Police protection for Harry and Meghan was withdrawn because they had no right to bodyguards because as private individuals who decided to step back from the Royal Family.
Because they stepped back they were no longer considered under threat.
The move to take away security from Prince Harry & Meghan Markle and their son has nothing to do with the palace’s stance on Archie becoming a prince.
Once Prince Harry had moved to Canada at short notice he was advised that their security would be removed with Meghan claiming that her son not being a prince would mean he would not get Police Protection.
Not entitled to around the clock protection
Round-the-clock police protection was taken away when they decided to step down as working royals after a meeting with the government body that oversees the protection, simply they were no longer entitled to this level of security, and if they wanted it would need to hire a private security team.
Prince Harry has made the wrong assumption that the taxpayers would continue to fund his security despite stepping back as a working royal and leaving the county.
Former Chief Superintendent Dai Davies who was the leader within the Metropolitan Police Royal Protection Unit has stated that the couple’s plans were ‘utterly unrealistic’ and could have put British Police at risk.
Mr Davies said he was ‘gobsmacked’ that Harry and Meghan expected the British taxpayer to cover the £4 million a year bill.
He added: ‘It was utterly unrealistic to think they could continue to have their royal protection team working in America – in fact it would have put their [police] lives at risk.’
Protection received by Royal Family members
Within the royal family you may be shocked to learn that not all members of the working Royal Family and extended family are entitled to police protection and only 6 main members of the royal family have 24 hour police protection.
FULL 24/7 PROTECTION
- Queen (295)
- William (220)
- Kate (126)
- Charles (521)
- Camilla (194)
PROTECTION ON OFFICIAL DUTIES
Some members of the family are only allowed police protection when they are on official duties and at other times when they are not on official duties have no protection.
- Anne (506)
- Edward (308)
- Sophie (236)
Extended members of the family have no police protection even when they are on royal duties because they simply are not entitled and are considered a low risk.
- Andrew (274)
- Harry (201)
- Meghan (83)
Was Archie entitled to become a Prince?
The George V convention was created in 1917, whereby the Queen’s grandfather issued new letters patent that limited the number of royal family members who would be allowed to be issued with a HRH title.
These stated that ‘the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names to with their other titles of honour’.
In a nutshell this means that when Prince Charles becomes the King his grandchildren which include Archie will be automatically be made princes and princesses.
It was also decreed that ‘grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes of these our Realms’ (i.e., Lord or Lady before their Christian name).’
In addition the letters stated ‘save as aforesaid the style title or attribute of Royal Highness, Highness or Serene Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess shall not henceforth be assumed or borne by any descendant of any Sovereign of these Realms.
Could this explain why Archie has no royal title?
Archie was not entitled to become a prince under the convention and that would have never been the choice of Harry or Meghan to automatically assume that Archie should have been made a prince because he is only entitled to become a Prince at such a time when his Grandfather is King.
Despite claiming this is why security was removed for this reason by Meghan it has been confirmed that this was not the case.
The reason they lost their security was that they decided to step down from working royal duties and expected to be able to keep this for free at the taxpayer’s expense.
But Archie would have naturally had full royal 24-hour security protection because he is a baby and should not be able to travel anywhere independently because he should either be in the company of Harry or Meghan and the easiest way to ensure he did have full security was him to remain in their company and travel with them.
At the age when Archie, if he was to be made a working member of the Royal Family would have then received security if he was required to travel independently at a later stage.
International Police Protection
When Harry and Meghan first stepped back they were escorted by the police to Canada and then onward to California but were summoned back the London.
Media mogul Tyler Perry stepped in to lend them a house in LA and then paid for their private security.
They then bought their own mansion in Montecito and pay for their own private security.
Members of the royal family have their security and protection covered by The Royal and VIP Executive Committee authorises the budget for security for royals, VIPs and former PMs.
The government committee’s control over it means the Queen does not have the right to dish out protection.
The move to withdraw security was made by the most senior police officers and home office staff.
Archie was not born a prince due to an order by King George V in 1917 ruling only royal offspring in the direct line of succession could be made a prince or princess.
Under the Letters Patent the child would still be entitled to be an HRH or a prince when Charles accedes to the throne.
There is not way they could of kept royal police protection!
They simply could not have kept their £4 million tax paid royal protection because they decided to step back from the royal family and leave the UK.
former chief superintendent Dia Davies simply said the suggestion they would keep the free protection was ‘arrogant’ and ‘unworkable’ and would be ‘utterly unrealistic’ because it would but British Police officers at Risk.
UK officers cannot carry guns under US laws or access intelligence about any potential threats.