The Daily Mail’s Richard Eden is absolutely furious about (surprise) the Duke and Duchess of Sussex this week. What crawled up his bum in the past seven days? Well, it’s more than likely that the British Home Office’s risk assessment on the Sussex family will show that they actually need armed police protection whenever they visit the UK. QEII agreed with that assessment, by the way – she made special arrangements for the Sussexes’ security for their visits in 2021 and 2022, even sending her own protection officers to guard Harry and Meghan. King Charles did not feel the same way, and Harry has not received armed security for his visits from 2023 on. If the Sussexes are guaranteed security this year, that means they could likely visit King Charles and even bring Archie and Lili. But for Richard Eden, the Sussexes’ security is… yet another money-making enterprise? Or something. From his latest column:

The Duke of Sussex has won his lengthy battle for automatic armed police protection – paid for by British taxpayers – when he makes return visits to this country, ‘sources close to the Sussexes’ told my well-informed colleague Charlotte Griffiths, Editor at Large of The Mail on Sunday, last weekend….A ruling in the duke’s favour, expected to be announced within weeks, could allow for a reunion between King Charles and his grandchildren – Prince Archie, six, and Princess Lilibet, four, who live in California.

The stripping of automatic police protection was, however, done for a very good reason and its restoration would be a serious mistake. That’s not just my view but the opinion of several Palace insiders. In fact, it could create a huge problem for the monarchy’s future.

Harry and his wife, Meghan, had their automatic armed police protection removed because they quit public duties to seek their fortune in North America. It wasn’t a question of how seriously their security was threatened; it was because the British rules no longer applied to them as they had moved abroad. Automatic armed police protection is available only to those who live here. That is why Harry’s offer to pay for the protection was immediately dismissed: he wasn’t entitled to it regardless of who was paying. And it’s why he lost his legal appeal against the Home Office decision.

As I have reported in the past, Harry plans to spend more time back in his homeland and, in the longer term, would like his children to be educated here. But that does not change the fact that he and Meghan would still be based in the US.

Forcing hard-pressed British taxpayers to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds paying for security for the Sussexes would cause outrage. This is a couple so rich that Harry was able to make a personal donation of £1.1million to Children in Need on his last visit to Britain in September. Crucially, if their automatic protection is restored here, it might mean they are entitled to the status of ‘internationally protected persons’ under international law (the implications of which would be for the Government or the courts to determine). This could see American taxpayers having to pay for their security in the US, which is hardly likely to enhance their popularity across the Atlantic.

It would, however, mean they are under less pressure financially. Viewers of their explosive 2021 interview with Oprah Winfrey might recall Harry moaning that they had been forced to seek lucrative deals with Netflix and Spotify because the funding for their security had been cut. Not only would taxpayers be alarmed by a ruling in Harry’s favour, but it would open a can of worms for the Royal Family.

At the moment, ‘working royals’ – such as the King’s siblings, Princess Anne and Prince Edward – are entitled to protection only when carrying out public engagements. It would be bizarre for Harry and Meghan, who carry out no public duties, to have round-the-clock protection but not the working royals. A victory for Harry would mean he had partly achieved what he and Meghan always wanted: to be ‘half-in, half-out’ royals. They would have the major perk of automatic taxpayer-funded protection but none of the obligations of public service.

They could carry on trying to make their fortune, promoting the former actress’s lifestyle business, As Ever, and making further controversial television shows. They would also be free to establish a rival ‘royal court’ in Britain, diverting attention from the real royals such as Prince William and Catherine, who are dutifully trying to continue their family’s dedication to public service, not profit.

‘A win for Harry and Meghan would change everything,’ warns a friend of the royals. It’s not too late to think twice before the flagging Sussexes are given an unwelcome boost by the British Establishment.

[From The Daily Mail]

“Automatic armed police protection is available only to those who live here” – completely and utterly false. There are non-British VIPs who visit the UK for work or pleasure and they get armed police protection because they’re such high-value targets for terrorists and extremists. Taylor Swift got armed protection in the UK, for goodness sake, and they supplemented her private security. Which is exactly what Harry has always asked for but he hasn’t received since 2022. Eden’s entire piece is just painfully stupid, like he’s just rocking back and forth and crying at the thought that the king’s son could *somehow* magically profit from… having police protection when he visits his father. As I said in my coverage of Celia Walden’s recent Telegraph column, there’s an acknowledgement among many royalists (just not Eden) that Harry’s years-long security fight made Charles look like a huge a–hole.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.