The Sussexes will no longer have Canadian security after March 31st

Duke and Duchess of Sussex on a royal tour of South Africa, Cape Town - 23 Sep 2019

We talk about this in the new Gossip with Celebitchy podcast, which comes out on Monday, but I’d just like to say that I absolutely loathe the conversation about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s security costs. It’s become “the thing” people use to bash them, as if How Dare They think they’re worth of taxpayer-funded security in the UK or Canada (or even here in America). Let me tell you something… they are worthy of security. The amount of very real threats they face should not be underestimated. No one should underestimate how the rabid, racist tabloid press has been working their readers into a frenzy either. Similar things have happened in this country with the right-wing radio and cable news: those right-wing media figures target someone high-profile and hope that someone is unhinged enough to take their bait and act on their rage.

So, clearly, I believe that Harry and Meghan need as much security as they can get. But Canadian taxpayers won’t be picking up the tab after March 31.

Canada will soon stop providing security for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, the federal government has confirmed. Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) have been providing assistance to the couple since their arrival in Canada “intermittently since November 2019”. It had not been clear whether Canadians would be paying for their security following their move. RCMP has been providing security to the couple at the request of the Metropolitan Police.

“The Duke and Duchess of Sussex choosing to re-locate to Canada on a part-time basis presented our government with a unique and unprecedented set of circumstances,” said Canada’s federal Public Safety Minister Bill Blair in a statement on Thursday. “The RCMP has been engaged with officials in the UK from the very beginning regarding security considerations. As the duke and duchess are currently recognised as Internationally Protected Persons, Canada has an obligation to provide security assistance on an as needed basis.”

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had faced repeated questions over who would be paying to provide security for the prince and his wife Meghan.

“The assistance will cease in the coming weeks, in keeping with their change in status,” according to the statement from public safety. Neither the Metropolitan Police nor a spokeswoman for the couple would comment on security matters. The Canadian government’s confirmation was first reported by CBC News.

[From BBC]

I assume that this means the British royal protection officers will be their security full-time from here on out, but honestly, who knows. At this point, I would absolutely not put it past Liz of House Petty to yank their royal protection as some kind of punitive measure. In their statement a week ago, the Sussexes were basically like “we’re not confirming or denying anything about our security, so stop talking about it.” And for real. Stop talking about it. They need it. They’re international targets of hate, racism, bigotry and sexism. Also: part of me wonders if this announcement from the Canadians is a bit of carefully worded bait-and-switch. Even if it is, again, it’s none of our business.

Anzac Day Service of Commemoration

Photos courtesy of WENN, Avalon Red and Backgrid.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

346 Responses to “The Sussexes will no longer have Canadian security after March 31st”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Becks1 says:

    What I found disgusting about this was how GLEEFUL people were on twitter over it. First – they’re still getting security, so your hopes that something may happen to them can just go DIAF. Second…..well, the second part of my #1, lol. People hope that something bad happens to them as “payback” or whatever. It’s disgusting.

    • Belli says:

      There are people out there that want them dead. This talk about paying for their security or withdrawing their security is only going to encourage those people.

      Personally I think that the people in the press who have spent years whipping up the public into an angry frenzy over these two should pay for it. They’re the reason H&M need security. It’s only fair they cover the cost.

      • Eyfalia says:

        Wait for the outcome of the lawsuit. Maybe these tabloids will pay for the Sussex security for many years to come and rightly so.

      • Eyfalia says:

        Please don’t ever comment on the Daily Bile, you only give them data about yourself while registering and they will not let positive comments through.

      • Mac says:

        Even without all of the racist BS from the tabs, they need security. They are extremely high value targets for entities beyond the nutters who comment at the Daily Fail.

    • Harla says:

      What has happened to us as a society when the “punishment” of innocent people brings so much glee to so many?

      • Alisha says:

        @harla People lack empathy, and online toxicity fuels their hatred. I am unable to tell whether this is increasing, or was always there but more hidden and people just feel more comfortable voicing it.

      • (TheOG) jan90067 says:

        Social Media happened. Some people feel a LOT freer to give into base(r) feelings/instincts when hiding behind a keyboard. And finding “like” minds emboldens public behaviors.

      • Tessa says:

        Meghan is blamed exclusively in some threads

      • Lua says:

        People have always been awful. It’s not new. Think gladiators, stocks, witch burning, guillotine.

    • Erinn says:

      It’s gross.

      One thing I will say though, is I suspect that they’re a lot further into the security process than they’re saying, if that makes sense. I don’t believe for a second that the RCMP would be making that announcement if they thought that it would be leaving them completely open for attack. At the end of the day, it’s their job to protect people in Canada. If something happened, the RCMP would still be involved – it just won’t be a solely dedicated effort. They’ve been in and out since Christmas – there’s no way that that mansion isn’t locked down by now.

      This also could be an announcement to put pressure on the royals to step in and provide more for them. But again – I don’t for a second think that M&H would leave security up to chance when they have an infant. They’re too smart for that. I suspect they have at least a small team already transitioning in.

      • Oh_dear says:

        I agree Erinn. And I think Charles will be/has been paying too. Harry cannot escape the fact that he is a prince, that is a result of his birth which he has no control over so I don’t mind if Charles is obligated to provide the safety that comes with that burden. I am curious how William and Kate will handle the costs of their 3 children when the time comes. I have a feeling there will be even less of an appetite for their financial burden as the world has and will likely become more global (increasing the cost of visits, personnel, etc)

      • Becks1 says:

        I agree – this announcement is only coming after something has been worked out.

      • Heather says:

        Agreed. I do not think, for one second, that the RCMP is going to drop them like hot potatoes without a back-up plan being firmly in the works. They are just not telling Joe Public about it. It’s security, after all.
        I am a Canadian and a lot of people have been concerned about their tax-dollars going towards this additional full-time security detail. I believe the estimates went from $10 to $30 million per year.
        I haven’t read any of the sick and twisted gleeful comments, so I’m not fully informed on that matter, thankfully.
        I sincerely hope that a proper security detail is assigned to Harry, Meghan & Archie, because they truly need it. And the Royal Family needs to cover that cost.

      • Redgrl says:

        Erin – Exactly. I agree the details would’ve been worked out with the UK before this announcement was made. The Canadian police will still be involved as they would for anyone should a crime occur & need to be investigated – if there was a threat or a break-in for example (hopefully not!) . Canada would pay those types of policing costs since it would be a crime on Canadian soil investigated by Canadian police with potentially charges laid & prosecuted. That would be paid for by Canada. And that’s fine – no one can legitimately complain about that. But their day in day out protection officers/bodyguards that travel with them and guard them at their home are the UK’s responsibility- whether it’s the BRF or Charles I don’t know how that would work. But I think that’s the distinction that a lot of people are missing.

      • Tina says:

        I think they got Charles to pay for security in exchange for some kind of NDA/ no tell all agreement.

    • lowercaselila says:

      I saw that also on Twitter, but if you look at some of the accounts they were bots.

      • Pineapple says:

        LOWERCASELILA … yah, I completely believe “the right wing” is trying to control the message. Purchase large media conglomerates, put forth less than stellar journalism. Journalism that is not only factual but that also is inflammatory and insures passion/emotional response. It is disgusting to watch.

        It is like my 11th grade history class has come to life … and as usual, not enough people were paying attention in history class!

    • Yes to your comment Becks1. and Erin — And I totally agree with Kaiser. Everyone needs to let this issue go. The Sussex have to have government level security and that’s that. I liked their Jan 20th statement on their security of ‘yeah we have it due to threat level — no further comment’. I think most rational people understand that at that security-need level you simply don’t provide any info.

    • Tessa says:

      It is disgusting how people cheer for this. They like to see them put in danger. If anything happens to all or any of them, the Royals will be blamed.

    • bonobochick says:

      Some folks were like “it’ll be open season on the Sussexes” which is all kinds of foul. Some people want to see them assaulted / hurt for wanting to walk away from being working senior royals. It’s sick and says a lot about those gleeful to see the Sussexes injured or even dead.

      And for what?

      • Nan says:

        bonobochick: What’s so creepy is that so many haters want to bash Meghan & Harry for walking away but the same haters would’ve bashed Meghan every day of her life if she had stayed a working royal. The hatred is really frightening because it’s so irrational – whether H & M stay or go, those people see them as a target.

    • JB says:

      exactly this

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      This is toxic fandom. The fans are so obsessed with the (white) royals that any perceived “slight” against the royals has to be punished. We see it with other celebrities as well. That type of obsession occasionally leads to violence, and sometimes the *object* of the affection is the one who is hurt, so it is absolutely NOT in the royal family’s interest to fan the flames.

      • Deering24 says:

        It’s the same hatred that drives Trump supporters. They are so busy thinking “those others” are getting over/getting treated better than they are that they support a man who will take away programs they badly depend on.

    • Lucy De Blois says:

      But as crazy as it seems, it’s true. The people (the trolls, containing all the sub-species) are really wanting that H&M go naked and homeless on the streets.

      Why they have to use plane, chopper, train, car, have a big house and not a shack, good clothes and not rags… And on and on. It freaks me out to see the amount of hate flowing around the world: it’s like if you were watching someone’s pressure mounting from 150 to 160, and 170 and 200, 220…

      Of course they need protection. Not only because they’re royals (and all the political implications it brings), but because they’re famous and their faces are known all over. There’s always a lunatic on shift.

      And if the queen is going to keep their security… hummm…. Maybe yes, maybe not. It wouldn’t be the first time she took back the security from someone that lost the status of “royal” (Diana, for example). And to look good among the other royals, the trolls and the tabloids, she would for sure close the gate behind them and let the lions do the work.

      And please, I beg you, let’s be real. The other royals don’t have MM (or Harry) in any consideration. None, even the queen herself. For me, it was clear when Princess Pushy sported that racist brooch.
      You don’t go to a party using an offensive jewel if you are not sure that your hostess will be offended. When Princess Michael of Kent used that brooch she was saying to everyone: hey! look, that’s what I think of the queen’s future grand-daughter in law, and look, everyone is ok I use it. Come on, she depends of the little perks she gets from the queen, she wouldn’t risk to cause uneasiness among the guests AND her hostess.

      • DarlingDiana says:

        Diana refused royal protection offers due to her fear that they were spying on her for the BRF. The Queen did not take it from her. The Queen won’t take it from the Sussex family either. Either the UK tax payers or The Queen or Prince Charles or some combination of the above will pay until the end of time if necessary.

      • Tessa says:

        The Queen did remove the HRH from Diana.

    • missskitttin says:

      Payback for what? People are angry about brexitand dont know how to redirytheir frustration

    • Abena Asantewaa says:

      Have you realised, that the queen panders to the press/ media? The royal family has to cough up for security for the queen’s grandson and his family. The moment, the press especially that pathetic article by Russell Myers Mirror’s inflated £20 security story splashed on the front page I knew, security was going to be the next punitive measure taken against the sussexes. Salman Rushdie, who isn’t royal, recieved years of security paid by the British taxpayer, for the fatwa saga. These same papers put their lives in danger and turn around and complain about them having security.

    • Still_Sarah says:

      @ Mac : Yes, they are high value targets for some dangerous people and they would be crazy not to have security. But that’s not the issue IMO – the issue is who should pay for it. I’m Canadian, almost 60 and can’t afford to retire, so I will continue working for probably another ten years. Harry and Meghan are worth $30-$40 million between them. I think they should pay for their own security and not have access to government protection from Canada unless they are doing official royal duties in Canada. Otherwise they are just private citizens who are famous and rich and have to watch out for crazy people. The UK government and their constituents can sort it out for themselves – whether to keep paying.

      • Nic919 says:

        Your taxes didn’t go up in the few months security was covered. And now it’s going to stop being covered. There is really no reason to complain about this. Far more money is being spent to pay the salaries of racist canadian senators along with their gold plated pensions. Get mad about that as opposed to tabloid exaggerations.

  2. Sofia says:

    The main concern from Canadians was paying for their security so glad to see their government give an answer

    And they’ll probably still have the MET security. Perhaps a scaled down version but they’ll still have it. Even Diana kept hers (she refused to keep them because she felt like they were spies from the palace)

    • Guest2.0 says:

      What does MET stand for?

