalan]

Monarch expected to foot £3m bill for guards.

<a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/2022.12.19-193449/www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/12/19/king-charles-pay-duke-yorks-private-security-refusing-do-prince/#selection-1193.1-1193.56" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">King Charles to pay for Duke of York’s private security

Fascinating. What do we think?

You’ve got this wrong? Any sources for Harry asking that his security be paid for?

He said he would pay:

amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/15/prince-harry-presses-for-police-protection-to-visit-uk-with-family

His own Met protection was later withdrawn when he stopped carrying out royal duties

Withdrawn this year after he stepped back in 2019! and for free too.

H&M went to court for the right to pay for it, they don't and never wanted to be taxpayer funded.

Exactly. Andrew had his for free since he stepped back in 2019. Looks like elder brother will be taking over payments now.

How can it cost £3m to protect someone who doesn't really go anywhere?

2 x bodyguards, 24 hours a day.... Might need 6-8 staff on rota, call it £100k per year per bodyguard for ease of maths (high salary, plus on costs) - £800k. Maybe another £200k for umm... Uniforms, subsistence and CCTV etc. £1m.

Disclaimer: I know nothing about security, I made all of those figures up.

I thought the issue was Harry wanted Met Police protection, which can’t happen if he lives overseas.

Why is everyone claiming that PA doesn't go anywhere? He's not a working royal, but he's a wealthy privileged man, with all the opportunities for travel that go with his class.

No, but his friends have.

Andrew has no money, Harry has already been given millions by daddy as well as inheriting millions from his mother. Andrew has been denied the opportunity of working for the firm, Harry chose not to do so.

Andrew is a slimeball but not the paedophile he's frequently being accused, without proof, of being. His accuser was 17, that is not a child here. Women, even young women, threw themselves at him when he was younger, he may have thought she was yet another one. Paying off was not something he wanted to do, it was cheaper than defending the case and he couldnt afford to defend it. He obviously could not have had a fair trial either.

The difference is is that H&M have already aired their dirty laundry in public. PA hasn't but could if had to pay for himself. PA also knows a lot of what's hidden by the other royals. It'll be more damning for Charles if as well as being invited to sandrigham this Xmas, PA is also paraded in front of the cameras on his way to church. Particularly when one considers the response to his high profile entry to his father's memorial service earlier this year.

But the Met made it clear that you couldn't pay for their services privately. It's publicly funded only. Other royals accepted that and arranged private security. Harry and Meghan decided to fight it. That's they I called it tax-payer funded.

It was his mum that paid it off. And she could certainly have paid tp defend it. But didn't want the bad PR. Paying for sex with trafficked women/girls is a crime no matter how old they are.

"But even so, if he’s willing to pay for his paedophile-associating brother’s security himself, why isn’t he willing to pay for his son’s…?"

If Harry was a non-working Royal resident in the UK, then perhaps he would.

We won't know unless/until that happens.

In the mean time, Harry gets security assessments for every trip, and official security will be provided whenever indicated by the risk assessment (remember Harry's case is about having blanket security irrespective of risk assessment, security hasn't been cancelled!)

We also don't know who would foot the bill if Harry needed private security in UK in addition to his own permanent team.

It's entirely reasonable that security arrangements aren't discussed, so we may never know what arrangements are made for Harry.

We only know this about Andrew because of the (long overdue) ending of the tax-payer funded official element (should have gone as soon as he ceased being a working royal). How much he gets and what it really costs going forward might be something the public is curious about, but it's no longer a matter of public interest

I completely agree with this. The Americans wouldn’t dream of stopping an ex presidents security for the entirety of their life.

When the RF abruptly stopped Harry’s that seems likely that it was to give him a harsh lesson on standing on his own two feet or such like but I think it has spectacularly backfired on them.

I think Andrew should have security too. He is at risk precisely because of who he is. I abhor what he did and he has such limited insight and accountability for his actions but that is a separate issue.

The context of the post you replied to was a pp saying "who doesn't have some dodgy friends?" You appear to have totally missed what was actually being said.

except a judge already feels his case has enough merit for a judicial review

just because the met / gov decided this - does not make it right

good to see him standing up for his family- we all remember what happened to his mum when she was chased by the press

Amazing isn't it, we believe what's written in the papers, Harry tells us it's all lies, we believe Harry, but then go back to believing what's written about King Charles and the Duke of York in the papers.

He wants to pay for it for when he’s in the UK - visiting his royal family including for formal events

I have a feeling that the security Charles gets (and, I hope, pays for privately) for Andrew, will have a fairly heavy-handed "minder" role, meaning that it will be as much about stopping Andrew interacting with the public as it is about stopping the public getting too close to Andrew! Charles does not like Andrew and will be quite happy to have him kept firmly away from the limelight.

I imagine some papers are more rigorous in their fact checking, and don’t have an obvious agenda to push

Also, this "Prince Andrew has no money" stuff... do people actually believe that? He's absolutely not skint in the way that normal people are when they can't work for a living. Royal wills are not made public, but I would bet that QE left him well provided for, either with a direct bequest, or by leaving him a life interest in certain assets, or by specifying financial support to be provided by KC.

I think the state should be paying for security for all of them (Harry etc and Andrew) although appreciate that it might be a better PR move for Charles to pay. It’s not just a question of their personal security but of our national security- the position the country would be in in the case of eg hostage-taking. £3m pa to avoid that is money well spent.

*Actually the context of the post was on the back of this

he’s an elderly man who has been accused of something but has never been prosecuted or been proven guilty.*

I disgaree. For me, the context was off the back of the post claiming that Andrew might never have known that Epstein was a rapist or that Virginia G could have been trafficked.

The point being made seemed to me to be that while Andrew was still hanging about with Epstein, he (Epstein) was already a sex offender who had been prosecuted for child sex trafficking.

Making a "I never knew" argument start to smell fishy.

A bit like if you are friends with a tax fiddler who then presents you with a blank envelope of cash with no known origin and you later claim you had no idea it could have been from tax fraud.

It's not the association alone. It's the association and obvious knowledge of past crimes that fit perfectly with current activities to suggest those crimes are ongoing and the participation in some of those activites whilst claiming you never knew about the rest.