Just Chattin' - Harry & Meghan: Internationally Protected People = Rival Court in Montecito

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/c... The amendment was considered necessary by Congress to give effect to "international obligations of the United States to resident diplomatic, consular and other foreign government personnel and their families within [the] borders [of the United States]," and to extend similar protection to private foreign citizens visiting the United States pursuant to official recognition. See S. Rep. No. 1105, 92d Cong., 2d Sess (1972), reprinted in 1972 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News 4316. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-st... https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/... This new blueprint included the claim that Meghan and Harry would maintain access to armed security organised by the Metropolitan Police. The Duke and Duchess claimed they were entitled to this because they were still classified as “internationally protected people”. https://www.the-sun.com/news/257132/m... Meghan Markle and Prince Harry have removed a claim on their website that they're "internationally protected people" and entitled to bodyguards around the globe. Canada has appeared to rein back a pledge to pay Harry and Meghan’s £1 million-a-year security bill should they move there. https://www.interforinternational.com... They were, however, entitled to both British and Canadian protection when they first came to Vancouver Island as Internationally Protected Persons (IPP), a status members of the Queen’s immediate family retain and which entitles them to state-sponsored protection almost anywhere in the world. Security costs for British royals as IPPs are among the few expenses totally funded by taxpayers. Queen Elizabeth pays for her car, dresses, and vacations, but security is provided by British taxpayer funds. When she travels abroad for state visits, foreign governments cover the costs.