According to journalist Rob Shuter, the review of Meghan Markle‘s security arrangements in the UK has government figures worried about public reaction. Ministers do not make the call, but Westminster is reportedly on edge anyway. Sources in the report say that officials fear the political heat if the decision goes one way. The source adds that the alternative worries them just as much.
Meghan Markle’s security review has ministers fearing taxpayer fury, per source
The choice on taxpayer-funded police protection for Meghan Markle does not sit well with ministers. In his Substack, Rob Shuter reports that the decision belongs to RAVEC, the specialist committee that assesses protective security for royals and other public figures.
Even so, his sources say government figures expect to shoulder the blame. If the security review for Markle ends in publicly funded protection, ministers believe voters will look to them. “That’s the nightmare — ministers don’t make this decision, but they know they’ll be blamed for it,” a government source told Shuter.
The same source described the mood in Westminster. “Nobody wants their name attached to giving Meghan taxpayer-funded protection,” they said. “The public won’t care which committee signed off on it. They’ll blame the government.”
Insiders stressed that RAVEC’s ruling must be driven by professional security assessments. Politics and Markle’s popularity should not come into it. According to the report, that principle does not remove the political consequences.
Another insider put it bluntly. “Try explaining RAVEC to an angry taxpayer,” they said. They added that ministers know they would face the questions if public money paid for her protection, even though they did not make the call.
The report says refusing protection is not a safe option either. “Nobody wants to interfere with an independent security assessment,” a source told Naughty But Nice. “But if protection is denied and something happens, ministers will still face questions. Either way, they fear they’ll own the fallout.”
