Thomas Markle rushed to hospital after a suspected stroke.

Also, for what it's worth, we pay $602.5 million a year, which has been requested to increase to $708 million for 2023, for security for Congress.

appropriations.house.gov/news/statements/chairman-ryan-statement-at-the-fiscal-year-2023-budget-request-for-the-united-states#:~:text=Currently%2C%20resources%20for%20the%20Capitol,Branch%20budget%20totaling%20%24602.5%20million.

The Secret Service also provides security for a few more people, as seen here: www.secretservice.gov/about/faq/general

The Secret Service is authorized a $3B (yes billion with a B) budget for 2022.

www.usaspending.gov/federal_account/070-0400

It is not a moot point Maddie because you made an opinion and accused Megan of being liar based on something that never happened. The name was announced on Instagram and they never stated they refused a title. Is it a good chance that the media said it? Yes. But so far, as I have shown, they themselves never did. Quite a few number of people have opinions about someone they do not know based on a racist, xenophobic media and are accusing Megan of being a liar when I have yet to see evidence thay she is.

Also, you may want to be careful what you wish for. The Secret Service provides 24/7 security to the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania including children, plus the residents and Number One Observatory Circle, including any children.

We also pay for all 535 members of Congress get security via the Capital Police. www.house.gov/the-house-explained/legislative-branch-partners/u-s-capitol-police.

Makes something like paying for little Archie to have security seem cheap now doesn't it

Sparklefizz

^M&H might have worried about what would happen to Archie and if he would get the protection they thought he needed. Sensibly they chose to move away and give their children some privacy^

Ha! They moved to a much more dangerous country where children are massacred in schools with talk of now arming teachers to fight back!

A country where they have managed to keep both their children out of the media and un-photographed apart from a few pictures they chose to release.
Guns may kill children but there are other forms of damage and they now pay for their protection (Of course the RF could have offered that to them here but chose not to)

Would you want to risk it if it was your child?

But some of the Queen's grandchildren received protection in their school years Anniebach Even Beatrice and Eugenie in spite of the breakdown of their parents marriage and the minimal role played by Andrew were protected throughout their university years.
But actually I think you mean great grandchildren. And perhaps it should have been given on the role that was being expected of M&H. and H's position to the throne. They did tours when Archie was a baby and he went with them, presumably the same would be expected when he was school age and he would be left unprotected

MissAdventure

Because of the hatred his parents stir up, I'd imagine.

Maybe. But would that really cross someone's mind to target their child? Threats maybe, but surely not .....

You have a point there Sparklefizz, without wishing to get into the gun laws debate on the school shooting thread. Schoolchildren in America are statistically in far more danger of such an atrocious happening.
No child is ever 100% safe in any school because there are 100 plus variables and no one actually knows how anyone, even school professionals, will react when faced with an attack. I have listened to expert after expert on this, and they all say there is a risk at any time, any place.
Have H & M had this fully explained to them,? Are they being over protective? Are they being unrealistic? There is always the choice of home schooling but that would be a backwards step, especially in Harry's eyes. I don't have the answer but they need to find a solution to their concerns and then accept the situation.

Because of the hatred his parents stir up, I'd imagine.

Why would Archie be in more danger at school than any of the Queen’s grandchildren

M&H might have worried about what would happen to Archie and if he would get the protection they thought he needed. Sensibly they chose to move away and give their children some privacy

Ha! They moved to a much more dangerous country where children are massacred in schools with talk of now arming teachers to fight back!

I read "starting school" as meaning the whole package.
Not splitting hairs, just very up with the internal school precautions in place and interested.

I don't think I mentioned in-school security anywhere Joseanne however it would be foolish to imagine that PGs security team don't check the buildings and monitor visitors regularly.

Thank you.
Ah, so the journey and travel logistics depending on traffic. I suspect this is done for any royal journey in London and beyond. The responsibility and duty of care of the school is an entirely separate issue and Archie would be as safe as any child therein.

Joseanne

I'm interested in your comment about security surrounding the issue of starting school Glorianny. I happen to know that once the Royal children are in the school, total privacy is afforded them. This applies to any child in school. Why would M & H be worried about Archie's protection in school, unless you mean getting him to and from the school gate? Even then, W & K have been sensible to allow first day at school photos, but no more thereafter.

Well this is what was planned for PG starting school and he has his own security team. metro.co.uk/2017/09/06/getting-prince-george-to-school-every-day-will-be-a-security-and-logistical-nightmare-6906702/
Seeing these measures just as your own child was born then hearing your son wouldn't get the same protection would have made anyone worry.
There have been alleged security threats in the shape of a woman stalker and a bomb threat.

I'm interested in your comment about security surrounding the issue of starting school Glorianny. I happen to know that once the Royal children are in the school, total privacy is afforded them. This applies to any child in school. Why would M & H be worried about Archie's protection in school, unless you mean getting him to and from the school gate? Even then, W & K have been sensible to allow first day at school photos, but no more thereafter.

I agree Glorianny.

Well I wouldn't actually pay for security for any of them except (if we have to have them) the monarch and the heir. The rest of the family can pay for their own, they have enough money.
I do understand why having seen the responses and attitudes towards George starting school M&H might have worried about what would happen to Archie and if he would get the protection they thought he needed. Sensibly they chose to move away and give their children some privacy.

