Prince Andrew ‘starting to accept’ says commentator

We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. More info

Prince Andrew is due to be stripped of his taxpayer-funded Metropolitan Police protection, with King Charles III expected to pick up the bill. The Monarch will reportedly fund his brother’s annual £3million protection as Andrew has no discernible regular income. However, some 83 percent of Express.co.uk readers argue that the King should not pay the bill, a new poll has found.

The move comes almost a year after Andrew was stripped of his HRH status, honorary military affiliations, and royal charitable patronages. Shortly after, Andrew paid an out-of-court financial settlement to his sexual abuse accuser Virginia Giuffre — something that his lawyers say is not an admission of guilt — allegations he vehemently denies.  

His entitlement to taxpayer-funded bodyguards was subjected to a full review, but Queen Elizabeth II’s second son is said to be looking to appeal the decision to remove his round-the-clock protection. Earlier this month, The Sun reported that Andrew wrote to the Home Office and the Met Police to complain.

Decisions concerning royal security are made by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, known as Ravec.

Committee members include the chairman of the National Police Chiefs’ Council counterterrorism and the director-general of the Homeland Security Group at the Home Office, alongside others and senior figures from the King’s household, including his private secretary.

In a poll that ran from 10am on Tuesday, December 20, to 9am on Wednesday, December 28, Express.co.uk asked readers: “Should King Charles pay for Prince Andrew’s security?”

In total, 2,612 people responded, with the vast majority of readers, 83 percent (2,174 people), answering “no”, Andrew’s security should not be funded by the Firm.

Whereas 15 percent (381 people) said “no” Andrew’s security should be paid for, and a further two percent (57 people) said they did not know.

Dozens of comments were left below the accompanying article as readers discussed the Duke of York’s security arrangements.

Some readers argued that since Andrew is no longer a working royal he does not warrant funded protection. Username Dando said: “Only working Royals should receive protection. He is pretty safe in his home at Windsor anyway.”

Similarly, username Redroseforever said: “No. Other non-working Royals don’t have protection – and are fine.”

Many commented that Andrew should pay his own way, with username VPH writing: “No way, if Andrew wants security he can pay it for himself.”

And username grotbags 666 said: “No Andrew should pay for his own security.”

DON’T MISS:

Prince Andrew looked ‘haunted’ on ‘outside’ of Royal Family Christmas [ANALYSIS]
Camilla takes on disgraced Andrew’s title in King’s royal shake-up [REPORT]
Prince Andrew finally sells ski chalet to British family for £19m [UPDATE]

Other readers thought that Andrew’s security was a decision for the King but should not be taxpayer-funded, like username Audumla, who said: “Not of the taxpayer will be paying but if Charles pays out of his own pocket that’s up to him.”

Likewise, username nick nack said: “If it’s privately funded then I can’t see it being a problem. If you and I have to cough up out of taxes that’s a big no-no!”

Username BiRo added: “As long as it’s not tax payers money I’m not bothered who funds it.”

And username L77 said: “As long as it is not the taxpayers it’s up to them.”

Andrew is not the first to lose his protection, with Prince Harry losing his taxpayer-funded police security when he and his wife Meghan Markle stepped back from their roles as senior members of the Royal Family in 2020.

Norman Baker, former Home Office minister and Privy Council member claimed that Andrew should not “burden the taxpayer” with his security bill. He told The Sun: “Armed protection has always been a status symbol for the likes of Prince Andrew. 

“Of course he should pay it himself and not burden the taxpayer because he is a private individual and carries out no public duties. People like David Beckham pay for their own security so why shouldn’t Prince Andrew?”

He added: “We shouldn’t pay for Andrew’s or Harry’s security or any member of the Royal Family that carries out no public duties.”

Source: Read Full Article