The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 4: April-June 2021

[US Royal Watcher]

Harry said all they wanted to do was to "step back" from being senior royals not "walk away". Security is extremely important as Harry is the son of a future King. Since marrying a woman of color there has been an increased risk and threats against him and his family. Daddy should've always continued to provide security.

Daddy never provided security - it was provided by the British taxpayer. If they had stayed in the UK they would probably have taxpayer funded security. They chose to leave. At some point, adults have to stop demanding Daddy fund their life choices.

 

[Osipi]

Harry said all they wanted to do was to "step back" from being senior royals not "walk away". Security is extremely important as Harry is the son of a future King. Since marrying a woman of color there has been an increased risk and threats against him and his family. Daddy should've always continued to provide security.

Perhaps if they had "stepped back" and remained in the UK and just cut down their working duties, it would have been more feasible for Charles to assent to provide security. If they lived at Frogmore Cottage quietly, they'd have built in security. They actually "walked out", moved thousands of miles away to a country where its being said that the sign of the US getting back to somewhat "normal" after a pandemic is daily mass shootings and tensions are high in cities all over the country. They've provided a 14 million dollar mansion for themselves in a prime, elite neighborhood. If they can afford that, they can afford their own security.

When you walk away from a job that pays the bills, you don't blame the company when you can't meet your rent and buy groceries because you've not found another job yet. You only can have what you can afford. That's a lesson the majority of us learn as we step out on our own two feet into adulthood.

 

[ACO]

Harry and Meghan are paying their own bills. This is a bit of a moot discussion as they are not asking for money from the family. I get when they first left they were a bit surprised and frustrated that their security was removed as their location was leaked by the tabloids. They felt stressed over that but it all worked out. And honestly it was all the best it happened the way it did.

 

[Hallo girl]

Harry and Meghan are paying their own bills. This is a bit of a moot discussion as they are not asking for money from the family. I get when they first left they were a bit surprised and frustrated that their security was removed as their location was leaked by the tabloids. They felt stressed over that but it all worked out. And honestly it was all the best it happened the way it did.

Why did Harry raise the issue of his father removing his funding with Oprah .

 

[Erin9]

The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 4: April 2021 -

Harry said all they wanted to do was to "step back" from being senior royals not "walk away". Security is extremely important as Harry is the son of a future King. Since marrying a woman of color there has been an increased risk and threats against him and his family. Daddy should've always continued to provide security.

Ultimately, he did decide to walk away. That wasn’t his original plan, but that was his ultimate choice.

As it turned out his poorly thought out version of HIHO wasn’t palatable to his bosses. His options were: all in or all out. He chose out. Well- that came with consequences.

He should have thought about the security issue and planned accordingly before walking out. It’s no one’s fault but his and Meghan’s that they walked before planning ahead. Charles didn’t provide his security in the past. Assuming he would just start paying for it was erroneously presumptive on his part. Too bad.

They’re very contradictory with their plans on leaving the business, being HIHO, what happened when...but bottom line for me: they simply didn’t plan WELL. And they really didn’t think it through. They may have thought they did, but I don’t see evidence of it. That’s on them.

 

[Mbruno]

Harry served ten years in the army which included two periods in active service in Afghanistan. During that decade he mixed with ‘ordinary people’ every day, to a far greater extent, I would suggest, than many other senior royals in his family. Service life is a great leveller.

Several people in his family had periods of active service in the military, including Andrew, the present Duke of Kent, Philip, and even the future King George VI.

 

[Hallo girl]

Daddy never provided security - it was provided by the British taxpayer. If they had stayed in the UK they would probably have taxpayer funded security. They chose to leave. At some point, adults have to stop demanding Daddy fund their life choices.

And there is no way the British tax payer was going to accept that we paid the security costs for multi millionaires who decided to walk away from the security already in place here .
I do not have a problem with my taxes contributing to security costs for the senior members of the family and I include the Sussex family in that but they walked away.
They obviously knew it would be a bone of contention because they mentioned how they were still entitled to it in the statement or website when they left.
These are the kind of issues that probably were causing delays in coming to an agreement before it became public.