    • carmen says:

      You mean because JT was being so evasive? Every time he was approached and asked by the media he kept saying negotiations were taking place, never letting on that they had RCMP detail from the beginning.

      • Guest with Cat says:

        Oh my God I can see one cup of coffee is not going to be enough this morning. I was wondering why you were dragging Justin Timberlake into this discussion.

      • carmen says:

        Guest With Cat – you’re kidding, right? (lol though)

      • Rachel says:

        😂 Guest with cat

      • Guest with Cat says:

        No, sorry Carmen I meant it. I have been a pretty good morning person but during the winter holidays I got badly discombobulated and I am struggling to get set to rights since then. I did take in two kittens abandoned in a shed. It’s a long story how they got to my parents and then to me. But they were nocturnal when I first got them, needing to be fed and comforted very late at night. They’re not nocturnal anymore, but I’m still spontaneous waking up at 2-3 am and struggling to get back to sleep. Sigh.

      • LadyD says:

        Guest – for a fraction of a second… too.

      • Monza says:

        And it’s already been shown the RCMP lied about protection, which sucks. Who knows what the truth is.

      • Lady D says:

        You truly are a hero, Guest with Cat. I picked up two abandoned 4-week-old boy kittens too. I’m proud and very happy to say they will be 16yo June 1st. They are healthy, active, okay somewhat active, although they sleep a lot more, but they can see, have almost every tooth, and are only slightly deaf. I adore these two, I’m going to be lost without them. Like Amanda Seyfried said, “I’m subconsciously aware of my (dog’s) cats mortality.”

    • Angelique says:

      It looks like they will need to choose a place to live that offers the best security at the most affordable price.
      Where could that be?

      • Lady D says:

        The same place they have the most need of it?

      • Lucy De Blois says:

        I’m afraid in their case (as was in Diana’s) there’s no affordable security. The net of protection has to be from government trainned agents.

        They are not only Mr and Mrs Whatever that has a bunch of followers and haters.
        They are royals by birth and marriage. Their family is linked to a powerful government. The Queen isn’t a mere stamp on the letters. Or else she would not receive daily memos from all departments or would have audiences with the PM.

      • missskitttin says:

        They have money to pay for security detail like every other famous person. Let’s not be pedestrian and think they are middle class now lol

  3. Belli says:

    I wonder what the next stick used to beat them with will be after this.

    First it was Frogmore, then HRH, then “royal”, then security…

    • What. . .now? says:

      Right? My guess. . .their travel expenses….or how “Hollywood” they’ve become….

    • Chloe says:

      Someone on Twitter is already screeching because Harry dared reserve an entire rail car the other day, like he should honestly be expected to be safe crammed in with a bunch of strangers. I don’t understand at all how he, Meghan and Archie aren’t still considered Internationally Protected People. They may not use it but they still technically have the HRH titles, Harry is still in the order of precedence and Archie is their son.

      • grumpy says:

        Being an internationally protected person doesn’t mean you get 24/7 paid security. Any old diplomat and their families is an internationally protected person. All that status means is that if you kidnapped or something, other governments will hand over your kidnappers.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Was Harry actually on a rail car or is this made-up BS?

        If he had a whole rail car to himself then I bet he paid for a whole rail car.

  4. Rachel says:

    Yes they need security but no, Canadians shouldn’t have to pay for it. They are welcome here but since they are not here in an official capacity security should not be Canadian funded. He is a uk citizen & she is American – this is not our responsibility.

    The lack of desire to pay for this does not mean we’re racist or do not want them here as has been suggested here before. I would argue most Canadians do welcome them.

    • Mia4s says:

      “ since they are not here in an official capacity”

      To be honest I have no interest in paying for the ones who come here in a so-called official capacity either. Canada should have tapped out of any involvement in hereditary monarchy a long time ago. We’ve grown beyond it (Well, most of us have), if the UK hasn’t that’s their problem.

      • OriginalLala says:

        Here here! Canada should have cut ties with the BRF a while ago. We shouldn’t have to pay for the “official” capacity visits either.

      • Arpeggi says:

        I’ll sit with you today. Monarchy is useless and should have been abolished a long time ago. Canada needs no king/queen/governor. But hey! I’m from Mtl and we’ve never been fans around here

      • BayTampaBay says:

        As a Yank, I must say I agree with my fellow CB posters from Canada that the Canadian taxpayer should not foot the bill for the Sussex security.

        There is no doubt the Sussexes need professional security but it is not the responsibility of the Canadian Taxpayer by any stretch of the imagination nor would it be the responsibility of the US Taxpayer if they move to or live part time in USA.

      • Shirleygailgal says:

        Replying to @Rachel~If we need hereditary chiefs, we have some wonderful matriarchs here of our own, even more homegrown. Our First Nations hereditary chiefs are being heavily mis-interpreted right now, but they are also flexing. Sadly their message is being hi-jacked by a few rabble-rousers, and now affecting the economy of the whole. That is not a good thing. I’ve said from the beginning I was willing to help pay some (not all) because if something terrible were to happen on our watch….whether we like it or not, it would be a travesty. My concern is some red-neck from the south thinking they’d be doing Donald a favour, or some hate-filled crazy trying to get at the little black boy or the woman. That scares me, and from that, they need protection. If they need our help (and I gave them a year to settle) I was willing. Not permanently, but certainly till they could get their own ducks in a row.

      • Wishingitwas says:

        Well with that in mine, I struggle to see who’s responsibility it really is. Is the the UK’s responsibility no matter where they go, even though they’ve stepped back and aren’t anywhere in any official capacity? I think the British taxpayers have as much right as the Canadian and US tax payers to not want their money going to the security costs and yet the need for security is clearly there.

      • Zazu says:

        I think this will actually be positive in terms of the future of Harry and Meghan in Canada. The security would always have become politicized by the various parties and governments in the future, which would then sour feelings for them among some Canadians. They just don’t need that in their new home.

        Many Brits seem determined to hate them no matter what, so adding paying security to their long list of objections won’t change anything back home. It’s sad but it seems like that bridge was already burned so what’s one more objection?

      • Iamcait says:

        Notasugarhere—- if by MAGATs u mean Trump supporters, what does that have to do with Canadians?! Most Canadians welcome the couple & understand they need security. We just don’t want to be the ones footing the bill.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Plenty of Meghan haters have shown up on this site recently, claiming to be Canadian. Easy to see through.

      • Nic919 says:

        There are some idiot Canadians that support dump. They are of course racist morons but all these people who pretend to care about the canadian taxpayer can take their concern trolling and shove it.
        Canadians didn’t get a special Harry and Meghan tax bill in the few months they got security. All this is empty bitching.

    • Maggie says:

      Agree. They said they wanted to separate from the RF and be financially independent. They should pay for their own security now like other celebrity couples. I believe they have always meant to do that.

      • Bella says:

        This is NOT what Rachel said. I am British and I can understand why Canadians might balk at contributing after H&M stop being internationally protected persons, even though it would be a drop in the ocean and their economy would benefit. However, it would be outrageous to demand that H&M should have to pay for their own security provision. Their safety – wherever they live – is the responsibility of the UK. He was born into a high-profile family – he had no choice in the matter. White supremacists have plotted to harm him, hate is being whipped up against his family daily. Not his fault. If Meghan had not married him, she would not be facing this level of threat. He served the Queen and would still be serving her if he had been allowed to. On his own and together with his wife, has earned his country hundreds of millions of pounds. He needs protection and we owe him that.
        This should not even be up for debate.

        It isn’t just a question of money – it’s principle.

      • Eyfalia says:

        @Bella Great comment from you.

      • bluemoonhorse says:

        @Bella exactly! Not sure why people don’t understand this – so the only conclusion is they want harm to H&M and are using this as a cover for their intentions.

      • MrsBump says:

        “However, it would be outrageous to demand that H&M should have to pay for
        their own security provision.”

        Outrageous ? Regardless of nationality, i think it is perfectly reasonable to expect that two very wealthy individuals at least contribute towards their own security costs, especially since they have themselves proclaimed the wish to become private individuals.

      • notasugarhere says:

        They are at risk because of his family, because of his military service, because of the MAGATs and racists foaming at the mouth, because of existing attempts on their lives and that of their child.

        These aren’t two everyday people. They will have taxpayer funded security because forces *outside of themselves* are making it a requirement.

      • MrsBump says:

        Indeed Harry is not an everyday individual.
        In fact the main reason why he is at a disproportionate security risk compared to us, is that he is a member of the royal family and THAT is also the reason why he has a disproportionate access to funds and ressources compared to the rest of us. So it is not outrageous to ask that he dips into his wealth to protect his wife and child.

      • NVYwife27 says:

        @nota stop using his military service as an excuse for him needing security. My husband has done more deployments than Harry and probably a lot more overseas. Where’s our protection? There might be other reasons he needs security but to say his service is one of those reasons is an insults to millions of other soldiers.

      • Your Cousin Vinny says:

        @nvywife thank you. That part stood out to me in the Sussex statement, as well. I wasn’t sure why military service was used as a reason for requiring state-funded security. As you say, plenty of other families have served.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Stop pretending that the high-profile military deployment of a high-ranking member of a royal family to a war zone is the same as your husband’s deployment.

        There were teams of the Taliban tasked specifically with capturing Harry and torturing him live on the web. He will have taxpayer funded security for that reason and many others.

      • NVYwife27 says:

        You’re right, my husbands deployment was a lot different. It was an actual war zone deployment without babysitters there to protect him. A deployment with actual risk involved.

      • DarlingDiana says:

        I agree that the Sussex family needs security. Because he, and Meghan for a much shorter period, were working royals the UK tax payers funded them. Now that they are no longer working royals, I think the cost of security should fall to Harry’s father or grandmother until a pre-determined time has been reached wherein the Sussex family will be able to afford their own or forever. The need for security should be undisputed. Having it be the responsibility of the family and the individuals should also be undisputed.
        All of these people, the BRF and the Sussex family, have ample funds. There is no need for normal people to be up in arms over their security. They will get it one way or the other.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Harry’s deployment was real as was his 10 years of service. Teams of Taliban were tasked with the goal of torturing him online. Whatever your husband faced? He was never a known, individual, high-profile target. His risk was no where near as high as Harry’s.

        They will get UK taxpayer security because they are that level of targets. Protest al you want, it will happen and no one will ever see the bills.

      • notasugarhere says:

        So many brand new names on here with the same tumblr tropes. We see you.

      • Still_Sarah says:

        @ NVYwife27 : sorry for the crap you are getting here. Your husband’s life was on the line as much as anyone else. famous or not.

    • Anners says:

      Yes this – they are welcome here and I want them to be safe. And I have no problems with Canada covering some of their security until other measures can be put in place. However, neither of them are Canadian and they no longer represent the crown, so as private citizens (as with any other celebrity) they need to provide their own security. Frankly, Charles should cover it as he was party to whipping up the tabloid frenzy and hatred. I’d say William, but we know that’s never gonna happen.

      To be clear – this has nothing to do with H&M as individuals, but rather as a precedent being set.

    • Pineapple says:

      RACHEL we are a Commonwealth Country, hence why they are here. While there is obviously strife in The Royal Family, while Meghan and Harry are FORCED to seek a home elsewhere I was happy to pay my 1$ towards their security for the first year if need be.

      The decision to not cover their security has basis in racism just the same as the media coverage. I think the right is up in arms about this, as has been proved by bots and many of us getting kicked out of Daily Mail comments.

      This whole thing is a non-issue. Made issue by poor, sad, journalism.

      • Arpeggi says:

        Once again, Commonwealth doesn’t mean being under the monarch’s rule or owing the monarch anything, it’s an association of former British colonies: some of the Commonwealth countries are no longer monarchies. Would you imagine the uproar if they had moved to India (a Commonwealth country) and the government there said they would pay for a BRF member’s security?

      • Lara K says:

        Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. i can’t imagine Canada yanking security without another plan in place. And no, M&H will not be discussing said plan because duh!

        I’m Canadian, and I’m glad to have them here, paid security or not. They actually do sh*t. And they will do more once they are completely off the hook. I’m all for it.

      • Pineapple says:

        Arpeggi … we are not India.

