Are You Happy To Pay For Harry & Meghan's Security?

[ladybirder]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10406391/Prince-Harry-says-bodyguards.html

Cheeky or what!

[andy-hughes]

I don't really have on opinion either way.

There are dozens of things the government spends my money on that I would object to above this -

Everything from the subsidised MP's bar in the Commons to nuclear missiles.

If i thought about it, I would think he should pay for it himself - he wants to be distanced from the RF, then he can't have the perks it brings.

[lady-janine]

No I would not like to fund them in any way. We all have to live the best way we can but that is taking the pi . . .ss.

[lady-janine]

Also I thought that only working royals could have security paid for by the British taxpayer. By their own choice they distanced themselves from this country so let them get on with it.

Like A-H there are a lot of things that the government uses my money for but this would really . . . . . . . . . .

[tomus42]

A bit like Andy H, I don't really care. Happy either way really. In theory we shouldn't, but there's plenty of other things we shouldn't pay for but do anyway.

[Mamyalynne]

I'll be content with what the Queen decides.

A compromise may be that he and his family get security when they visit the UK but pay for their own when in the USA.

[calmck]

They wanted to be private citizens. Private citizens, if they want or need security, pay for it themselves. So they should do likewise

[Cloverjo]

The poor Queen. Hasn't she got enough to worry about?
I thought it was the Met who decides who gets protection.
Anyway, H&M decided to move to another country and not fulfil their Royal duties, so no.

[jno]

I'd be okay with that. If there's any risk to them, it arises out of their being part of the British royal family, whether they've said goodbye to it or not.

[tomus42]

They can afford it, but then so can Tony Blair, for example. Also a private citizen, but a target for terrorists because he had a certain job as part of the British establishment, same as Harry.

[ladybirder]

The question is not about other things you don't want to pay for it's about us taxpayers paying for their security.

They do nothing for this country except run it down, they chose to leave when they didn't have to, and now the entitled pair are taking the u know what out of us.

[anneasquith]

What a great country Britain is atm. A rubbish government, Royalty who would take tax payers money, when they themselves are extremely wealthy.

[lankeela]

The Daily Fail seems to have a lot of 'sources' as per usual.

[albaqwerty]

They are not working royals, therefore won't be doing any ''working royal'' stuff, so don't need tax-payers money for security.

[david small]

No.

[ladybirder]

Oh dear, looks like the Mail has it wrong. The London Standard reports differently. It reports he wants to pay for it himself at least while he's in this country.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/home-office-duke-of-sussex-archie-diana-london-b976933.html

[sanmac]

You're correct, LB, your question referred to your government paying for their security, and not other government expenditures. Between Nov. 18th, 2019 and Jan. 22, 2021 the Canadian Government spent around $56,000 for the couple's security. In my opinion, the British Government, or the couple themselves should have borne the cost, not us Canadian taxpayers. Since the pair are now in the States they should pay for their own security.

[Mamyalynne]

A little hard to debate further when we have two versions of the story.

Modern journalism eh?

[Barsel]

If it isn't safe for them to return here, then don't. Simples.

[ladybirder]

Mamya here's the BBC's version. It reads to me as if ours doesn't satisfy them when they come to this country so he wants to bring his own and pay for it. Is that the way you understand it?

[tomus42]

I'd like to know who paid for the suitcases of wine that were brought back to no. 10 to keep the party going the night before the Duke of Eds funeral.