 

[ACO]

Why did Harry raise the issue of his father removing his funding with Oprah .

Because that is where they were at the time during the review seemly forced upon them. Not like Harry had a job where he was earning a paycheck. He is now. He was given an allowance. Which is weird in itself. A grown man given an allowance. I am glad it stopped and Harry is now working for his own money.

It was a shock to his system but I am glad it happened to him. He needed it. And I am glad he did have Diana's money (and friends to lean on) to make sure he could secure security and protect his family who did need it. He should have realized it would be stripped. He just was so used to it always being there. Regardless that is his responsibility. I mean even today there was a report that someone was arrested who had a bomb book with Archie's name/face on it. So I get his fear.

It all worked out in the end and lessons were learned.

 

[Mbruno]

And there is no way the British tax payer was going to accept that we paid the security costs for multi millionaires who decided to walk away from the security already in place here.

Besides, how could they have British public security when they were iving permanently overseas? That is simply impossible. If they had stayed in Canada, the Canadian government would have had to be responsible for security.



My understanding from Harry's grievances is that, once the Palace downgraded his status as no longer a working royal, the Canadians claimed he and his wife no longer qualified as "internationally protected persons", or whatever the correct legal term is, so they had to withdraw RCMP security.

 

[Erin9]

The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 4: April 2021 -

Deleted post.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Because that is where they were at the time during the review seemly forced upon them.

I'm sorry but I'm not sure what you mean by this. Oprah didn't force him to talk about being cut off, Harry brought that up himself.

 

[ACO]

I'm sorry but I'm not sure what you mean by this. Oprah didn't force him to talk about being cut off, Harry brought that up himself.

I meant the 1 year review. It was stated many times that Harry and Meghan didn't want it but it was by Charles and HMQ. I am guessing Harry assumed that in that duration that he would have more time to settle in but got a reality check. Probably what created the resentment. What was the point of it?

Harry should have known it would all be removed on the final day especially since he said there were discussions going on. But as said, luckily for them they had other resources to make sure they were okay in that regard... and I am glad they did.

 

[Osipi]

I'm sorry but I'm not sure what you mean by this. Oprah didn't force him to talk about being cut off, Harry brought that up himself.

Maybe it's just how I saw it but when Harry stated that they had to take the Netflix and Spotify contracts in order to provide for themselves, it sounded to me like a little kid being aghast at being told that if he wanted that new baseball mitt he'll have to save up his allowance or do extra chores and actually work to get what he wanted. It's almost like Harry was saying "We actually have to *work* to get the things we need now" as if that was a totally new concept to him.

I think Harry's idea of "financially independent" and what "financially independent" really is were two different concepts. They believed that they could do away with the 5% from the Sovereign Grant which would allow them to "commercialize" a lot of things they wanted to do. They didn't realize that the 95% from Charles was contingent on them working for the "Firm" and supporting "Team Windsor".

Hopefully Harry returns to the US with a better relationship with his family in the sense that they can and will remain as "family" but all have an acceptance of the way things are and Harry is no longer part of the "Firm" and "Team Windsor" any longer and because of that, the reality is that he's now an extended member of the British royal family living a private life of his own by choice.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I meant the 1 year review. It was stated many times that Harry and Meghan didn't want it but it was by Charles and HMQ. I am guessing Harry assumed that in that duration that he would have more time to settle in but got a reality check. Probably what created the resentment. What was the point of it?

Harry should have known it would all be removed on the final day especially since he said there were discussions going on. But as said, luckily for them they had other resources to make sure they were okay in that regard... and I am glad they did.

I understand and you may be right about one year review. My take is that Charles wanted Harry and probably Meghan to continue in some capacity but the one year review was to evaluate the type of income Harry and Meghan could earn to decide if it was compatible with royal duties. I guess it is a matter of perspective.

 

[Hallo girl]

I meant the 1 year review. It was stated many times that Harry and Meghan didn't want it but it was by Charles and HMQ. I am guessing Harry assumed that in that duration that he would have more time to settle in but got a reality check. Probably what created the resentment. What was the point of it?