      • Arpeggi says:

        Pineapple … We are not the UK either. While Canada remains part of the realm, this only means that it has obligations towards the Crown and the General Governor that represents the Crown, we have no obligations toward the Windsors. Being part of the Commonwealth doesn’t mean that we have obligation toward the BRF either because the Commonwealth is not a political organization, the countries have no obligations toward one another, half of the Commonwealth countries are republics and not part of the British realm. So saying that H+M came to Canada because we’re part of the Commonwealth doesn’t make sense.
        H+M decided to move because of a toxic environment in the UK, because they have friends and relationships in Canada, because they’ve decided to become private citizens (and, eventually, maybe Canadian citizens). As private, non-Canadian/Canadian PR citizens, there are no precedent or justification for Canada to provide them with a security detail.

      • carmen says:

        Great explanation, thanks.

      • Nic919 says:

        Charles was in Canada for several months for schooling in the 70s and got security covered so there is precedent and until Canada stops having the Queen as head of state, any royal member will get protection. Sadly even Andrew.

        While it’s a great argument to stop being a monarchy, the security provided was not precedent setting. Charles wasn’t on tour. And now that it will stop once they are no longer officially working royals there is literally nothing to complain about.
        FFS it was since November. They are not going to raise the HST another percent because of it.

      • Shiloh says:

        @NIC919, Charles attended school for a couple of months in Australia, not Canada. He’s visited Canada many times while serving in the navy, on tours and I believe at least one ski trip. However, as the future monarch/head of state, he’s never been treated as a private citizen and his security costs have been covered his entire life regardless of the reason for the visit.

    • MargaritasForBreakfast says:

      Why should it matter? They are part of the British Royal Family and Canada is part of the commonwealth. QEII is also Canada’s queen. Seeminly there shouldn’t be a problem.

      • Chasmosaur says:

        Canada – as well as all Commonwealth Realms and States – is a sovereign country. Which means it is functionally independent from the UK, with it’s own budget and revenue streams. (And in fact, being a member of the Commonwealth costs these countries already, not something residents are always a fan of. Google “The True Cost Of Having A Royal Family: Pricing Our Monarchy” for an article from Better Dwelling, a Canadian non-profit that focuses on housing issues.)

        It’s not like if the Obamas moved to the US Virgin Islands – a US Territory which is partially financially dependent on us. Secret Service protection would still be paid for out of the main Federal coffers, not USVI’s private ones. H&M long-term security costs would be taking money from Canadian tax payers – not a state of business they actually have to accept.

        Canada has been paying for their security as a temporary favor, until it was clear how the administrative relationship between H&M and the BRF shook out. Now that the lines have been drawn, they are under no obligation to keep spending that money on a long-term basis. This isn’t to say they don’t need protection services – they clearly do – but they are not entitled to put a dent in the Canadian Federal Budget or British Columbia’s Provincial Budget to pay for those services. H&M are royal, but they are no longer public servants – all their charitable work is independent. If they are not public servants, they are not entitled to public funds for their protection.

        Being a Commonwealth State/Realm is also 100% voluntary. Difficult to extract yourself from at the Realm level, but still voluntary. If Canada or Australia or India decided to do a “Brexit” of their own and untangle themselves from monarchy part of the their constitutional monarchies, that would be a cultural shift, but not anything QEII and Westminster could really do anything about.

        So, Canada is fully within its rights to spend its money on whatever they choose – their relationship with the BRF is more historical than anything else when you get down to day-to-day governance. I would think there are quite a few Canadians who would rather see millions spent on other initiatives that help a lot of people and support infrastructure, rather than security for Harry & Meghan.

      • Iamcait says:

        They are not here in an official capacity carrying out royal duties. Thus it is not Canada’s responsibility. They are here as private citizens of the uk & us.

      • Nic919 says:

        Charles was in Canada for months as a private citizen too. He got protection because he’s a member of the royal family. Argue about cutting the ties all you want, but until that happens, Canada basically won’t say no when the Met police asks them for help.

    • Stefanie says:

      Agreed, and I don’t really like the “stop talking about it” attitude. We as Canadian citizens (I hate using “taxpayers”) have a right to weigh in on whether our government spending should go towards royals, and it should not. That doesn’t mean we are saying “get out”, it doesn’t mean we think they shouldn’t have security – it just means we don’t think it is our responsibility to pay for it. I am glad to hear we will not be – frankly, slightly annoyed to find out we already have been for the last few months.

      • Nic919 says:

        The fact that you are complaining about a few months of security when people know they have been targeted by hate groups shows how small a person you are. You don’t care about taxes since they didn’t go up at all. The blockades are a way bigger issue here than some RCMP doing security for Harry and Meghan.

    • Ava4eva says:

      Agreed. Also, Harry has money. What’s keeping him from paying for his own security? Celebrities pay for their own body guards.

      • Kristina says:

        I agree they need security- but so do a lot individuals. Look at Taylor S and how she has repeatedly had people break into not just her home but those of her family members. But MH need to pay for it as private citizens, just like TS, rich corporate types, and anyone else- simple as that.

      • AMM says:

        Unlike Celebs, Harry didnt make a choice to be “famous”. He was born into royalty. His family should pay for his security. It doesnt matter if he doesnt want to actively be working, he cant change that hes Prince Harry, son of Diana. He cant hep that him falling in love has resulted in multiple people in jail for wanting to hurt him and his family. His family needs to foot that bill.

      • molee says:

        Financing their own security could have benefits. If they pay for their own security, they would have the power to hire and fire, which would lower the risk of being stuck with disloyal staff, palace or media spies and leakers.

        Also, self-paid security could minimize the risk of having their security detail changed or withdrawn due to political, punitive, or plain old petty reasons.

        While I feel independent security might be the best arrangement for the long run, their plans to transition will take time and meanwhile, they still need a high level of protection. Aside from the monetary costs, starting/rebuilding from scratch on brand new security while living with all this hate is a recipe for a tragic disaster. I hope they are allowed the time to put plans in motion.

      • PrincessK says:

        If Harry had to pay for the quality of security he and his famous need , all his money would be gone in a year.

    • chai35 says:

      Sorry, but even if you break all ties with the UK, Canada would still pay for security when British royalty was in the country in any kind of official capacity (as opposed to vacation), just as any High profile Canadian official would receive protection in the UK. That’s just the norm for protection of political VIPs.

      • (TheOG) jan90067 says:

        But that’s the thing, isn’t it? They are NOT there in *any* kind of “official” capacity after March 31.

        While it would be the *right* (and menschy (Yiddish for decent 😊)) thing for Charles to take over the bill, even better yet, Queen Betty of Petty (as she’s *personally* wealthy to the tune of hundreds of millions (btwn art/jewels/real estate/cash), I wouldn’t hold my breath. I’m sure H&M will have to contribute. From the figures they give as an estimate though, 1 yr’s “bill” would account for half of Harry’s total inheritances!

      • CynicalCeleste says:

        Soon enough Harry will come into the massive inheritances from his grandparents and his father… aka “the back-up plan”. They are already massively rich, earning huge appearance fees with more in the works, and poised to inherit many, many more millions in the coming years. Meanwhile, they are building a high-profile jet-setting celebrity life (not a quiet retired life in a sleepy village in their home country away from the spotlight). They are adamant about forging their own path and doing things their own way – which is their right. If they are smart and want to convey integrity and avoid more negative PR they would step up and say, “rest easy world, we got this. we’ll happily pay for our own security so we can live our life the way we want.”

      • notasugarhere says:

        Harry doesn’t stand to inherit large sums from either the Queen or Charles. The majority of the wealth passes to Charles (without paying tax). On his death, it passes to William without paying taxes. That’s how the keep the main wealth and both private estates in tact.

        Harry and Meghan will have taxpayer funded security because of forces outside of their control. See Diana for what happens when a former royal dismisses their taxpayer security.

      • PrincessK says:

        The idea that Harry and Meghan are about to become billionaires is ridiculous. It is never going to happen.

      • Nic919 says:

        Charles had coverage when he came to Canada in an unofficial capacity for a few months in the 70s. There is precedent and all the complainers are just hypocrites.

    • Redgrl says:

      Agree with Rachel, Arpeggi, OriginalLala and Stefanie 100%

    • Beth says:

      In that logic is it in then fair to ask the British Taxpayer to fund the cost of security, as equally they are no longer representing the UK in an official capacity and have very publically distanced themselves from the UK. I’m not passing comment on the rights or wrongs of their choosing to distance themselves – sole focus on your reasoning as to why Canada shouldn’t pay. Its reductive to say that the Royal Family should pay – of course they should- but in reality the British Taxpayer pays for the Royal Family. Again, I am not passing comment on the rights or wrongs of that either.

    • wellsie says:

      I had no idea that the MAGA crowd was interested in M&H. Contemplated googling that for a moment but I’ll just take you all at your word instead.

      • Deering24 says:

        Yeah, they see her as everything they hate—a WOC “daring” to have more than they do. As well, she dissed Their Fearless Leader.

    • Samanathalous says:

      agree, I think they should personally begin paying for their own security or take a 80/20 split with the Royals.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Ah Samantha, is that you?

        They will receive taxpayer security because the government has determined they need it.

  5. Eliza_ says:

    There’s precedence recently with the Yorks. Andrew lobbied for his girl’s to get RPOs and Charles said absolutely not, only working royals will get this privilege. That said, Charles is never going to put his own child and grandchild at risk. I bet the Queen and/or Charles pick up the extra after the MET budget is spent. There’s a reason in modern times they all live on shared properties and it’s to reduce cost of security. Having to send UK officers round the clock “across the pond” in intervals (as they would come home on rotations for their own families, MET police aren’t bodyguards they’re still HQd in England) the bill will be extremely large.

    • Ainsley7 says:

      It was the government that took away Beatrice and Eugenie’s security. Charles doesn’t have a say in it. The Queen could have privately paid for them to have security, but she chose not to. They did get RPOs after Andrew’s disastrous interview. I’m not sure who is funding that, and if that is still the case now. It could be because the Royals are/were concerned about the possibility of backlash, but it could have been tax-payer funded for a small period of time because there was an active threat. Even private citizens receive police protection if there is an active threat against them.

      • Nahema says:

        I think it’s a balancing act with the level of risk too, which is clear for Harry & Meghan. The argument I guess is that the average Joe public that might need police protection would have to go along with what the police had to offer and work within a budget. They probably would be moved to a safe locating ad not travel all that far. Harry and Meghan have gone to Canada. That’s a long way to keep sending RPO’s for round the clock protection.

    • (TheOG) jan90067 says:

      Charles DID put his grandchild (and son and DIL) in risk by throwing them under the nearest bus/not speaking up in their defense(s) in SM and BM with the RRs. That absolutely contributes to the danger they’re in from all the nut jobs out there.

  6. Sharon Clark says:

    Canadian here! TBH, I didn’t want to pay for their security and I’m relieved at this announcement. I adore Harry and Meghan, but they are choosing to live as private citizens, with both the good and bad that entails. They are independently wealthy enough to provide their own security. I don’t dispute they need it! But Canadians didn’t request they move here, and our taxpayer money needs to go into our infrastructure, health care, etc – all things that will also benefit Harry and Meghan in their new lives. Ok, rant over! Lol, sorry y’all.

    • carmen says:

      Feel the same way.

    • Rachel says:

      You’re brave Sharon. In the past I noticed there was a lot of conflict when this topic came up & One individual even implied that Canadians who were against paying were not really Canadians & even resorted to calling them racists. 🙄

      The points you make are valid & I 💯 agree.

      • Maria says:

        A poll showed that 75% of Canadians were opposed to paying for their security. A petition with 80,000 names was circulated against footing their bill. I think Trudeau got the message.

      • carmen says:

        Deanne – I read those comments too and mostly, they were in response to people who said as Canadians, they were opposed to paying for security. Sure, others were fundamentally opposed to it too, but the Canadians were more so, as stakeholders.

        I concur that the royal family serve no purpose in Canada.

      • Pineapple says:

        RACHEL … it is racist. And if you can’t see that this ENTIRE issue has racist undertones I can’t help you there. You have more reading to do about privilege, institutional racism etc.

        The security, pet Canadian, would have amounted to 1 or 2 dollars.

