As civilians, they are responsible for their own security

The argument

Royalty is the height of privilege. Royals are not only born into immense wealth, but also status, celebrity, and opportunity. Considering this, it is difficult to make the case that the Duke and Duchess deserve the state's assistance in their security. Two separate points support that conclusion. The first is about capacity. The fame and opportunities that they have been granted as a result of their public image guarantee that they have ample ability to provide the funding for their own security. Public funding is ordinarily justified where a cost cannot be met privately, and that justification does not apply here — the same public profile that creates the security requirement is also the asset that makes it affordable. The second point is about consistency, and proponents treat it as the more important one. They willfully dropped their royal duties, so they should expect to lose the benefits associated with their titles. Security funded by the state is attached to the performance of a public role rather than to a person; it exists because someone is carrying out duties on the public's behalf, and it is those duties that make the protection a public matter. Once the role is set aside, the basis for the funding goes with it. Keeping the benefit while discarding the obligation would mean treating the support as a personal entitlement rather than as a provision tied to service. The comparison the argument ends on makes the standard explicit. Without their royal status, they are now just celebrities, and the most powerful Hollywood celebrities pay their own security bills — people of comparable fame and comparable risk who meet the cost themselves as an ordinary consequence of being public figures. They made the decision to leave royalty, and they should expect to be responsible for their decision.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Despite making the voluntary decision to leave their royal titles behind, in reality, it is only in name. Harry and Meghan are still inseparable from their royal status, and still members of the royal family. Therefore, their security needs and risks have remained unchanged. The only thing that has changed is that they will no longer participate in royal duties, and will not directly receive public funds for their use. Their security costs may be inconvenient considering their departure from royal duties, but it is necessary considering that they still retain the public image that is impossible to leave behind.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] They still have the status of royalty attached to their names, despite dropping their titles. [Rejecting P2] Their attachment to the royal family still means that they are vulnerable to safety concerns, and therefore the responsibility of the family and state.