‘It’s all about status’: The case against Meghan’s taxpayer-funded security

The Sussexes security row takes a new turn as Megan will have her own risk assessment on whether she is entitled to taxpayer-funded protection. Now she, Harry, Archie and Lilibet have moved back to Blighty. But what will the British public say about this? Welcome to a special exclusive episode of The Daily Tee with me, Kim and Otomany. And me, Jacob Rees-Mogg. Harry's argument has always been that whether or not they're working royals is totally irrelevant and it's all about risk. So the risk, he argues, the risk that was there pre-2020 that allowed them to have police protection hasn't gone away. In fact, he argues that it's probably gone up, which is potentially quite likely with either negative narrative and threats against them. Jacob, it's a busy news day because we have got some breaking news on the royal front. Vicky Ward, Deputy Royal Editor, joins us now. Reveal all what's happened. Well, there's a development in the security issue with Harry and Megan. So Megan has been told for the first time that she can have her own risk assessment. Now she's back in the UK to allow the Home Office Committee responsible for making these decisions about security, whether or not she and Harry and the children are going to get taxpayer-funded police protection. Now, how does that change things? Because we know that RAVIC, which is the committee entrusted with making decisions about people like Prince Harry being protected using taxpayer-funded cash, we knew it was investigating him and carrying a risk assessment. But they've never considered that for Megan so far? Not since they left the UK. So she would have had a risk assessment back when she was a working royal in, you know, before, pre-2020. She would have had her own risk assessments because they had a taxpayer-funded police protection then. Since they left the UK, she's had nothing because she's never really been back, has she? The odd quick visit, but nothing of any significance. Harry has been fighting for a risk assessment for years. He obviously went to the High Court with this judicial review application, which he lost. He appealed and he lost. He eventually got his risk assessment in July. But at the time, he was still living in America. And as far as the rest of the world was concerned, they were staying in America. So it's considered to be outdated. So now they're back. RAVIC has met and discussed this risk assessment that was done in July and has come back to them and said, actually, this is all out of date. We need a new one. Megan needs one. We need to do a new one for Harry. We need to know your pattern of life in the UK now. Your circumstances have completely changed. School run, timings, where are you going, where are you hanging out, who are you seeing, whose houses are you going to, what are you doing on the weekends? They need to build up a really extensive pattern of life picture so they can then assess the need for security afresh. But this makes them basically royal, whatever the Lord Chamberlain says, doesn't it? Because if they get security and the Duchess of Sussex turns up for an event and she turns up with two police cars and they park on double yellow lines, and somebody opens the door for them, it looks exactly like a royal visit. Absolutely. It'll add that level of formality and officialdom to it, won't it? But Harry's argument has always been that whether or not they're working royals is totally irrelevant, and it's all about risk. In fact, he argues that it's probably gone up, which is potentially quite likely with all the negative narrative and threats against them. So he says, regardless of whether they're going to be working royals, they're going to have police protection. He says, regardless of whether I'm a working royal, totally irrelevant, there's a huge high risk against me and my family, and we should therefore have protection. But is that true, that it seems to me in this country, security is given to people because of posts that they fill, or a very, very specific threat? So Salman Rushdie had security because there was a fatwa on him. But otherwise, working royals and very senior ministers get security, and very senior ministers do for a short time after they have left office. But nobody else does. It's not done because there might be a broad, modest little risk that somebody will shout at you. Well, Harry says that it's meant to be done purely on risk. That's why they have these risk assessments. It's not meant to be connected to your role. If you're very high profile, you're at risk, like Salman Rushdie, you should be protected because the impact on the UK, the broader impact of anything happening to you, that's what they're meant to be assessing, could be so great. And if it's that high, then you should be entitled to protection. That's their argument. That's always been his argument throughout the judicial review. Talk us through the tension, and Jacob mentioned the Lord Chamberlain's letter that was sent last week on the say-so of the King to clarify the fact that the couple are non-working royals, and the phrase used to describe them was private citizens. And we know that privately, they've railed against that. And they're saying, no, we're public figures, which then provides a justification for the taxpayer-funded security. We have this Instagram drop today of the couple and their children. We think at all thought they stayed with Charles Spencer, Harry's uncle, for three days in the summer, one of the first places they visited before