Harry should have known it would all be removed on the final day especially since he said there were discussions going on. But as said, luckily for them they had other resources to make sure they were okay in that regard... and I am glad they did.

I am a bit confused with your post, you are saying Harry and Meghan didn't want the review period but by the same token they didnt appear to be ready for a cut off point .
It only goes to confirm that their idea of financial independence didn't match the family's view.
Could that be why there were delays trying to find a solution in the first place.

 

[BriarRose]

I do think Harry and Meghan had a lot of anxiety, even before they left, over not having a set yearly income that was guaranteed as working royals. And I think this is a fair issue that William needs to not run from, but decide how he will handle for his own children in the next few years, so they can be raised understanding exactly what financial support they can expect, and not expect.

On the other hand, I don't doubt for a minute that they would have received generous monetary support as full-time royals, in addition to free luxury housing, free security, and likely, free private education for their children. I'm not sure that Harry and Megan fully understood what financials were covered, in addition to funds given to them by Charles.

I think the biggest mistake the Sussexes made in their bargaining was moving to North America upfront. If they had stayed in the UK (and I'm not even saying Frogmore Cottage- if they really wanted something else, they could have rented for the year), I do believe they would have continued to receive public security for their year of review. From what I see, they could have still closed their Netflix deal from the U.K., and their Spotify contract. That would have given them a much less stressful start to their new life. They could have then moved to California after the year in review. (But hindsight is always 20/20).

 

[ACO]

I am a bit confused with your post, you are saying Harry and Meghan didn't want the review period but by the same token they didnt appear to be ready for a cut off point .
It only goes to confirm that their idea of financial independence didn't match the family's view.
Could that be why there were delays trying to find a solution in the first place.

I think Harry wrongly assumed that during that transition they would have had a period to allow them to settle in before it was all removed. Hence Meghan saying she was worried about Harry's protection being removed. Clearly there was a lack of communication or understanding. The entire "review" was truly pointless anyways. Nothing changed.

Just grateful they were able to figure it out and nothing happened as they were transitioning out their security situation. They had help in that regard and I am glad they did.

 

[Hallo girl]

I think Harry wrongly assumed that during that transition they would have had a period to allow them to settle in before it was all removed. Hence Meghan saying she was worried about Harry's protection being removed. Clearly there was a lack of communication or understanding. The entire "review" was truly pointless anyways. Nothing changed.

Just grateful they were able to figure it out and nothing happened as they were transitioning out their security situation. They had help in that regard and I am glad they did.

I see now what you are saying. They maybe thought they could force the family's hand but it didn't work out.
Anyway , it is bed time for me.
Night all.

 

[ACO]

I think the biggest mistake the Sussexes made in their bargaining was moving to North America upfront. If they had stayed in the UK (and I'm not even saying Frogmore Cottage- if they really wanted something else, they could have rented for the year), I do believe they would have continued to receive public security for their year of review. From what I see, they could have still closed their Netflix deal from the U.K., and their Spotify contract. That would have given them a much less stressful start to their new life. They could have then moved to California after the year in review. (But hindsight is always 20/20).

No way. They were no longer working royals. They would have had the same issues only they would have still been in the UK and Meghan likely would have been even more miserable. There is a reason they paid back Frogmore Cottage. They wanted to remove all debts and rightfully so.

In the end it all happened the way it was suppose to, I guess. Better to just rip off the bandage. The review was just in name only.

 

[Alisa]

Daddy never provided security - it was provided by the British taxpayer. If they had stayed in the UK they would probably have taxpayer funded security. They chose to leave. At some point, adults have to stop demanding Daddy fund their life choices.

Daddy has personal funding independent of the British tax payer.
The couple made it clear that they wished to step back not leave but they were met with resistance and repeated roadblocks. No one probably thought they were serious. With their backs against the wall they opted to leave for their well-being.
Whatever the scenario, Harry was born into his position- by virtue of being alive there are risks and threats. Security should've been provided.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Daddy has personal funding independent of the British tax payer.
The couple made it clear that they wished to step back not leave but they were met with resistance and repeated roadblocks. No one probably thought they were serious. With their backs against the wall they opted to leave for their well-being.
Whatever the scenario, Harry was born into his position- by virtue of being alive there are risks and threats. Security should've been provided.