        As a COMMONWEALTH COUNTRY, when these individuals come here, I think we are obliged to make sure they are safe. They are fleeing racism and hate. It would be only ethical to help them secure the most professional security. ESPECIALLY since the cost is basically NIL.

      • Tessa says:

        The petition is just representing a low percentage of the entire population. This is like the petition that went around to stop the wedding which went nowhere.

      • Iamcait says:

        Pineapple – racist??! Really 🙄
        Obviously I can’t speak for all Canadians but racism has nothing to do with it. We would feel the same way if it were Kate & William (maybe even more so).

      • Chasmosaur says:

        Pineapple –

        As I noted somewhere above – being a COMMONWEALTH COUNTRY (actually, Canada is a Commonwealth REALM) – is 100% voluntary. All Commonwealth States/Realms are independent, sovereign countries that already pay for the status of being in the Commonwealth. (There are various government positions, some historic sites with Royal connections that need maintaining, things of that nature.)

        Commonwealth Realms have indpendent revenue streams and budgets – from an operational standpoint, the UK provides very, very little to the running of the each of these countries. It is more of a historic connotation of being connected to the British Colonial Empire than anything else. Canada could “Brexit” itself from the Commonwealth tomorrow, and aside from untangling the connections that do exist, there is nothing QEII and Westminster could do about it.

        Canada does not owe H&M the cost of their protection. At the end of March, they are no longer public servants, but private citizens connected to the BRF by blood and marriage, who will be running a charitable foundation. They are not looking to even be gaining Canadian citizenship from what I can tell. So they are not entitled to take money out of the Canadian Federal or BC Provincal budget for protection services.

        They clearly need protection services, as most famous people do. And the BRF should pony up some funds for that – H&M are still family, Harry has not given up his place in the line to the throne – but just because they chose to land in Canada, it doesn’t mean Canada has to pony up those funds over the long term.

    • OriginalLala says:

      I’m Canadian and a fan but didn’t think we should be footing the bill. I’m actually disappointed that our gov’t lied to us about paying their security until now – several times we were told by cabinet ministers that Canadians were not paying and now it turns out we were.

      The BRF has a ton of actual private money, they can use that to pay for security.

      • Maggie says:

        No, they need to pay for their own security. If they are not working royals then the British taxpayers should not have to pay for them either. Paying for themselves would show they really are independent. They really should have dealt with these issues before they announced their split because now there is too much public drama in their private situation.

      • Erinn says:

        I do wonder if there were specific enough threats that they felt that they had to step in – and didn’t want to give any details away and make the situation worse.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The government decides who gets security, Maggie, working royal or not. No matter how much *some* want them at risk.

      • Rhys says:

        this makes me pause, the fact that Canada has been paying without admitting to its citizens. I thought it was an open info that the two countries were sharing the costs of M&H security, but if what you are saying is true, that the gov’t actually told Canadians they weren’t picking up the bill, that means this announcement is worthy nothing. As often happens with governments and use of taxes people aren’t informed where some of the money is going and only learn (maybe) afterwards. I feel Canada will still be sharing the expenses, just not publicly. Trudeau told the Queen privately he will make sure to take care of M&H security. Don’t see how he can be prevented from doing exactly that, and not having to advertise it.

      • Nahema says:

        @Original LaLA we don’t seem to agree on much on here but I totally agree with that. The Royals have enough money to help each other out and if they’re that worried, they should. They just can’t stand digging into their own pockets when they can have everything tax payer funded

      • Oh_dear says:

        I haven’t read confirmation that we are paying for their security – my understanding is that our RCMP was providing it, sending the bill to the UK and being reimbursed for it. I can see why the British government would not want the details laid out, so there could be an agreement on both sides to be vague about that aspect until everything has been settled.

        Regarding the accusation of racism – I just don’t buy that either. I am certain that Canadians would feel the same if it were Will and Kate, Beatrice and her spouse, Edward and Sophie, and even Autumn and her daughters. We pay a lot of taxes and we are pretty vocal about where they go.

    • La princesita says:

      I’m soo happy you speak up! I’m with you. They are private citizens, they aren’t canadian. It’s not racism, it’s just how it suppose to be. Happy the gouvernement take this decision.

    • MargaritasForBreakfast says:

      What would it have cost? $3 CAN per person per year? Who knew the Canadians were so petty.

      • Sharon Clark says:

        It’s really not pettiness. Canadians pay a lot in taxes, and that money is to provide for Canadian citizens and our many social services and programs. Do you know how much money $3 per person would be? Is paying for the security of a family (with the stated purpose of being financially self sufficient) more important than providing food and other services for those Canadians living beneath the poverty line? Meghan and Harry are independently wealthy, and the BRF has tremendous private financial resources. I believe most Canadians are happy to welcome them here, but not at the expense of our own citizens. This is their decision and all decisions come with consequences, both good and bad.

      • DM2 says:

        I daresay any other Commonwealth country would feel the same way about having to foot a security bill for an outrageously wealthy family member — nothing petty about it at all. Harry and Meghan arrived in Canada as full working members of the Royal Family on a temporary visit, and the RCMP has always provided security for those visits, with taxpayers picking up the bill.

        H&M were recognized as Internationally Protected Persons when they first moved here, and Canada had an obligation to provide security assistance on an as-needed basis. At the request of the Metropolitan Police, the RCMP had been providing assistance to the Met since the arrival of Harry & Meghan to Canada intermittently since November 2019. The assistance will cease in the coming weeks, in keeping with their *change in status*, i.e. no longer representing The Crown.

        And the CBC also reported that “security experts, including retired Met police protection officers, have estimated that the cost of protecting the couple in their new life could fall in the range of $10 million to $30 million a year.” That’s a good chunk of loonies.

      • Redgrl says:

        It’s not petty. It’s the principle. Wealthy people do not get to select Canada as their home and decide that we have to pay for their security costs. We are an independent country. And the $3 or $2 per person argument is a straw man. The real issue is it’s tens of millions of dollars that need to go to legitimate Canadian needs not to guard two wealthy people who decided to move here.

      • Sarah says:

        Forget it. Not worth it.

      • Your cousin Vinny says:

        Even if it’s 10c per person, that money should be prioritised towards Canadians in need. Something like one in six children are impacted by food insecurity. Why shouldn’t that “petty” $3 per person go towards tackling that, first?

        Of course they need security, but they don’t exactly need freebies, either.

        If I was a Canadian taxpayer I would say let’s feed, educate, house and protect all the Canadians in need before we start paying for something a wealthy British/American family can absolutely afford to pay for themselves.

      • Smalltown Girl says:

        You know when there are ongoing fights in multiple provinces about healthcare and education, about transit, about funding for esssentual services, it does matter. Because $3 a person is $80 million that could go towards some of those services. I don’t believe as a country it is our duty to provide security for private individuals, ones who are not even Canadian citizens.

        I do not begrudge the transition security costs and it makes sense that there had to be some interim system as they figured out where they are going forward, but I am glad that the Canadian contribution is ending.

      • carmen says:


      • Nic919 says:

        There are a lot of petty people here especially since no one actually saw their taxes go up for the few months it was covered.

        Are any of the complainers going to demand a referendum to turn Canada into a republic? Doubtful. They will just bitch because it’s Harry and Meghan.

        Lots of new names are complaining too it’s pretty obvious there are tumblr Canadians who are very “concerned”.

    • minx says:


    • Charlie says:

      I am with you Sharon. 🙂 Canadian here as well!

  7. KellyRyan says:

    There is a reference to security being provided by the UK on SussexRoyal. Canada ends security when H&M cease being International Royals. The problem again is with the BRF. No comments on the need for H&M and baby Archie to be secure. Threats have been documented.

  8. Emily Ayala says:

    I believe the British security should pay not Canada. Or they may have to pay themselves for security? Who knows. If they come to America, my tax dollars better not pay for their security either. They have absolutely nothing to do with us as Americans. Neither of them are Canadian so I agree that Canada should not pay for their security. He is Royal – she is just Royal by marriage. So the British should pay.

    • Maggie says:

      They left the RF and claimed they wanted to be financially independent so why is this still an issue? They should start supporting themselves like all other celebrity couples. They need to issue a public statement saying they won’t take money from anybody and plan to be financially independent from now on- this will surely stop all the public drama and hopefully they could finally have some peace and be able to enjoy their independence.

      • notasugarhere says:

        No matter how much you obviously want them at risk, Maggie? The government decides who gets security – and the Sussex family gets security.

      • Shirleygailgal says:

        Geez Louize, how about we let them catch their breath for a moment, eh? THEY ARE IN TRANSITION FFS

      • Maria says:

        We don’t want them at risk, but we don’t want tax paying Canadians at risk either. And Nota, the government decides who gets security, and the Canadian government decided no to pay for their security.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The UK government decides that these two get taxpayer-funded security. How that translates? Mostly likely UK paying Canada to provide the security.

      • PrincessK says:

        @Maggie The Sussexes are not a ‘celebrity couple’, unless of course you wish to dub the whole RF as a ‘celebrity family’. Since their engagement Harry and Meghan have worked tirelessly for Britain and the RF. They have been driven out by racism and jealousy. Please stop painting them as vacuous socialites.

    • Emmitt says:

      Meghan (and Archie) are American citizens. If there are active threats against their lives (and there have been), then when they come to America they need security and protection, whether that’s from the American government or not. Until I see uprisings against the current president wasting taxpayer dollars going to his golf course every week, I’m not going to get upset if American tax dollars are being used to protect two high profile American citizens with active threats against them.

      • YaGotMe says:

        The US has zero obligation to provide security for private citizens. To imply that whatever nation they decide to visit should provide security is ridiculous. And frankly something I doubt they expect .

      • Samanathalous says:

        That’s a quick NO on the US providing them security, they wanted to be independent then they should have planned to pay for their own security.

      • DarlingDiana says:

        Many American citizens are without healthcare despite working their entire lives. I should know as I am one of them. In no way do I think American tax do!lars should be spent on the security of any two wealthy private citizens with enormously wealthy family members as well excepting former presidents and their families.
        If the Sussex family or the BRF wants to set up a gofundme then by all means do so. That will let people from all over the world contribute as much as they want to the security costs. No country’s taxpayers are obligated to fund the Sussex Family’s lifestyle decisions. That should be done by them and their extended family.

      • notasugarhere says:

        DarlingDiana, that has nothing to do with what monies are used to protect high-profile targets when they visit the UK. Any high-profile targets who visit the US have US taxpayer security in general. When W&K visit the US on a tour? US Secret Service are a major part of their security detail.

        That is completely separate from Emperor BabyFists and his repeated attacks on healthcare coverage.

    • jj says:

      If I was Canadian, I would not want my tax dollars used for their security. It’s not like they can’t afford it like other celebrities. If they choose to live in America, I definitely would be against it. We have enough problems and don’t even have enough test kits for coronavirus, so what little that is not going to build the stupid wall needs to be used for underfunded programs.

      • Bella DuPont says:

        If your ridiculous government stopped spending astronomical amounts stockpiling pointless weapons, you would have all the coronavirus testing kits you need. 😒

  9. Ainsley7 says:

    The Queen doesn’t get a say in who gets security and who doesn’t. That being said, only working Royals get tax-payer funded security. Everyone else in the family who feels the need to have security has to pay for it privately. So, I’m pretty sure that the government will use that as a justification to make them pay for their own security. Hopefully, they can negotiate their security costs the same way they negotiated becoming financially independent. Something they will work towards, but have it payed for in the meantime.

    • Nic919 says:

      And they are working royals until March 31,2020 which is when the canadian government said it would stop paying for it. So all these “Canadians” who never post that suddenly are concerned about their taxes have nothing to worry.
      Until Canada stops having the Queen as head of state, all royals can be covered for security when here. Even Andrew.

  10. HK9 says:

    As a Canadian, I think the RCMP will always be protecting them along with their official security detail, the powers that be have just arranged that the taxpayers aren’t paying for it. When you’re serious about security, the less you know the better which is what they’ve done. We’re a part of the Commonwealth and nothing can happen to them while their here and it won’t. Their neighbourhood and the airspace above will always be monitored.

