Royals: Who will foot the bill for Harry and Meghan’s security?

Who will foot the bill for the couple’s security remains one of the key areas still being thrashed out.

Security rush Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, out of a Fiji market during her visit in 2018. Picture: Ian Vogler/Getty Images

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have dropped their public claim to be “internationally protected people” in a sign that security is proving one of the most difficult subjects in negotiations about their future.

The couple, who want to split their time between Britain and Canada, said last Wednesday that they were stepping back as senior royals but insisted they were legally entitled to armed police protection funded by the taxpayer.

Their new website stated: “The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are classified as internationally protected people which mandates this level of security.”

The Times has discovered, however, that the claim was deleted the next day after questions were raised about the level of government security Harry, 35, and Meghan, 38, could expect if they were not performing royal duties.

The legal concept of internationally protected people dates from a 1973 United Nations convention intended to protect diplomats and political leaders. It was introduced into British law in the 1978 Internationally Protected Persons Act, which afforded “special protection” to heads of state, people representing the head of state, prime ministers, foreign ministers and diplomats.

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex and Prince Harry, will be relocating to Canada but who will foot the security bill is unclear.

The UK legislation also covered family members of protected people and made provision for a certificate to be issued declaring someone to be a protected person. Those protections would not automatically apply, however, if the person was outside the UK.

Scotland Yard is struggling to provide the level of security required by the royal family when three generations are engaged in official duties. The cost of royal security is never disclosed but is known to have risen sharply in recent years.

The Metropolitan Police has been ordered to increase the number of protection officers by a fifth — from 449 to 540 — but has found it “exceptionally difficult” to do so because of a shortage of training courses.

Royal security is now heavily dependent on police overtime and bills for flights and hotels for officers have soared. The duke and duchess’s seven-week stay in Canada over Christmas will have been hugely costly and involved the deployment of 10 officers to provide round-the-clock cover.

Legal experts believe that if the couple are not carrying out official duties they are not covered by the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons.

Jan Wouters, professor of international law at the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium, said: “Harry and Meghan want to move away from carrying out royal duties and become purely private people. Therefore it is highly debatable whether they are legally entitled to the status of internationally protected people.

“International protection will not continue if you withdraw into a purely private life. The logical conclusion is that there will have to be a bilateral agreement between Britain and Canada to provide for their security.”

Canada, a Commonwealth realm, has denied reports that it is prepared to cover the costs of Harry and Meghan’s security detail when they are there.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Justin Trudeau, the prime minister, was asked on Global News whether taxpayers would have to pay. He replied: “We’re not entirely sure what the final decisions will be, what the dispositions are and those are decisions for them. I think most Canadians are very supportive of having royals be here, but [in terms of] how that looks and what kind of costs are involved, there are still lots of discussions to have.”

James Moore, a former Canadian Conservative heritage minister, told CTV News: “I think the default instinct for most people right now would be, ‘If you’re stepping away from your royal duties, then we’re stepping away from our obligations of taxpayers to subsidise the royal family.’

“While it would be nice to have this couple here in Canada, and we want to maintain of course our ties to the Palace . . . I think we need to have a clear understanding of where they’re actually going to be, what the security nature would look like, and what the threats look like.”

The anti-monarchy group Republic has estimated that security for the royal family, which includes round-the-clock guards for residences and some individuals as well as special deployments to cover visits and engagements, costs the British taxpayer £106 million a year.

Decisions on who should receive protection and the level of security provided are made by the royalty and VIP executive committee, a secretive Home Office body.

A spokeswoman for the duke and duchess said: “We don’t comment on security matters.”

With David Brown and George Greenwood

THE TIMES