Harry also has personal funding independent of the British taxpayer, he admitted that he didn't want to spend it. Charles was also born into his position, as was Beatrice and Eugenie and other members of the family who don't have 24 hour security.

Many people all over the world are at risk and living under threats: refugees, abused spouses, people who live in high crime areas, etc. Few have rich daddies to pick up the bill for round the clock security. Harry and Meghan could have chosen a smaller house where security would not have been as expensive. I understand she wasn't happy in the UK and wanted to move, but there are many people who would be happier somewhere else. I'd love to live closer to my family but my husband and I can't afford to quit our jobs and demand that our parents financially support us.

As a taxpayer, I can understand why the British public didn't want to pick up the bill and I can understand why Charles did not want to do it. Especially when they have enough money to buy mansions with 16 bathrooms.

 

[Alisa]

Perhaps if they had "stepped back" and remained in the UK and just cut down their working duties, it would have been more feasible for Charles to assent to provide security. If they lived at Frogmore Cottage quietly, they'd have built in security. They actually "walked out", moved thousands of miles away to a country where its being said that the sign of the US getting back to somewhat "normal" after a pandemic is daily mass shootings and tensions are high in cities all over the country. They've provided a 14 million dollar mansion for themselves in a prime, elite neighborhood. If they can afford that, they can afford their own security.

When you walk away from a job that pays the bills, you don't blame the company when you can't meet your rent and buy groceries because you've not found another job yet. You only can have what you can afford. That's a lesson the majority of us learn as we step out on our own two feet into adulthood.

Harry is not one of the Queen's distant cousins that opted to be a senior royal then wanted to step back. He is the 2nd son of a future King and had lived his entire life in the public spotlight. He's always had security and should have it because of WHO he is - not because of where he is located.

 

[Osipi]

Harry is not one of the Queen's distant cousins that opted to be a senior royal then wanted to step back. He is the 2nd son of a future King and had lived his entire life in the public spotlight. He's always had security and should have it because of WHO he is - not because of where he is located.

Then by your rationalization, Beatrice and Eugenie should have taxpayer funded security too as granddaughters of the Queen. Andrew, however, has opted to pay for private security for his daughters (whether he still does or not, I don't know). Charles has decided that he's not going to privately fund Harry's security and that's his prerogative. Harry's protection detail that he's always had since birth was provided by the Metropolitan Police and funded by the British taxpayers. The Met Police didn't deem Harry's security in the US as feasible and neither did the Canadian government when he resided there. Perhaps you think the US government should provide security as he's at risk on *their* soil? I don't think so.

If Harry picks and chooses his location and his lifestyle and can afford a very expensive home in a very expensive neighborhood, it stands to reason he can afford his own protection detail.

 

[EllieCat]

Several people in his family had periods of active service in the military, including Andrew, the present Duke of Kent, Philip, and even the future King George VI.

I believe Alexander Earl of Ulster also served.

Harry is not one of the Queen's distant cousins that opted to be a senior royal then wanted to step back. He is the 2nd son of a future King and had lived his entire life in the public spotlight.

When Harry left, he was 6th in line. When they were born, Beatrice and Eugenie were 5th and 6th (if i have my maths right); they're very well known too – and they don't have tax-payer security, and seem to do ok.

 

[Alisa]

Harry also has personal funding independent of the British taxpayer, he admitted that he didn't want to spend it. Charles was also born into his position, as was Beatrice and Eugenie and other members of the family who don't have 24 hour security.

Charles has security 24/7. Beatrice and Eugenie don't- neither ladies were senior members of the royal family, neither ladies had risk and threats equivalent to Prince Harry.
Moreover, Beatrice and Eugenie's status is exactly what H&M wanted. To be able to work and support themselves independently while still being able to support their charities. However they were blatantly told no- that it was all in or all out.