    • Anners says:

      Yes to this. I don’t mind RCMP protecting them – they should, especially now while things are in turmoil. But the funding should come out of Queen Petty’s decorative handbag.

    • Pineapple says:

      Thank you HK9 … finally some sense. They NEED security. They always will.

      We are part of The Commonwealth people. That is why Harry and Meghan are here. (Well, also because our Country is amazing!) They are here and worthy of protection, period.

      It will literally be 1$ or 2$ per Canadian. It’s a friggin’ TINY, TINY, TINY drop in the bucket of our insane taxes. Wanna complain about something sensible .. try the cost of FOOD!! I can’t even buy a loaf of bread for my share of Meg and Harry’s security costs. For gosh sakes people READ and don’t fall for the racism!! She’s HERE because of RACISM!!!!!

      • Sharon Clark says:

        Pineapple, I’m confused by your comments. I’ve not seen any references to racism as the basis for Canadians not wanting to provide security, so I think throwing that out there is an unfair and baseless accusation. It has never been said they aren’t welcome and wanted, just that their independent decision to move here shouldn’t automatically result in millions being spent on them annually.
        Also, you reference the high Canadian taxes and high price of food, but then reiterate an extra dollar or two isn’t a big deal. Unless our taxes are raised to cover the additional funds their security would require (10 to 30 million per year), that money would be diverted from other things. It’s not coming from nowhere. This could potentially lead to even higher food prices, further education cuts, social programs being cancelled, etc.
        I fully agree they need security, but I will never agree it’s on Canadian citizens to fund.

    • notasugarhere says:

      That makes sense to me. The funding will come out of the UK, might be used to pay Canadian forces to do the protection, but they will have security.

      The haters on here, tumblr, and twitter screaming about this? They’re the reason why the Sussex family will always have taxpayer security. Because of active threats from the crazy bowels of SM.

    • Jaded says:

      As a fellow Canadian I agree that the RCMP will be quietly involved and just as quietly sending their bill to Charles. The Sussexes will likely beef up security by hiring extras from a private company and cover that portion themselves. Unfortunately they aren’t just your average run-of-the-mill celebrities but members of the royal family and, as such, the target for all kinds of unhinged threats from stalkers to terrorists.

  11. Thinking says:

    It is just really hard to sell it to Canadians. One in 5 children here live under the poverty line. These people have a very large income. Even if they end up paying it themselves they will still have way more income than the average Canadian. They maybe should have done some sort of visits or work in Canada while the taxpapyers were paying their security. Instead they only flew to the states to do paid gigs and all over the comments sections in Canadian media people are wondering why we paid for their security. We technically have to as we are considered part of the commonwealth (the royal family is expensive). But as they no longer are “working” royals they can pay for their secuirty. Everyone is going on about how they are a billion dollar brand and if this is true and the met is still footing the bill this will make the British really upset. Their poverty levels are worse than ours :(. I worry about them. They have to be careful for what they ask for in this climate of extreme unemployment. People are really suffering in Britian and it is toxic over there. They are getting really tired of the Royal Expenses. I dont blame M and H for leaving. People are getting really nasty about the royal family in general.

    • Jaded says:

      Actually about 40% of Canadians don’t pay income tax and get a variety of rebates. On average, two of every five Canadian households do not pay anything towards federally and provincially funded expenses such as health care, education, community and social services, national defense, public safety and even the good old Canada Revenue Agency. Plus they get rebates on everything from GST/HST to child benefits to energy. One household out of every five pays much more than 70% of all of those costs and that household would be in the top 70% of income earners.

      • Rosalee says:

        Who are the 40 percent? This should be interesting since I have not heard of this privileged group of Canadians

      • Rosalee says:

        The article said, “effectively” – low incomes Canadians are often the target of conservative fish wrappers such as the Financial Post. Low income Canadians work longer hours and contribute by working in the service sector and provide vital services such as child care. Child poverty is increasing not decreasing despite the lovely press releases issued by the federal government. The cost of living is increasing substantially I see the impact at the food bank the face of food bank clients are not who you assume. Perhaps if you want actual statistics read the Child Poverty Report Card released by Campaign 2000 and stop reading conservative crap

      • Jaded says:

        That “privileged group” you refer to is made up of many people. I happen to be one of them because, as a retiree, I make below what is considered the level at which people start paying taxes.

        There is no reason to be so snarky and condescending about what papers I choose to read or what I’ve actually read and know about poverty in Canada. I volunteer at a halfway house for the impoverished, drug addicted and mentally challenged so I see it every day.

        Take your sarcasm and vitriol to another site, we don’t generally tolerate these kinds of responses here.

    • Nic919 says:

      Have you donated to a food bank recently? Or done anything to help the ones living under the poverty line? Have you lobbied to raise the minimum wage in each province?

      Getting upset over a few months of security is pretty disingenuous unless you have actually done something to help others.

  12. Mia says:

    It boggles my mind that people think the Canadian government should pay for The security of private citizens. The BRF should pay obviously. Lastly, this should have been thoroughly discussed before Meghan and Harry decided to become private citizens too.

    • Shirleygailgal says:

      and it probably would have if there had been no leaks. I don’t think this is rolled out the way they had hoped, and they are being punished … but their lives should not be at risk because the ‘Cartel’ has whipped up so much hate against them…that part is NOT their fault

    • Pineapple says:

      Mia .. that’s the thing, this situation is not NORMAL. This will take time to sort out. All the screaming about security is so jumping the gun. These things take time.

  13. tempest prognosticator says:

    The UK should at least pay for a majority of H&M’s security. H&M have the means to pitch-in for the rest.

  14. TheOtherSarah says:

    I don’t know why people act like they’re going to be completely without security, from April 1st. The Knowles-Carter, the Clooneys, the Jolie-Pitt when Brad and Angie were together, they all have or had private security, don’t they? It can be done for wealthy people.
    They are both privately wealthy, especially Harry, and they are about to make some serious $$$$ if they hit the conference/private speeches circuit. They did not make the decision to step down lightly, I think they are prepared, and I’m sure they will be fine.

    • bluemoonhorse says:

      JMO but considering the Royal Family I wonder if paying for private security with access to information about threats might be a better way to go. Some sort of hybrid agreement.

      • Jaded says:

        That’s exactly what I think too – I mentioned it in a comment above that it will likely be a combination of RCMP (bills sent to Charles) and a private security force that they will pay for out of their own pocket.

      • bluemoonhorse says:

        @Jaded There was a reason why Diana distrusted them and I don’t see that reason going away with H&M. Get private security which can be fired, and work with receiving threat info. That continues to stop the leaks.

  15. 10KTurtle says:

    I don’t think anybody is arguing that they don’t need security. I think people have legitimate questions about why public funds should be used to provide security for private citizens. The Queen & Prince Charles have more than enough funds to cover it, but just like renovations on their private residences, they’re not going to volunteer for it. I think rational people understand that Harry & Meghan are going to be son & DIL of the King of England some day and the inherent risks involved with that can’t be helped, but I think if I was a U.K. tax payer the current optics of “we’re not gonna work for you but you still have to pay” would feel insulting. Charles or Betty Petty need to be protecting their own family (I know- big HAH). It’s just one more detail they should have planned for ahead of time.
    Also, this seems like a lot of stress on the RPOs and their own families. I guess they know what they’re signing up for, like military people who know they will be deployed, but did they know they’d be flying back and forth from Canada every two weeks when they signed up?

    • Amy Too says:

      Maybe that’s why the estimated cost is so high. They’re taking into account the travel expenses and overtime pay, plus any “deployment” bonuses for British based security personnel. I bet this might also be an example of people overcharging the government just because they can. You hear about the government paying $1000 per office chair and stuff like that. Contractors just charge them more because they know they’ll pay for it. Could that be happening with the royal family’s security costs? Because it seems like the BRF pays WAY MORE for their security than any other celebrity or business person does. I doubt that the Jolie-Pitt family paid up to $30,000/year for their security. Maybe if the Sussexes go with a private security firm, it would be significantly less expensive. However, if they’re forced to use the RF’s security people, then the RF should be paying for that cost.

  16. milly says:

    The guy who runs Royal Foibles and has some connections to the BRF said a week or so ago that the Men in Gray’s plan is to bankrupt Meg and Harry so that they (Harry) is forced to comeback.

    I don’t belive that the Canadians shouldn’t pay for their security or the British public since they left by choice. But Charles should be responsible for paying the costs not Meg and Harry, at least for a couple years.

    • 10KTurtle says:

      That is absolutely petty enough to sound plausible.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Don’t believe anything that racist troll RoyalFoibles writes.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @nota – Royal Foibles may be a racist but he seems very well connected.

        I would believe Royal Foibles before I would believe the Daily Fail but that is not really saying much.

      • notasugarhere says:

        There is nothing on RoyalFoibles that any of us couldn’t have written. He has no inside information.

    • Dutch says:

      Charles is already footing the bills, I am curious why he should also be responsible for security?

      • Emmitt says:

        1. Because Charles, his mother and his other son are responsible for whipping up the hatred against Harry & his family to the point of them needing security

        2. Because Charles is the future king, Harry & his family are high profile kidnapping/terrorism targets.

        3. For this reason alone, I think the UK Government will be footing the security bill that probably wouldn’t be as high as it will be if Charles, his mother & his other son hadn’t fomented hatred against Harry and his family.

      • Andrew’s Nemesis says:

        @Dutch Because of Charles’ inaction and absolute failure to protect his son, daughter in law and wife from viciousness inside the RF and outside it, he bloody well owes them

      • Dutch says:

        Ok — so opinion based on gossip.

      • kara says:

        The BRF has not whipped up hatred toward M and H. The tabloid press has. No government should be paying for the security of two independently wealthy private citizens, point-blank. Charles probably will and should since Harry’s highest risk are due to him being the son of a future monarch.

    • PrincessK says:

      KP definitely do not want to see the Sussexes succeed, no doubt about that. They want them to fail completely.

  17. Eyfalia says:

    I fully understand that nobody wants to pay for their security. But I admit I am very scared, I don’t want to go through a morning again like that one morning 23 years ago, when I switched on the telly and had to learn that Diana was killed in a car crash. I am already in that state, that I quickly check with the news, when I have to get up at night, to see if something had happened to Meghan and Archie.
    Of course they have not worked the security out completely, they thought they would be half time working Royals for a while. I have no idea how these gated properties are handled. Maybe somebody can explain.
    And the tabloids are exaggerating the costs immensly. They really want to get these three harmed.

    • Andrew’s Nemesis says:

      Because they’d be able to make serious coin if anything happened to that lovely little family. Their readership would peak; they could run tens and hundreds of articles for months, interview friends, RRs, biographers, security experts and detractors, and set the whole circle in motion again every year on the anniversary of the terrible event. These people are merciless and avaricious, dealing in tattered lives. I’m not sure we can even call them ‘people’.

  18. Guest with Cat says:

    I think what bugs me about the whole discussion is the way the commentary has this tone like the individual taxpayer is getting handed the entire bill to be paid in one lump sum by them personally.

    The rage and indignation needs to tone down a few notches because Harry and Meghan aren’t a-holes trying to steal money from personal piggy banks. They’re nice people caught in a nasty bind and trying to work through it with respect to everyone. But the press keeps portraying them as having the most evil intentions.

    It’s pretty much only on this forum that I see people explaining calmly how the tax burden pulls resources away from already straining budgets. Everywhere else there’s a bit of hysteria on the subject that I never see regarding the public security costs for other government figures or resident/visiting dignitaries.

    But given that they are in a weird and unique position, I think at some point the Sussexes are going to have to find out how other famous people handle security privately. I think the problem they’re facing is that they sincerely need the kind of security the families of Bezos and Bill Gates require. But they don’t have the financial resources on their own to pay for that.

    I think the Queen should sell off some of the art or jewelry she’s hoarding to pay for their security until the controversy around them dies down. Ok that’s tongue in cheek. But I do think it’s on her to protect her own family. Despite how everything has been spun otherwise, Harry has been loyal and respectful to her.

    • Guest with Cat says:

      Let me reply to my own comment here to clarify I have no issues or problems with the article here at Celebitchy or the discussions here. I’m talking about the usual crap remarks elsewhere on social media. The usual manufactured outrage against the Sussexes for existing.

