I am aware that things got crazy on our post about who would pick up the security costs for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Personally, I understand why Canadians would feel like they shouldn’t be responsible, just as I understand why British taxpayers would feel like they shouldn’t pay for security for royals living in another country. That being said, if you really start to scratch the surface of “who pays for security” and “why the royals need security,” the conversation kind of folds in on itself, you know? Like, I don’t think the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge need to fly everywhere by royal helicopter for “security reasons.” I don’t think Prince Andrew needed top-level security for the past decade, but he did. And now that Andrew has been downgraded to semi-retired pervert/oaf, his top-notch security will likely be pulled too:

Prince Andrew faces being stripped of his round-the-clock armed police protection in a fresh blow to the Queen’s second son, the Evening Standard can reveal. The Home Office is recommending a major downgrade of security for the Duke of York after his enforced “retirement” from public life, according to senior sources.

Scotland Yard has completed a thorough review, the Standard understands, and “conclusions have been reached and recommendations made”. A final decision is in the hands of Home Secretary Priti Patel and, ultimately, the Prime Minister.

It comes as the Queen and senior royals continue to grapple with the implications of Harry and Meghan’s decision to step away from frontline duties. A senior source said: “A review was ordered into the Met’s protection of HRH The Duke of York once it was announced he was stepping down from royal duties in November. Those in charge of royal security cannot write a blank cheque for anyone who does not have a public role for the foreseeable future. Round-the-clock armed protection is very expensive. The Met is obliged to review the position to ensure it is justified.”

Andrew was effectively forced to quit royal duties following his disastrous BBC interview over his links to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

[From The Evening Standard]

Yeah, Andrew should definitely have limited-to-no-security. He’s not a terrorist target, you know? But… that’s been true for a while, even before Andrew’s withdrawal from royal duties. Why was he getting round-the-clock protection when he was just a pervert at large, making shady business deals and getting foot rubs from children? Why is there not outrage at HIS years of unnecessary high-level security costs? Especially since – I would argue – Prince Harry and the Duchess of Sussex truly face danger and threats, domestically and internationally.

Also, speaking of unnecessary costs and who pays for what, Andrew’s former private secretary Amanda Thirsk “settled” a legal situation with the palace, in which she got a payout from the royal family worth “tens of thousands of pounds.” Um… for what? She must have had a lot of dirt on Andrew and they wanted her to sign an NDA. Who paid and how much?

Photos courtesy of WENN, Avalon Red and Backgrid.

Source: Read Full Article