Many people all over the world are at risk and living under threats: refugees, abused spouses, people who live in high crime areas, etc. Few have rich daddies to pick up the bill for round the clock security. Harry and Meghan could have chosen a smaller house where security would not have been as expensive. I understand she wasn't happy in the UK and wanted to move, but there are many people who would be happier somewhere else. I'd love to live closer to my family but my husband and I can't afford to quit our jobs and demand that our parents financially support us.

They're many factors that went to choosing their Montecito mansion-location, job, accessibility, proximity to family and friends, access to resources..etc.
Sure they could've had a nice home in Billings, Montana for a fraction of the price of their Montecito mansion but would it have been practical...no.
The beauty if mansions is that they provide more protection than smaller homes and safety and protection is what H&M needs.

As a taxpayer, I can understand why the British public didn't want to pick up the bill and I can understand why Charles did not want to do it. Especially when they have enough money to buy mansions with 16 bathrooms.

The British taxpayer shouldn't foot the couple's security bill if they are not serving the British public. If they had gotten their wish to be part-time royals ala Beatrice and Eugenie then yes they could have. However, like I have been saying- Harry is the son of a British future monarch who has alot more funds and private wealth. Harry didn't ask to be born- Charles should've provided security.

 

[TLLK]

Harry also has personal funding independent of the British taxpayer, he admitted that he didn't want to spend it. Charles was also born into his position, as was Beatrice and Eugenie and other members of the family who don't have 24 hour security.

Many people all over the world are at risk and living under threats: refugees, abused spouses, people who live in high crime areas, etc. Few have rich daddies to pick up the bill for round the clock security. Harry and Meghan could have chosen a smaller house where security would not have been as expensive. I understand she wasn't happy in the UK and wanted to move, but there are many people who would be happier somewhere else. I'd love to live closer to my family but my husband and I can't afford to quit our jobs and demand that our parents financially support us.

As a taxpayer, I can understand why the British public didn't want to pick up the bill and I can understand why Charles did not want to do it. Especially when they have enough money to buy mansions with 16 bathrooms.

Excellent post and they could have certainly opted for a smaller home in a gated community while residing in a less pricey region of Southern California. Montecito is in one of the U.S.A.'s most expensive zip codes.https://www.businessinsider.com/the...merica-2020-11#1-atherton-california-94027-27 They could have chosen to stay in Los Angeles, Orange or even Ventura County which would have kept them very close to Ms. Ragland and other friends/colleagues. They did not need to reside in one of my state's most expensive and exclusive communities. That was their choice to buy there. And no it is not required in my home state of California to purchase a "mansion" in order to have safe and secure housing. It is possible to own a gated property with smaller square footage that would provide ample room for a family.



Prince Harry's Uncle Edward and Aunt Anne are the children of the current reigning monarch. They perform official domestic and foreign royal duties but no longer have the full time security that they once had. They only receive it when performing official duties.



Yes Prince Harry did serve honorably overseas for two tours in Afghanistan, however he has chosen to leave with his family and reside outside of the UK. To demand that his father or the British, Canadian or American taxpayers to fund his security was an unreasonable request IMHO.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Charles has security 24/7. Beatrice and Eugenie don't- neither ladies were senior members of the royal family, neither ladies had risk and threats equivalent to Prince Harry.
Moreover, Beatrice and Eugenie's status is exactly what H&M wanted. To be able to work and support themselves independently while still being able to support their charities. However they were blatantly told no- that it was all in or all out.

Beatrice and Eugenie are not part-time working royals. They support charities in a private capacity - so they are all out but they didn't have a choice.

They're many factors that went to choosing their Montecito mansion-location, job, accessibility, proximity to family and friends, access to resources..etc.
Sure they could've had a nice home in Billings, Montana for a fraction of the price of their Montecito mansion but would it have been practical...no.
The beauty if mansions is that they provide more protection than smaller homes and safety and protection is what H&M needs.