      People here have been pretty reasonable in explaining their opinions on the subject.

    • Dutch says:

      This may be the most measured and respectful to both sides post I have read on the issue. I agree with you that they need security and I agree that the family, rather than the institution should pay for it. I don’t believe the UK taxpayers should have to foot the bill because of the non-working status, but I absolutely agree the family has an obligation.
      The degree to which is always going to be debated — they proved during the dating period that the ability to go dark and move in silence is absolutely achievable. Which begs the question then, if someone else is footing the security bill, should it be for the out in front couple looking to create a brand and earn millions? Or the private family looking for peace and security?

  19. Andrew’s Nemesis says:

    The bill is 100% the Royal Family’s responsibility. Not only because Harry is 6th and Archie 7th in line to the throne, but because had the Queen, Prince Charles etc put out a single statement telling the press to back off, for the crazies, racist haters, extremists to back off, they would have not been so emboldened to make their threats in plain sight. And the Press has been similarly emboldened: they revel in viciousness. The Wail’s daily articles are akin to the Three Minute Hate against Goldstein practised in ‘1984’. And the more the Press can spin the narrative that Meghan, Harry and Archie should be ‘punished’ for escaping the abuse (in my opinion M&H should never have agreed to ‘pay back’ the Frogmore money: it came from the Queen’s grant and the house was uninhabitable when it was ‘gifted’ to them), the bolder the crazies will become.
    Let us hope that somehow, somehow, at the eleventh hour, the Firm will do the right thing. Or we’ll end up with another Diana situation – and the monarchy will fall. If they can’t act in M&H’s interests, maybe they can act in their own

    • BayTampaBay says:

      @Andrew’s Nemesis – There is no reason why the Sussexes should have to repay the renovation costs on Frogmore Cottage as they do not own it. What they should pay is rent (or buy a 100 year lease as Andrew & Edward did) for residing in a Crown Property as non-working royals.

      • Andrew’s Nemesis says:

        @BayTampaBay Ah, but you see, that’s a REASONABLE suggestion; therefore it’s unlikely to ever be taken up.
        Will Andrew be asked for rent money, I wonder…?

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Yes! Andrew does pay a kind of rent on Royal Lodge. After the Queen Mother died, Andrew purchased a 100 year lease (I think it was a 100 years) on Royal Lodge, had to personally foot the bill for some of the cosmetic upgrades on Royal Lodge and is responsible for a percentage of the normal maintenance cost.

    • Tessa says:

      If anything happens to them of course the family will be blamed for it and the royals will try to blame them. But after the Diana situation, it would be dire for the royals if the “spare” and his family are in any serious danger and something happens.

  20. Nola says:

    Taxpayers not wanting to foot the security costs in Canada is not the same thing as saying they don’t need security or that you hope they’re hurt. Those are very different and distinct issues, and should not be conflated with who should ultimately pay for the security.

    • Becks1 says:

      If you’re referring to my initial comment – I assure you that many of the responses I saw on twitter WERE about them not having security – it wasn’t about Canadians paying for it, people immediately jumped to the conclusion that they weren’t going to have security, period. Like I said, there’s a difference between not wanting to pay for it and not acknowledging that they need it.

      • notasugarhere says:

        This, Becks1. The haters are all over SM gleeful at the idea that the Sussex family would be harmed. They WANT Meghan and Archie harmed. In fact, they want to do it themselves.

        One of those tumblr extremists detailed on SM how she would physically attack Meghan when she was expecting. Others online cheered her on. She flew to NYC, stalked some of Meghan’s friends, showed up outside the hotel with her face covered to avoid recognition. She was in Windsor the day Archie was born too, showing how close she could get to Frogmore.

        The tumblr people aren’t just wallowing in their hate online. They are taking physical action to harm Meghan and Archie. The more they do it, the more security protection the Sussex family will have.

        No matter how much the tumblrs and twitters complain, the UK government will pay for the security for this family no matter where they live. It will all be hidden in the budget so no one sees it,

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I have seen and read threats against Meghan on SM but have not seen or read about threats against Archie.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Plenty of threats against him all over SM, both before he was born and after.

      • Tessa says:

        ANd some say he does not exist. There was a photo of him being held by Meghan and he was called a “doll” because “no baby” would be held that way. The poor child got picked on too.

    • Nic919 says:

      And starting April 1,2020 canadian taxpayers won’t be covering it. So why all the new names here pretending to be canadian and concerned?

  21. Whatnow says:

    Genuine question here.

    What are the estimated costs per year for Harry and Megan’s security?

    I despise the thought of either them or Archie being injured and can’t help but think that all of these image conscious politicians and members of the royal family would not be able to do the I told you so if something happened to them.

    It’s all good in theory for the Royal Family to say Harry and Meghan wanted to be financially independent but no one would ever forgive them if something were to happen to any member of Harry and Meghan’s family.

    It’s early and I think I’m not making a lot of sense but I’m just trying to say crap would hit the fan and if anything were to happen to them

  22. nicky says:

    am convinced Harry family William Charles Queenie wants something horrible to happen to the Sussex’s Ik they will eventually pull security the evilness never stops

  23. BUBS says:

    I think H and M will always be provided with security in one capacity or another. But security is a sensitive subject and there’s no need to expound on it, seeing as they are both high profile personalities (and targets). So with this report, people can get a rest. Best believe though, H and M will always have security. Even Diana had royal protection officers after her divorce…she just chose not to use them all the time. The RF will cover the cost…as they should!

  24. L4frimaire says:

    I don’t see the advantage of revealing this information other than to declare open season on them. This can be resolved quietly. It’s like declaring open season on them. There seem to be some people so crazed with hate that they would love something violent to happen against the Sussexes, especially Meghan. I seriously think if they could, the Royals and the tabloid press would issue a fatwa against the Sussexes. This is going too far and to even consider compromising their safety is playing a dangerous game. This should be confidential and not open to public discussion. Would not be surprised if they are switching residences.

  25. joanne says:

    As a Canadian, I don’t think we should fund all their security. I believe it’s the responsibility of Great Britain as Harry is still a member of the royal family. That said, the RCMP are always going to provide some protection. There are credible threats to Harry and Megan. The role of the RCMP is to keep all people safe. They will assess the level of threat to them and act accordingly. They will not refuse because Harry and Megan are not Canadian. They will provide protection as they would for any other person in Canada. Because of the level of threats if it costs extra, I’m happy to pay my portion as I would for any other person.

    • Le4Frimaire says:

      Also their safety or security isn’t in a vacuum. If someone was really determined to hurt them or cause harm and havoc, do you think
      thry would be concerned with innocent bystanders who got in the way. Would you want to be in a crowd with them with no security around? It’s not so simple. Anyway, as the Sussexes have said, they will not be providing further details on security.

    • Nic919 says:

      As of April 1, 2020 Canadians won’t be covering it. Prior to that they were considered working royals and because Canada still has the Queen as head of state, they were obligated to.

      If you have an issue for that then start a referendum to turn Canada into a republic. But I bet you will do nothing and have only been “concerned” about this.

  26. Catherine says:

    There were always whispers that if Diana had used her protection team, her accident would not have happened. That being said, the BRF cannot afford another situation like that. So, of course they will provide PPOs. However, I bet Prince Charles pays for it privately. Just to end this conversation.

    • L84Tea says:

      That’s where my thinking is too. Because Charles and the queen both know that if they end up with another Diana situation, they are done. The monarchy will be toast. They are lucky as hell that they eventually managed to crawl back out of the rubble that Diana’s death buried them under. Lucky as hell.

      And you know why the public gave them the pass that they did??–because of William and Harry. I think the public felt a huge protectiveness to them both in the wake of Diana’s death and has enjoyed cheering them on over the years as they grew up. Suddenly, people are all riled up right now. BUT, could imagine the reaction if something actually did happen to one of them (Harry, Meg, Archie), or all of them?? There is no way the BRF could survive it twice.

  27. lanne says:

    Their security should, and will, be provided by the Royal Family in all likelihood. It’s in the RF’s own best interest for the RF to pay for their security. It does not benefit the RF to have the Sussexes kidnapped and held for ransom. The Sussexes are high profile targets due to Harry and Archie’s place in the royal succession, and the RF takes that shit seriously. Not only that, a kidnapping would be a security risk for the British government. A kidnapping would be distastrous financially and publically for the UK AND the RF. It could open their finances to scrutiny in paying a ransom. If Meghan or Archie were god forbid killed, it’s likely Doria, or even the horrid Markles could sue for wrongful death in US court. Diana’s death happened before social media. In the social media age, it would be an even bigger catastrophe than it was then. The death of the Sussexes would have international implications as Meghan and Archie are US citizens. I can’t imagine any security expert allowing security to be withdrawn from the Sussexes despite what any Grey Men or petty royals want. Can the RF survive the deaths of 2 globally beloved members in 20 years? Already, the scrutiny is beginning over why the Sussexes left. Imagine how their deaths would open up scrutiny on the whole family. People here were talking about The Thing that may have aided in driving the Sussexes away–unsavory financial behavior, tabloid leaks, possible infidelity. No one will hold back on any of that stuff if the Sussexes die. Perhaps, thinking of his own mother, Harry has made plans for spilling the beans in case any harm happens to him or his wife.

  28. aquarius64 says:

    Betty Windsor will pay the short fall with personal funds because if harm comes to the Sussexes the blowback will be fierce on the BRF and the country where they are.

  29. Middle of the road says:

    If ANYTHING happens to them blood will be on the queens hands.

    • L84Tea says:

      I said something similar above in #27. The monarchy would never survive if something happens. They would absolutely be finished, and Charles and Liz know it.

  30. KellyRyan says:

    I agree with NOTA, “Absolutely, they need protection.” One of the Commonwealth country’s is the Bahamas. Two islands in the Bahamas, Grand Cayman and Turks and Caicos, both known for offshore secret accounts. I have traveled to Grand Cayman to scuba dive. Small island, with tall buildings, financial institutions. If I was a Brit I’d insist Queenie and Chuckie cover all security for a minimum of five years. The BRF has the money.

    The wealthy owner of the home they are staying in has security costs covered for his property. If H&M purchase a home in a gated community in Southern California security costs would be covered by their HOA, (Home Owner’s Association).

    • L4frimaire says:

      Please check your geography. I know for a fact that neither Grand Cayman nor Turks and Caicos are a part of the Bahamas. They are both British overseas territories while the Bahamas is an independent Commonwealth country. Bahamas is an archipelago of different islands, but those two countries aren’t part of it. However, they , especially Caymans, do a lot of offshore banking/ shell companies, as does the Bahamas. Fun fact, Turks and Caicos used to be self governed, with elections.The Brits stepped in and decided to rule directly and get rid of the prime minister because of “ corruption “, which just happened to coincide with a major economic boom and growth. They have elections now but very shady and colonial.

      • Olenna says:

        Straight from your source, KellyRyan:
        “The Bahamas consists of a chain of islands spread out over some 800 kilometres (500 mi) in the Atlantic Ocean, located to the east of Florida in the United States, north of Cuba and Hispaniola and west of the British Overseas Territory of the Turks and Caicos Islands (with which it forms the Lucayan archipelago).”

        “The Turks and Caicos Islands… are a British Overseas Territory consisting of the larger Caicos Islands and smaller Turks Islands, two groups of tropical islands in the Lucayan Archipelago of the Atlantic Ocean and northern West Indies.”

        The Cayman Islands …is an autonomous British Overseas Territory in the western Caribbean Sea. The 264-square-kilometre (102-square-mile) territory comprises the three islands of Grand Cayman, Cayman Brac and Little Cayman…”.

    • Dutch says:

      security by…HOA??????????

    • kara says:

      Their security requirements are not going to be covered by an HOA’s gated walls.

  31. Montrealaise says:

    Canadian here. The issue is not whether the Sussexes require security – as high-profile public figures they obviously do – but who should pay for it. Canada has legislation which requires us to provide protection to people deemed ”international protected persons” including foreign dignitaries and working members of the royal family, but not including celebrities. Since H & M want to be private citizens and will no longer be working members of the BRF, the government has no obligation to fund their security and I can think of no justification for doing so.

