King Charles ‘likely’ to pay for Prince Andrew’s private security after removing Harry and Meghan’s
King Charles is “likely” to pay for Prince Andrew’s private security. As first reported by The Telegraph, Prince Andrew is to be stripped of his taxpayer funded police protection as he no longer performs duties as a working royal. His armed personal protection officers will be replaced by private security guards, at an estimated cost of up to $3.6 million (£3 million) per year, an expense expected to be funded by the King as Andrew has no other means of income.
It’s reported that King Charles could foot the bill for Prince Andrew’s private security at the cost of nearly $3.6 million (£3 million) per year
The news could ruffle feathers with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, who alleged that they had their rights to security refused after quitting life as working royals
In other royal news, the two special guests that could join Queen Camilla and King Charles for Christmas this year……..Continue Reading
Prince Andrew is to have his state funded protection removed as he’s no longer a working royal.
However, still needing some protection, his private protection officers – thought to cost around $3.6 million per year – is expected to be paid for by his big brother, king Charles.
The reasons for this expectation is that, without being paid as a working royal, Andrew has no other discernible sources of income.
The Queen allowed Andrew’s security to remain in place despite stripping him of his royal duties earlier this year
The news that Charles could shell out for Andrew’s security could anger Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.
The Sussexes claim the Royal Family cut off their security with little warning back in 2020, shortly after they announced they were quitting life as senior members of the family. Their security was allegedly removed on March 31, 2020, leaving them with less than three weeks to make arrangements.
This issue of their security first came up in the sensational Oprah interview, but they recently revisited it in their Netflix docuseries.
Speaking in the documentary, Harry said, “M asked me, “Would they remove our security?” I said, ‘They’ll never do that.’”
Harry and Meghan had their security removed, and are in litigation over being denied the chance to fund their own private security
“Meghan’s background, her heritage, the well-documented hate campaigns against us, suspicious packages being sent to the palaces, specifically with her name on or my name on. She said, ‘Do you think they’ll do it?’ I said, ‘No, they would never do that.’ And they did it.”
Andrew is reported to have written to the Home Office and Scotland Yard to complain about losing his police protection.
His entitlement to bodyguards funded by the state was subjected to a full review after he was relieved of his duties as a working royal by Queen Elizabeth II earlier this year, shortly before agreeing a settlement with Virginia Giuffre, who had accused the Duke of York of sexual assault and battery.
Prince Andrew has always strenuously denied her allegations.
Whether it’s about Andrew’s case or Harry and Meghan’s allegations, it’s important to note all decisions about royal security are made by a collective group known as the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, (often referred to as Ravec).
Prince Andrew and Prince Harry’s security issues are decided by a committee called Ravec
Members include senior figures from the King’s household, including his private secretary, as well as a representative from the Prince of Wales’s household. Also in Ravec are the chairman of the National Police Chiefs’ Council counterterrorism coordination committee, the deputy assistant commissioner specialist operations at the Metropolitan Police, the director-general of the Homeland Security Group, and the deputy director of the National Security Secretariat at the Cabinet Office.
Prince Harry remains involved in two separate legal actions against the Home Office over the decision to withdraw police protection when his family is in the UK and instead assess it on a case-by-case basis.