moving back. So how are they balancing this? Because the more they seek privacy, which was one of the aims of Megxit, apparently, the less likely they are to qualify. But yet they want to be known as public figures, which then opens them up to more scrutiny, which then may put them more at risk. Well, the argument about public figures is kind of slightly separate, isn't it? Because they can be public figures and still be splashing around in the cotswolds and still have a huge risk against them when they go out anywhere on the school run, for example. It doesn't necessarily mean that the risk isn't there. So hence his argument. Harry's saying, listen, this isn't about me. This isn't about being attacked by, God forbid, some disgruntled former Taliban outside the opening of an envelope somewhere. This is about us going about our daily lives, going for a pint down the pub. But it's all about status, isn't it? And there's great history to this, that in the Middle Ages, Parliament legislated for how many attendants you could have, depending on your ranking in the peerage. And this is all about status. It always has been. And as I say, it's important to show that. And status and potentially money as well, because we know that to cover the cost of their own private security is going to cost millions. Yes. And that's a problem. We know that they had to get these Netflix deals and Spotify deals in America in order to cover their security costs. They were quite open about that at the time. They couldn't just live on their investments and their family money. They needed to work. Yes. We should point out that we've done a royalty special with somebody that resembles the UK version of Jack Reacher, who is an expert on security. And the figure that he puts on the potential cost personally to the Sussexes of protecting themselves and their families is mind-blowing and then provides an extra context to this desire to be covered by the taxpayer. But here's the question, Vicky. I think the taxpayer would be more open to the idea of protecting Prince Harry, not just as a blood-borne royal, but also because he served two tours of Afghanistan. And we know that there are some extremely disgruntled people out there, not withstanding, frankly, the idiocy of him admitting to killing 25 Taliban in his autobiography spare. I think they're going to be more reluctant to come up with the cash for Meghan, which may just be a reflection on people's less warm feelings towards her as an individual. But what do you think? I agree, actually. And I think it's been a concern of Ravik. I think we did a story a few months ago about how there were factions within Ravik that were concerned about the public perception of giving these people who don't actually represent the monarchy, such a massive, such a hugely expensive security detail. It's a big concern. I do think they, I mean, Harry argues that it shouldn't be a concern, but obviously Ravik is concerned with how it looks. And it's the taxpayer at the end of the day that is going to be putting their hands in their pocket. But then the less popular she is, the more she might merit protection. It depends what the protection is for, that if it is the protection against a serious terrorist attack about which there is intelligence, then the state will provide that. And quite right, as with Salman Rushdie. If, on the other hand, it is the risk that as they're going about their private business, somebody throws a cup of coffee over them, that's a risk anybody who's in the public eye takes and cannot be given security for. Have you ever had a cup of coffee thrown at you? Well, no point in going into these sorts of things because it just encourages people. Or an egg or something like that. Of course I have. Of course I have. And there's nobody in public life who hasn't. Yes. But you can't expect the Rossers to be running around with after all of us for that. I agree. But you can if it is an identified terrorist risk. And the question seems to me, does Ravik have evidence of that? In which case, of course it should provide security. Yes. And that's what they'll have various factions all feeding and they'll have Harry and Meghan providing their daily life patterns. But they've also got all the intelligence and police data about the risks, all the threats, the lone wolf attackers who've been jailed, the people who've been jailed for making threats against them. Where are they now? The stalkers, there's a lot of elements that they're pulling in. You think they're pretty safe because they cause such trouble for the monarchy that anyone who's anti the monarchy would be trying to keep them going for as long as possible. Very quickly, Vicky, do we have any timetable on the assessment? Do we know when it will complete? And do we know when we'll get the answer to the question as to whether they're getting the police to protect them or not? So the Sussexes are going to give over all the information that is required this week, the details about where they are and life stuff and the daily routines and then Ravik will have to meet You would assume in the next two or three weeks, but we don't know. And then they'll make a decision and then we go from there. So it'll be within weeks, I would go. Top scoopage, Miss Ward. Well done. We'll be back with more royal news at some point, including that Jack Reacher lookalike who Vicky and I enjoyed being in the company of, we've got to be honest, Jacob. And you and I are going to be back tomorrow for the Daily Tea, tomorrow 5pm. I look forward to it. I look forward to it.