Understanding the Reason behind the Royal Family’s Decision to Refuse Security for Archie and Meghan, Harry’s Securitization
Recently, there has been a lot of discussion and controversy around the decision of the royal family to refuse security for Archie and to cut off Meghan and Harry's security when they were in Canada. This article delves into the reasons behind this decision, clarifying the logistics and responsibilities involved in providing state security.
Why Does the Royal Family Choose Not to Provide Security for Archie, Meghan, and Harry?
The decision to provide or withhold security for members of the royal family, like Harry and his family, involves complex questions of royal duties, personal choice, and taxpayer funding. When Harry and Meghan stepped away from their roles as working members of the royal family, they made a clear choice not to work for the Monarchy or the United Kingdom. This choice impacts their eligibility for state-provided security.
Security in different countries is a matter of national responsibility. In Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) provided security under an international agreement, but this was a specific arrangement. In the United States, where they later resided, there is no such agreement, and they had to arrange their own security, which is a common practice for individuals and families whose status does not entitle them to state-provided protection.
The Role of the British Government and Canadian Government in Security Decisions
The decision on who receives state-provided security is not made by the royal family but by the government responsible for the country where the individual or family resides. In the UK, the Home Office makes these decisions, while in Canada, the Canadian government has the authority to decide who qualifies for security services.
It’s important to understand that the entitlement to state security is not a blanket right for all members of the royal family. The general rule is that the monarch, the heir, and their family receive full-time security, while other members only get security for official duties. Special circumstances, such as the presence of specific threats, can also warrant increased security measures.
The Faucets of Ogden: Why Harry's Security Request Wasn't About Favoritism
Harry's request for security was not a matter of favoritism but a request for a special unit provided for senior politicians, ex-prime ministers, and visiting dignitaries. The metropolitan police, responsible for these services, do not have the final say on who receives this security. The decision is made based on the individuals' status and the perceived risk.
When comparing other members of the royal family, it's clear that not all members, even if they are direct relatives, receive the same level of security. Edward, Andrew, and their children only receive protection when they are carrying out official duties. This further illustrates that the security provided is based on duty and the assessed need rather than personal connections or family status.
Conclusion: A Contextual Understanding of Security Decisions
While the refusal to provide security to Archie, Meghan, and Harry may seem unreasonable, it is ultimately a matter of adhering to established protocols and logistical considerations. The choices made by each family member about their roles and responsibilities within the royal family play a significant role in shaping their access to state security. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for a comprehensive grasp of the situation.
So, while Harry’s desire for heightened security may stem from a personal need, it does not necessarily mean that the royal family’s decision to withhold security is unjust or biased. It is a matter of fulfilling the responsibilities of state security within the framework of the law and principles.