Apologies. I cannot find the clip where Archie’s name was announced. However since a title doesn’t automatically bring with it paid for security it is a rather moot point. Possibly I saw a name announcement rather than the parents saying it, so apologies.
The simple fact of the matter is that Harry’s children aren’t yet entitled to a title until such time as Charles becomes king. Then they will be entitled, but whether the parents will choose to use one, like Andrew did for his children, but Edward chose a lesser title for his children, remains to be seen. They will still not be entitled to security, paid for by us, as the parents are not working royals.

I hope in time we will become a democratic republic. Then only the president and family would be entitled to paid for security and there would be no wider family with entitlement at all.

maddyone

I saw and heard Meghan and Harry, when showing newborn Archie to the country, say they didn’t want a title for him. They said it, I heard it, and so did many other people. Whatever she said later about titles is beside the point. They said they wanted no title at the time of his birth ( well a few days later when we first saw him.)
If they or she is linking a title to security later on during the interview, it’s a moot point. Security is NOT awarded by title, but by work! Working royals get security when working. Others get security because they are in direct line to the throne. Meghan and Harry got full security whilst they were working royals. Now they’re not working royals and so they don’t get security paid for by us. They pay for their own security. Incidentally they continued to receive paid for security whilst they lived in Canada for six months after they left the UK. The UK paid for part of it, and Canada paid for part of it. Apparently the Canadians were none too happy about paying but pay they did. When they left to go to live in America their paid for security ended. America refused to pay and so they now pay for their own security.

They are NOT working royals. None working royals don’t get paid for security. It’s got NOTHING to do with Archie not having a title.

Hear hear.
I cannot grasp why H&M cannot understand a simple enough principle. Nor does it have anything, directly or indirectly, to do with his mother being mixed race.
As for the rejection of “ Earl of Dumbarton” because it starts with “dumb” - that is so daft it could well be true!

You sound very bitter! Specially about Netflix.

I don’t think they need to worry about security with all their Net Flix deals and tv appearances.they are in a huge gated complex of a house in America surrounded by the people they enjoy mixing with. They have the money to pay for security should they feel the need but it’s much nicer someone else paying for it. No titles as they wanted. I do suspect that now the British Public on the whole who are sick of their antics and pleased they relocated, don’t miss them, that they want back in the fold they consider racist, also that balcony position, that would be worth a lot of Net Flix after all.

I should also point out that I am unable to find anything other than tabloid reports that Andrew had 24/7 security before the sex trafficking trial. (the Sun, Express, The Guardian)

I assume that these reports are not true either after 2011 when the Princesses lost their security and that the tabloids are trying to stir the pot.

We cross posted Maddy.

I understand that they would not get security once they moved abroad. And it was very generous for the UK citizens to pay security for the few months they lived in Canada. But this is about how, when she was pregnant and working royals, they were told that Archie would not be provided a title or security.

I understand how the rules work. I understand that Archie would not have been entitled to a title or security as a great grandson of the queen.

I have not seen anything other than a tabloid report that they refused a title vs. they were told he wouldn't have one as they said in their interview.

Ok, I looked at length and couldn't find an interview that had Megan and Harry saying they were refusing Archie a title. The only thing I found was a news report that they had refused the Earl of Dumbarton because it started with dumb. It was credited as "a source told the Telegraph".

I found this information only on:

Marie Claire
Scotsman
the Sun
Mirror
Telegraph

I also watched the short interview when they presented Archie to the media. They never said they didn't want a title. Not when he met with photographers right after the birth and not in the short 3 minutes they spoke with the press.

They then announced his name on Instagram. In it they presented him as Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor. Which of course means he is not using a title, but I am not finding anything from their own mouths that said they had not chosen a title as Maddie said.

Maddie, maybe you can point me in the right direction since you said that you saw and heard them say it along with the rest of the country. I am not finding it.

My sources:

Interview with the press: youtu.be/in7iDzSXXv0

Interview announcing birth: youtu.be/D8FZTOeiigg

Name announcement: www.instagram.com/p/BxNPb_9B0fn/

I think all the children of William, as a direct heir to the throne, receive round the clock security.

As far as I’m aware, Andrew pays for his own security. I’m not sure if he still pays for security for his daughters but he did when the rules over who gets security were changed and his daughters lost theirs.

As I understand it, because M+H were full time working royals when they lived here, Harry’s children would have got security. I confess I’m not 100% on that. However, they do not get security as none working royals who actually live abroad. The very suggestion that we should pay for security for an abdicated royal who lives abroad is an anathema to me. I’d prefer a republic, I certainly don’t want my taxes spent on protecting very rich people who do no work for the UK and don’t even live here. That of course is my opinion, unlike the other things I mentioned which are facts.

It’s worth remembering that Louise and her brother James, grandchildren of the Queen, do not get security, and appear to be safe. Why is Archie, a great grandchild, not even a grandchild of the Queen, at more risk than they are. The answer of course, is that he is not. Apart from the fact that he lives in gun ridden America, where 19 children were shot dead just this week. If they are concerned about safety, perhaps the UK would be a safer option.

But it’s their choice, but they shouldn’t expect me to pay for it.