    • ME says:

      Totally agree.

    • PrincessK says:

      Wrong. Harry and Meghan wanted to be minor royals, not private citizens, and carry out work on behalf of the Queen not private citizens but they were not allowed that option. So stop pouring blame on them.

      • Dutch says:

        It doesn’t really matter what they wanted. As of April 1 they will be private citizens. There’s no blame there, it is just a fact.

    • Nic919 says:

      And as of April 1, 2020 the canadian government won’t be paying for it. So what is your point? Until Canada becomes a republic that’s the deal for all royals.

  32. blue36 says:

    The tabloids should pay for their security, that way everyone wins (except the tabloids lol)

  33. RoyalBlue says:

    The Sussexes can’t just hire private bodyguards to be their security like how Beyoncé would do it. That’s not how any of this works. They security are government employees and special agents linked in with Scotland Yard, Interpol, m15/16 the RCMP and the whole nine yards.

    I believe they will get quietly the protection they need because this is not a public matter for discussion. We are not privy to the threats they may have received or the clear
    And present danger they face.

  34. Amy K says:

    This is a complex issue. The cost of protection is a big issue—in Canada and the UK. I wonder if the clarification regarding the Sussexes’ change of status was a prelude to this statement from the RCMP. As nonworking royals, I don’t foresee the MET continuing indefinitely to provide protection while H&M are abroad. IMO, this is the severe punishment of all. Losing “Royal” status has huge implications.

  35. Pineapple says:

    So my comment doesn’t show on my home computer but does show on my cell phone? Odd? Is that normal? I think not.

  36. L4frimaire says:

    This is such Putin playbook, manipulating news like KP manipulates their Instagram numbers.I bet this was all worked out before hand and that was already the agreement in place, but once again, like the staff firings, and use of the word royal, the press trots it out to cause chaos because can’t have Harry getting any positive attention. Wait until Meghan shows up. They’ll probably need snipers on the roofs.

    • Nic919 says:

      Of course it is. So many “concerned canadian taxpayers” coming here to be outraged. Their taxes didn’t go up and far more waste is spent elsewhere. You have to be very petty and small minded to be mad about a few months of security for a family that has had many death threats made against them.

  37. Gayle says:

    Net worth of Meghan and Harry 30 million, net worth of an average Canadian $680 000.00. This is not about Canadians being racist or wanting to Meg and Harry hurt. Its about not taking money from people working hard to make ends meet and giving it to people who can afford to take care of themselves. We are talking about reverse Robin Hood here and you can’t understand why some Canadians might be a little upset by this??

  38. Whatsinaname says:

    I am for keeping them safe. I don’t care what the costs are. I hope that the BRF steps up and just reimburses Canada. They really won’t be able to pay for their own private security. Harry is not a billionaire. And I would worry a private security firm would mess something up. You do need MI6 and others involved so that they can actually discuss real probably threats and how to plan around it. Honest to God I wish Harry and Meghan would say forget this and disappear and pop back up in 20 years with 3 kids, 5 dogs, and possibly 2 cats.

  39. JB says:

    I find this whole thing fascinating. I am sure their good friends like Serena Williams and the Clooneys (not sure if they are super close) already have helped sort out how to deal with security. It is almost as if there is no understanding of how wealthy Harry is, and what that level of wealth can afford. I think this issue is the first in a long line of how petty can Harry’s family or origin be, how much can Meghan be slandered and what else can the very petty and ugly British Press hang on them. I can also very clearly imagine Meghan creating a spreadsheet of costs – all costs – of moving on. None of this – from the not using the royal on – can be a surprise to Harry.

  40. Long time lurker – As I Canadian, I am willing for a portion of my tax dollars to keep them safe here. As they are a targeted family it’s preferable to contributing to their possible injury or death through not providing for their security.

  41. Karmak says:

    I’m American. I don’t blame the Canadians for disagreeing to pay for Harry and Meghan security. Most Americans will feel the same if they moved to the USA. That being said….. We all know the British public have been up in arms about Harry and Meghan receiving taxpayers funded security.
    And we all know the Royal Family should help Harry with security until he can get his on private team in place. Harry, Meghan and Archie will always need protection. More advanced protection then a superstar celebrity.
    They literally have terrorist threats against them. One man is already in prison for threatening Harry’s life.

    I believe The Royal Family is going to use this security issue as leverage to keep Harry under their control in some way.

    Harry and Meghan can do what Diana did and agree not to have British protection. They could move to USA. Buy a home in a high security gated community. Install ADT or CPI , an electric fence and cameras (no Ring cameras….. The Royal Family can spy on them). Harry can take Meghan to the gun range for some badass John Wick style weapons lessons. Hire one on the many high power security firms we have in the USA. Many of these firms are ex military special forces. You know They will give Harry a discount just to have him as a client. The prestige of protecting Harry and Meghan would get them more business. If there is ever any danger to Harry and Family…. not only will Harry have a weapon but all neighbors and his security team will be lock and loadaed. Welcome to Good old USA.. Now do the Royal Family really want this to happen? Because Americans will keep Harry and Meghan safe. They may not like how we do it.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Diana had taxpayer security. She chose to dismiss them at times. One of those times was the night she died.

  42. Janey says:

    As a Canadian, I am glad that we will not pay for their security. In addition, if they want to live here, they should not assume that they are exempt from the same immigration requirements as anyone else. I do not know whether part of their exit strategy was an assumption that we would pay for them, but polls have shown that there is no appetite by Canadians to pay, as much as we are in favour of the monarchy

  43. Alicia says:

    I don’t think that Canadian taxpayers should pay for security if they are private citizens. That being said – they definitely need security – but that should be the responsibility of either the UK government or the Royal Family.

    • L4frimaire says:

      What exactly do they mean by security? Is this referring to bodyguards? Obviously, like everyone else in Canada, if someone is lurking in the bushes outside their house or sending them threats, that is a police matter that local police will handle, same as for every one else. If I visit a place and get mugged,I assume police will help even if I’m not from there. I guess this is referring to high level security and intelligence. If there are serious threats, that will involve local law enforcement, but day to day personal security will be handled privately with whatever they worked out with Royal family.

      • ME says:

        Well it was reported the RCMP was camped out in front of their house on Vancouver Island 24 hours a day for the past 3 months. That costs A LOT of money. However, Meghan and Harry can afford to pay for security. If anyone has an issue with this why don’t they go start a gofundme page for Harry and Meghan lol. Tax payers should not be paying for this. Even 3 months was too long if you ask me. There are plenty of rich and famous people who have excellent security.

      • L4frimaire says:

        @ME, you’re deliberately missing my point. Whether or not they have privately funded security, that does not absolve any government if providing basic police protections that everyone gets, as needed. If they have to file restraining orders, or someone tries to break into their house, that is local police jurisdiction. If there is an incident, whatever security they end up with will end up working with the local law enforcement. It’s not like if something happened, Canadians will say sorry, we can’t deal with any of it, get Westminster on it. Maybe they won’t be parked outside their house but to assume the police aren’t monitoring what happens is just ridiculous. Also, if they live in Canada and buy property there, I assume they will be paying taxes like other residents do. Obviously if there are high level threats, that’s another thing entirely and may involve intelligence services. No one here knows what’s really going on and don’t know how the sausage is made. This is just red meat being thrown.

      • notasugarhere says:

        ME, they will receive UK taxpayer funded security. The government decides who gets security, and this family are high-risk targets.

  44. Pineapple says:

    ARPEGGI … we are not in india, Meg and Harry are not Badawi. Who are WE to determine threat levels???????????

    Do you not see how insane this whole issue has gotten. The “average” human can not speak intelligently to “threat levels”, period.

    I have an idea, let’s leave this to security experts.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      No one is arguing that there are no security threats: There are many security threats.

      The discussion, which has been quite entertaining as CB always is, revolves around who should pay for the much needed security. J. Trudeau has stated Canada will NOT pay and most Canadians seem to agree with him.

      • DarlingDiana says:

        Trudeau is just following the political winds. If Canadians favored giving protection, he would. In fact, I think Trudeau thought that that would be the case. Since it isn’t he has had to change position.

  45. Dri says:

    How wacky that the same ppl who want them out (Royal Family) will provide their security. I wouldn’t want to be in a flight with them, or a limo, if you know what I mean… 🙁

  46. Lizzie says:

    Hmm. In the US the president, wife, children and grandchildren all have secret service protection. I assume the threat of kidnapping and forcing the president to take actions he/she would not want to. Please correct if I have this wrong.
    I thought the rule would be similar in UK, monarchs direct descendants + spouses would have security, her children and Charles children, Williams children. I can see adding other working royals.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Ex-Presidential children only have security until the age of 18.

      I knew one of Amy Carter’s Secret Service Protection Agents.

      • 10KTurtle says:

        That’s good to know. I thought we were on the hook for all Donald’s grown children for the next 75 years.

      • Amy Too says:

        But Charles or Elizabeth aren’t ex-monarchs. As long as either of them are alive, Harry and Meghan will be the children or grandchildren of the monarch, and after that, the only sibling of the monarch until William dies, whether or not Harry is a working royal. So I would assume they would be protected that whole time as the immediate family of the various monarchs. As long as one of their family members is the monarch (so their entire lives) they could be kidnapped or threatened to be harmed in order to get the U.K. government to do, not do, or pay something. He was being protected because of who his family is and the risk they would be taking by not protecting him. There will be a constant threat their entire lives because of who they are and the life-long nature of being the monarch.

        An ex president can’t be made to hand over the nuclear codes, or declare war on a country, or to pardon a criminal’s sentence once he’s left office. So it makes sense that his family wouldn’t need the same level of security for the rest of their lives.

        He’s not being protected because the job of being a working royal is a super important one that only he can do and there would be chaos and anarchy if he was killed or kidnapped and couldn’t do that job, he’s being protected because it would put the U.K. government and monarch at risk if he were threatened or kidnapped. I wish people would realize that part: it doesn’t matter if he’s a working royal or not, that’s not why he was being protected.

      • DarlingDiana says:

        Even all of the current monarch’s grandchildren do not have RPO’s. The York Princesses are just as much The Queen’s grandchildren as Harry is and they don’t get full-time protection. Zara and Peter Phillips don’t either. Anyway, H&M will never be without protection. Someone will foot the bill. I don’t know why people are behaving as if the little family of three will be taking turns keeping watch. It’s ridiculous. Taxpayers in Canada and America shouldn’t and won’t pay. The BRF, Harry, and to whatever extent they can the UK taxpayer will work this out. It seems so simple.

  47. Jennifer Cobinah says:

    I don’t understand why there seems to be confusion about why The Sussexes need security, weren’t two people just sentenced for sending death threats to Harry? Everyone around the world knows who the Duke and Duchess are doesn’t that increase the danger they are under? Wasn’t there a threat to little George not too long ago? Are people really willing to risk bystanders getting harmed, because they feel snippy about Harry and Meghan? Celebrities can disappear for months at a time, Harry and Meghan would be able to, if the info wasn’t being leaked.

  48. Awkward symphony says:

    I now want them to ditch the dtchy and security completely and sit down for a Panorama interview just like Diana. These sick filth cant even think past their hate for the Sussexs and see how what’s happening to harry is precedent to what Charlotte and louise will have to do!!!what sick family

    • DarlingDiana says:

      I don’t want this to happen. It helped in large part to paint Diana as manipulative and as working to undermine her ex-husband, the entire BRF, and the legacies awaiting her sons. That interview and the Diana Her Story book created so much tabloid frenzy that it is a wonder that she survived it…thinking on it, she kind of didnt. That’s why I don’t want them to do it. If keeping the BRF at a distance makes them happy then fine, so that but do not provide fresh fodder for the fire.

  49. Katie says:

    They are now private citizens, and should cover the costs of their security (although I do think the BRF should in effect pay for their private security). I realize they are likely high-risk individuals. However, many celebrities are. Does the Canadian government cover the cost of Angelina’s security, or her children’s security, when she visits? Does the US government cover the costs? If there is an immediate and identifiable threat, of course local police forces must and do assume responsibility. But this is not an ongoing protection program.

