- The topic of personal security for both Meghan Markle and Prince Harry is a hot-button topic.
- The taxpayer in the U.K. should no longer be responsible for the safety of the couple.
- Prince Harry “has earned” taxpayer-funded protection, according to one royal expert.
When Meghan Markle and Prince Harry decided to step back from the royal family, questions swirled about their taxpayer-funded security detail.
Every active member of the royal family receives high-level security at the expense of the U.K. government. But Harry and Meghan have effectively become private citizens. They’re free to pursue the almighty dollar, using Harry’s family reputation as a cash-printing machine.
But all this comes at a price. And that price is a minimum of $5 million per year for a personal security detail.
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry can’t have it both ways
While the idea of cashing in on the reputation and international standing of a family that supposedly hates you and treats you with contempt may sound attractive, no scheme is without its drawbacks.
Such as using some of the tens of millions of dollars you’re reportedly going to earn to pay your own security costs.
Harry and Meghan want to live in Los Angeles and act like celebrities. They should have to pay for their security like those celebrities do.
It seems relatively straightforward to me.
But not everyone agrees.
Prince Harry “deserves” taxpayer-funded security
One royal expert, speaking to the Express in the U.K., believes that Prince Harry deserves taxpayer-funded security even after abandoning his royal duties.
Richard Fitzwilliams commented:
Harry will find this difficult to come to terms with, the issue of security will be worrying them. They need to have security guards, if the taxpayer won’t pay, Prince Charles will. Harry needs protection, he has earnt it. He did two tours of Afghanistan.
Since when does serving in the British armed forces entitle anyone to $5 million of benefits per year?
Try telling that to the ordinary British soldier who must adapt to civilian life on their own, Richard.
Sorry, but Prince Harry is entitled to nothing.
Security is more of an issue now than ever before
Hollywood Harry and Meghan Markle arguably picked the worst possible time to leave Canada and move to a crime-ridden part of the world.
Speaking to The Sun, Russell Stuart of U.S. security firm Force Protection Agency, commented:
The US is a completely different place to Canada. There are more guns then there are people, and, in general, we have a higher level of crime, which does make the move risky.
Stuart raises a valid point about Harry, which perhaps explains why Prince Charles is willing to foot the bill for his son’s security:
If Meghan is looking to get back into acting and is spending large parts of her day at a studio, she will be very well protected there as they already have heavy security. My worry would be Harry. What is he going to be doing with his day? If he wanted to go for a jog, it would require a huge amount of planning. If he wanted to go anywhere for lunch, it would come with a huge amount of security issues.
But once again, if Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are genuinely concerned with leaving the media spotlight, they’re going about it the wrong way.
Russell Stuart confirms as much:
Hollywood’s paparazzi are relentless, and it would need an almost presidential amount of security. It could go from 20 paparazzi to 200 people very quickly and would be a security nightmare.
Meghan Markle and Harry can fund their own protection and their own lifestyle
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle chose to walk away from the royal family. By doing so, they forfeited all taxpayer-funded benefits.
Besides, if Meghan’s fans are correct, the couple will have no problem covering the cost of private security. She’s a superstar who was held back by Harry’s evil family and a racist British public, remember?
Surely the Hollywood Royals can take the paltry $5 million per year out of the hundreds of millions that U.S. clients are falling over themselves to offer.
They don’t deserve a penny from the U.K. taxpayer.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of CCN.com.
This article was edited by Josiah Wilmoth.