Britain’s Prime Minister Andy Burnham said the Sussexes’ security is a ‘private matter’

Most of us assume that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will still be protected by their private security once they move to the UK later this month (in a matter of days, it would seem). The Sussex family’s royal protection was cut off abruptly in early 2020, after which Tyler Perry gave them private security for several months while they figured out their next moves. By the summer of 2020, the Sussexes had moved into their Montecito mansion (which is behind a security gate) and they had arranged the private security they still pay for to this very day. Meghan has been protected by private security longer than she was guarded by royal protection officers. Well, people are now talking about whether the Sussex family will receive any form of police protection or taxpayer-funded security when they move back to the UK. They even got the new prime minister on the record about it.

Security arrangements for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex on their return to the UK are a “private matter”, Prime Minister Andy Burnham has said. He added: “It’s a matter for Harry and for Meghan, and we wish them well in the move that they are making.”

It comes after it emerged that the couple intend to relocate with their children from the US to the UK later this month to a private, non-royal residence outside London.

The Home Office said decisions on the security of royals were taken by the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec). The prime minister does not decide about security for the Royal Family. The Home Office, however, appeared to stand firm on its decision not to foot the bill.

A spokesman said: ‘The UK Government’s protective security system is rigorous and proportionate. It is our long-standing policy not to provide detailed information on those arrangements, as doing so could compromise their integrity and affect individuals’ security.’

Ailsa Anderson, Queen Elizabeth II’s former press secretary, said the public would want answers about how any security arrangements were funded.

She told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: ‘There will be questions asked – here is a non-working member of the Royal family, back in the UK. Should the British taxpayer really have to foot the bill for his security? People are struggling to put food on their tables, to pay their heating bills. I don’t think it will sit well with the British public if they feel they have to pay for security for two non-working members of the Royal family.’

[From BBC & The Daily Mail]

Go back to what we learned last month, and what Harry learned about his Home Office risk assessment. He wrote to the Home Office last fall and requested a risk assessment, which had not been done on the Sussexes since 2019. The Home Office agreed to a risk assessment and then… someone paused the assessment this past spring. If the Home Office and RAVEC ever completed it and found that the Sussexes need real police protection, then we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. For now, I would assume that they’re making arrangements similar to what they have in Montecito – living behind a gate, leaving the house with private security and evading the paparazzi the old-fashioned way.

Photos courtesy of Netflix, Cover Images, Avalon Red.

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

15 Responses to “Britain’s Prime Minister Andy Burnham said the Sussexes’ security is a ‘private matter’”

  1. K8erade says:

    I’m willing to bet a private deal was struck. Harry got what he wanted all along: His private security is getting the intel it’s requesting from the home office and the police and Scotland Yard will work with his private security company. Either way, I do think The Home Office is playing ball with Harry in some capacity.

    • Crystal says:

      I doubt it. They weren’t cooperating with him even a month ago. And them planning a move enrolling their kids would have been begun well in advance of that July meeting.

    • Lady Esther says:

      Yep, comment twinsies @K8erade. If Charles can (with Andrew) kick out Sir Christopher Geidt for not doing what he wants, he surely did the same to the Wasp and then the deal was struck…

      As for the Home Office playing ball with Harry, that’s been clear for some time based on the clear coordination of Harry’s speeches about the Ukraine with Charles

  2. sunniside up says:

    We have to hope that the security is appropriate for their needs. We have to trust that they have got it right.

  3. Lady Esther says:

    When I read this I thought it was typically elegant British phrasing: “It’s a private matter.” That does not say it is privately PAID.

    My guess is that the Sussexes will keep their personal, private security, both when they’re living their lives and on their private property. They trust them the most, their personal security know how H&M work by now and they’ll pay for that themselves. However, the longed-for coordination with the Met office regarding threats, and backup support with gun-carrying RPOs for public events for example, especially if done with other BRF members such as Charles will be paid for by the British taxpayer. That’s what Harry wanted all along for him and his family, and now that Clive Alverton got the boot (and was therefore off of RAVEC) I bet that’s a deal Charles and Harry would be comfortable with.

    Again, this has obviously been in the works for a long time, and I’m sure Sir Keir at the handover meeting with the new PM was like “So, about the Royal Family…Let me pour you a drink because this is a long story”

  4. Digital Unicorn says:

    Harry wouldn’t have brought his family back here WITHOUT some sort of security deal being struck – given that Charles is still paying for Andrews security I think that the Sussex security is being partly funded by themselves and Chuck private funds with intel being shared with their private security team while they reside in the UK.

    One thing is clear Harry has struck a deal with his father and the gov and his brother was NOT part of it.

    • Amy Bee says:

      They didn’t have an police protection when they visited the UK last month and there was a refusal by the Palace to advocate for security for them.

      • Kingston says:

        @amy bee
        Executing a plan to live and work in the UK and making a one-week visit to the UK are two separate and distinct undertakings.

      • Crystal says:

        If they wouldn’t give it to them for that week that doesn’t exactly bode well for a long-term plan.

  5. Amy Bee says:

    I don’t think there will be any change to their security arrangements but now that Harry will be living in the UK RAVEC has no excuse but to the risk assessment.

  6. Kingston says:

    @Crystal
    A person has to be really thick not to be able to see the qualitative difference between a temporary long-term stay in a country and a one-week visit to said country.

    • Crystal says:

      Of course there’s a difference. The one week stay should have been much *easier* to arrange if, as others assert, Harry had an agreement in place. The fact that the tabloids are *already* opening up the discussion about what his security is and whether the UK taxpayers should foot it is a bad bad sign honestly.

      • Kingston says:

        A person has to be really thick to give any credence/ascribe any value to what the shitloids say about the targets of their bullying.

      • Crystal says:

        Uh. The bullying is why they left in the first place.
        If they were still in Montecito it wouldn’t matter. In the U.K. it will follow them everywhere. The Mail case has emboldened them too.

  7. Sonya says:

    Harry would not put Meghan and his children at security risks on an extended stay. While they attend schooling outside of their parental supervision. If you think, he would endanger his children. Then I dont know what to say to you.

Commenting Guidelines

Read the article before commenting.

We aim to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy and our privacy policy

Do not engage with trolls, contrarians or rude people. Comment "troll" and we will see it.

Please e-mail the moderators at cbcomments at gmail.com to delete a comment if it's offensive or spam. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please email us to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you!

Leave a comment after you have read the article

Save my name and email in this browser for the next time I comment