    • Karen says:

      Why should the BRF pay security for people who couldn’t wait to leave the royal family? They won’t be royal anymore, so the BRF won’t have any obligations towards them, nor would any government of the Commonwealth, nor the US government. They’re not representing the Queen, not working within the royal family – you give nothing, you get nothing. Beatrice & Eugenie don’t get any security, and I’m sure Prince Andrew’s got a lot of enemies at the moment, but they’re not working members. The private citizen royals don’t get state security.

      • Guest with Cat says:

        Karen, they weren’t trying to leave the Royal Family. The end result is this, yes, but the original goal that they stated clearly point by point was not indicative of a desire to completely leave. That is only what the tabloid press has deliberately misconstrued the situation to be, because it suits their purposes to do so, so please stop depending on them for information to shape your views. There’s a lawsuit against the most virulent of the tabloids, so that is an extra incentive for the entire royal Rota press pack to be especially ugly and sly.

        Harry and Meghan were trying to leave a toxic environment that was impossible for any normal person to remain mentally healthy in and were trying to find a workaround to free them from exclusive access granted to the very tabloids trying to destroy their reputations and work.

        They would have happily served the queen, supported William and Kate, and served their patronages indefinitely. But evidence is mounting that courtiers in the various palaces were constantly stabbing them in the back via completely false leaks to the tabloids. Jealousy of their energy, drive, and its resulting success and popularity seems to be behind this hatchet job. Racism is also a huge part that many want to deny.

        Everything you see now is them rising above being forcibly stripped of everything that is rightfully and reasonably theirs, with the spin put on it that they are being punished for petulance and overstepping their bounds. This was a process and basically is ongoing. With horrific media anti Sussex spin inflicted at every new development.

      • Leigh says:

        Karen is the perfect name for you….

    • notasugarhere says:

      As much as some people clearly wish them harm? Harry and Meghan are not responsible for the racist, white nationalist, MAGAT, Taliban, and unhinged hate sent their direction.

      The UK government will pay their security, because the government has decided they are high-risk targets.

    • Amy Too says:

      Could the kidnapping or threat of harm to Angelina Jolie make the American government do things or not do things that they normally wouldn’t do? If the head of state’s child/grandchild/only brother is being held captive and he’s only going to be let go if the head of state abdicates, gives a crime family a royal duchy, delivers all the art and tiaras she has to the kidnappers, makes photocopies of every classified and secured government communication they get and sends it to the kidnappers, gets the government to go to war with this country, or pull out of this country, etc, that would have disastrous effects for the entire country. He’s the immediate family member of people with massive power over an entire country. That’s why he has to be protected. He didn’t need to be protected because the world would fall apart if he could no longer perform working royal duties due to being kidnapped or killed. He wasn’t being protected because the job he held was super important. He was being protected because of the risk that his family members would be taking if he were kidnapped and ransomed for money, government secrets, or some kind of political action. That risk is still present and will be present his entire life.

      Paying for lifelong security is the cost of having children when you’re the monarch or heir to the throne of a country. Just like we pay for the security for the children of the US president, even though the children don’t have a job within the government or perform “presidential duties.” Because their children could be threatened or kidnapped in order to get the president to do something.

  50. Tok says:

    They will pay privately

  51. M.A.F. says:

    Taxpayers should not be paying for their security. They (Harry) wanted to step down and be “regular folks” and be financial independent. And this is part of it. As so many of you like to keep pointing out, Harry has $40 million, he can pay for security. But they cannot expect taxpayers in another country to pay for them.

    • notasugarhere says:

      They are not responsible for the unhinged, racist hate they are receiving. No matter how some people want them unprotected? It isn’t going to happen. The UK government will pay their security, and because it is security issues, no information will be given about costs.

  52. Well-Wisher says:

    The government was clear on this the MET police and the Canadian government were in talks to find a solution , then entered BP. This is a minority parliament, they cannot afford to go against public opinion and this started to become political so they walked away. The British government will pay for their security. They should. It is their citizens and media that help created the need for the necessary security.

    What is understood does not need to be said.

    Contrary to some statements, the Sussexes were and am welcomed here. They would’ve been the third set of royals to reside in this country starting with Queen Victoria’s father.

    People just want to “let them be”.

  53. JRenee says:

    I just hope whatever methodology is needed, is provided to keep them safe!!!

  54. June says:

    I read somewhere that it is a birth right of a member of the Royal Family to have Security. So Harry and family will always have it.

  55. MsIam says:

    All these new “Canadian” posters from all over “Canada” flocking here to voice their displeasure over H&M’s security costs. You never see or hear from these folks on anything else regarding H&M. Just out of the blue like that. Hmmm…..sounds spicious to me.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Yes, all these brand new names claiming to be Canadian. Obvious.

      • Iamcait says:

        How is their residency obvious? Does their isp address or postal code show up beside their name?

      • Sharon Clark says:

        This irks me! Maybe some of us aren’t big commenters, like myself, but that doesn’t make me a bot. This issue just spoke directly to me, so I commented. Done. Would you like to see my Canadian passport? Grrrrr.

    • Rachel says:

      Maybe they mainly “lurk” and only post on threads they feel strongly about or feel they have something to contribute. If a Canadian is reading about something that may have an effect on them, then wouldn’t they have more of an inclination to post?
      Just because they don’t hold the same view as you doesn’t mean they are pretending to be Canadian.

      Most of the posts about security on here are similar in vein to what I’ve read on the Globe or CBC websites. The royal couple are either welcome or people are indifferent to them yet don’t want to pay their security costs. This is in contrast to the vulgar, hateful comments on the Fail.

      • kara says:

        Exactly. Perhaps, too, they stay quiet because they have seen that even supportive and rational comments that fall less than MAGA-esque levels of idolotry toward H and M will get bullied and called racist.

      • Nic919 says:

        It’s sad that you find this the topic to post on then. Canadians aren’t going to for security starting April 1, 2020. So if you are bitching about a few months of security it really is pathetic. Your taxes didn’t go up because of this.

        The blockades are a bigger issue to our economy right now but let’s moan about some RCMP hanging out near Victoria for a few months.

    • Smalltowngirl says:

      I can only speak for myself but I have been commenting for years and have always been Canadian and I know a few other if the commenters have too because I recognize names from the Trudeau threads etc (not all, but a couple).

      • Arpeggi says:

        Yep! And lots of Canadians are actually super into their constitution as a past time, this situation sort of test our independence from the UK/Queen and from that perspective, many are very interested in the outcome because we’ve always seen our country as independent: the monarch is on our money but not in our businesses and we wish to keep it that way (and in Quebec, for members of the First Nations or Acadians in NS and NB, I guess that many there would simply say that she’s not their Queen at all).

      • Nic919 says:

        Until the Queen is no longer head of state it is more than just being on the money.

        I’m waiting for all these canadian posters to set up that referendum to become a republic. I’m pretty sure that I will be waiting a long time.

      • carmen says:

        Nic919 – you are so hostile to people, especially on this thread. Calm down – this is a gossip site ffs. People come on here to take a break from the stresses of every day life. Not to engage in keyboard war.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Yes, and their insisting on misunderstanding what has been stated is obvious too. Canada is not going to pay security costs for the Sussex family. The UK taxpayers will pay, because they are high-profile targets. If that means the UK government pays the salaries of additional RCMP officers? Why are ‘Canadians’ complaining about Canadians getting jobs?

  56. yinyang says:

    Okay all the headlines mention Canada is not supporting H & M any longer, can we please mention everytime Kate and Wiliam are supported when they come over too.

    • Casey says:

      H&M are now (or will be) private citizens that want to be ”financially indepent’ they re not there for work nor are they citizens. why should anyone pay their way for them?

    • notasugarhere says:

      Too much logic for today’s crop of new posters, yinyang.

    • Dutch says:

      I guess the obvious answer is that H&M aren’t there on tour? But Nota is probably right, too logical.

    • Nic919 says:

      Charles came to Canada for a few months in the 70s and wasn’t on tour. His security was covered. Lots of people have no clue about it and just prefer to bitch about Harry and Meghan. It all stops April 1, 2020 anyway.

  57. Pancake Bacon says:

    Honest question – reports Prince Harry was “rich” from his mother’s estate, and didn’t to earn a living that came with being a member of the royal family. Can’t he just pay for his own security? He and the Duchess are going to less public figures now.

    • MeghanNotMarkle says:

      This is my tin foil tiara talking here but I think part of their plan for financial independence includes covering their own security. They wanted off the Sovereign Grant so this seems to fall in line with that track. I could be wrong, though.

    • notasugarhere says:

      See the repeated explanations on this thread. They remain extremely high-profile targets simply for existing. Amy Too’s comment under #50 has good points about that.

  58. JennEricaMS says:

    Mark your calendars and set your auto recordings, y’all. This one looks like it might actually be worth watching. Fingers crossed that the RF and British tabloids’ awfulness is exposed in this special!

  59. Casey says:

    They want to be ‘financially independent’ they will no longer be working or senior royals. why should taxpayers in either country foot that bill? they want to be independent they can pay it themselves

    • Le4Frimaire says:

      You really haven’t been paying attention to what’s been going on in the RF since Harry and Meghan got married.

  60. Godwina says:

    I’m just too much of a leveller, sorry, to put stock in the “they deserve it” argument. Yes, no question they need it–even had the media not stoked up so much racist hate over the years, Harry as RF has been a target his whole life. But I will always rankle over any claim that already wealthy, privileged elites should get MOAR free stuff from outsiders (especially members of an organization that built its wealth on colonial pillaging). Effin enough.

  61. Lili says:

    I agree the queen should pay. Why taxpayers if tq is so rich? I don’t get it at all. They should issue a statement that it’ll be funded by family and it’s done.

  62. WorkingForWeekend says:

    I don’t get the whole “it’s not his fault he was born into this family with security needs so they should pay for it” shtick. He also has monetary resources because he was born into that family so he can pay for it just like other celebrities do, because that’s what he wanted.🤷‍♀️

  63. MLouise says:

    I think they will lose a lot if that security costs is discussed publicly- security is more a privilege than a necessity- even in Canada- kids and family (and women walking on a street from subway) are not perfectly safe- ever. We all deal with it. It was a privilege they had to go around with protection. I don’t think most people get why their life must be more secure than everyone else. It is a privilege that celebrities pay for themselves- royals through some anachronism are considered head of state in certain circumstances and then it is paid by public funds- while they already have so much money. Most people live without that privilege of being protected. It is difficult to understand these requests.

  64. LucyLee says:

    People discussing this issue like they have insider knowledge. Nothing has been published by a credible source other than security will be provided. You don’t know the details of security coverage of other members of the RF so why would anyone in their right mind share H and M security details to public gossip/tabloid forums.

  65. Nic919 says:

    People making their own security threat assessments should really be saving themselves from looking foolish and posting nonsense on here.

    I also look forward to all the outraged posters starting a referendum for Canada to be a republic since they are clearly bothered by Harry and Meghan having RCMP security for a few months. It’s a great look.

  66. kyliegirl says:

    Funny how no one is concerned about who is paying for Andrew’s security. Recent footage has shown that he has lots of RPO’s escorting him. After the credible threats against Harry and his family I am surprised that the royals don’t just release a statement about this. We saw what happened when Diana didn’t have adequate protection. Regardless of not wearing seatbelts and drink driver, if she has decent security who did their jobs she may still be with us. I realize that the security costs are one among the many things the royals don’t want exposed, but the reality is Harry, Meghan and Archie need protection. Bea and Eugenie are not working royals and they are seen with security all the time and you know Andrew is not paying for it. I don’t think I have ever seen Beatrice drive somewhere herself, she is always being driven by a driver. The royals have really let this get out of control to make Harry and Meghan look bad. Even if Harry and Meghan wanted to get rid of their security it would not be allowed. The royals are just being petty AF.

    • Olenna says:

      Oh, well, the new “let’s move the goal post” excuse from the megx*ters’ manifesto is that Pedo Andy is still, technically, a working royal, and he didn’t abandon his queen and family like Harry did, and he didn’t willingly walk away from being a royal and (this is rich) give up his birthright. Fcking idiots, all of them.

  67. Molly says:

    From the outside looking in….it’s amazing that the British People don’t see history repeating itself. Didn’t Lizzie take Diana’s security??