Reader TTS

The Metropolitan Police has a responsibility for the safety of senior members of the Royal Family. It is based on the intelligence gained from specific Government risk assessments, MI5 and

MI6. Senior high-profile royals are judged to be at greatest risk. Harry, Meghan and Archie fall into this category. I was appointed protection officer to Princes William and Harry in 1987.

Prior to my appointment, they would on occasions share the protection afforded their parents. It was not until their schooling, away from the safety of Kensington Palace, that full-time

protection was given. Following the announcement of his engagement, Harry’s team was increased to protect Meghan. From this moment, both received round-the-clock protection. It included the 

period of public withdrawal from royal duties when they lived in Canada temporarily. It was not until a permanent home was secured in Los Angeles that the official protection was withdrawn,

presumably on the grounds that they were no longer working members of the royal family and living outside the UK. This decision, of course, does not eradicate the risk. If anything, given

their global popularity, that increases dramatically. I share their joint concerns. In the Oprah interview Harry spoke very movingly about his mother, inset. He went on to say that were it

not for her financial legacy, and the business deal he and Meghan have with Netflix, the cost of providing private security would have been impossible. There is a parallel here with the

abdication crisis of 1936. Edward VIII and his wife Wallis Simpson were denied the protection of Government. Like the case of Harry and Meghan, the subject of cost was the principle reason.

The vast majority of UK taxpayers are in agreement with the current policy of such protection being funded centrally. They would equally agree, I suggest, that even now, living abroad, the

Sussexes need protection, but NOT at the taxpayers’ expense.