I don't care why they chose that home, the issue is whether they can afford it. If they can pay their own security, they should

The British taxpayer shouldn't foot the couple's security bill if they are not serving the British public. If they had gotten their wish to be part-time royals ala Beatrice and Eugenie then yes they could have. However, like I have been saying- Harry is the son of a British future monarch who has alot more funds and private wealth. Harry didn't ask to be born- Charles should've provided security.

I'm guessing you don't have adult children - no one asks to be born. But most of us have to pay our own bills.

 

[Mbruno]

Harry is not one of the Queen's distant cousins that opted to be a senior royal then wanted to step back. He is the 2nd son of a future King and had lived his entire life in the public spotlight. He's always had security and should have it because of WHO he is - not because of where he is located.

The Queen's own children, other than the PoW, only have public security when attending official royal functions. Why should one of the Queen's grandsons who is not in direct line to the throne be treated differently from his uncles and aunt?

 

[Alisa]

Then by your rationalization, Beatrice and Eugenie should have taxpayer funded security too as granddaughters of the Queen. Andrew, however, has opted to pay for private security for his daughters (whether he still does or not, I don't know). Charles has decided that he's not going to privately fund Harry's security and that's his prerogative. Harry's protection detail that he's always had since birth was provided by the Metropolitan Police and funded by the British taxpayers. The Met Police didn't deem Harry's security in the US as feasible and neither did the Canadian government when he resided there. Perhaps you think the US government should provide security as he's at risk on *their* soil? I don't think so.

If Harry picks and chooses his location and his lifestyle and can afford a very expensive home in a very expensive neighborhood, it stands to reason he can afford his own protection detail.

Then by your rationalization, Beatrice and Eugenie should have taxpayer funded security too as granddaughters of the Queen. Andrew, however, has opted to pay for private security for his daughters (whether he still does or not, I don't know).

Beatrice and Eugenie never lived all their lives as senior royals. They're father is not expected to become- it's never been published that they have received death threats. If their father, the Duke of York can understand that his children needs security and be willing to pay for it despite the fact that the York Princesses are both adults and make their own money- how much more so should the PoW.

Charles has decided that he's not going to privately fund Harry's security and that's his prerogative. Harry's protection detail that he's always had since birth was provided by the Metropolitan Police and funded by the British taxpayers. The Met Police didn't deem Harry's security in the US as feasible and neither did the Canadian government when he resided there.

If the MetPo and Canadian government didn't see it feasible which is their prerogative- Charles should've stepped up and provided it especially as this new lifestyle change was new to Harry. His security and that of his family is one thing he should not have to worry about.

Perhaps you think the US government should provide security as he's at risk on *their* soil? I don't think so.

Obviously not and no one would agree to that. If the son of the Emir of Qatar is living privately here in the US- either the Emir and/or the Qatari government should foot the security bill, same thing if Prince Sverre Magnus of Norway decides to live in the US- his security should be taken care of by either the Norwegian government or his grandfather or father...I hope you get the picture.

If Harry picks and chooses his location and his lifestyle and can afford a very expensive home in a very expensive neighborhood, it stands to reason he can afford his own protection detail.

Thank goodness he could have since his father wasn't going to!

 

[Alisa]

Excellent post and they could have certainly opted for a smaller home in a gated community while residing in a less pricey region of Southern California. Montecito is in one of the U.S.A.'s most expensive zip codes.https://www.businessinsider.com/the...merica-2020-11#1-atherton-california-94027-27 They could have chosen to stay in Los Angeles, Orange or even Ventura County which would have kept them very close to Ms. Ragland and other friends/colleagues. They did not need to reside in one of my state's most expensive and exclusive communities. That was their choice to buy there. And no it is not required in my home state of California to purchase a "mansion" in order to have safe and secure housing. It is possible to own a gated property with smaller square footage that would provide ample room for a family.



Prince Harry's Uncle Edward and Aunt Anne are the children of the current reigning monarch. They perform official domestic and foreign royal duties but no longer have the full time security that they once had. They only receive it when performing official duties.



Yes Prince Harry did serve honorably overseas for two tours in Afghanistan, however he has chosen to leave with his family and reside outside of the UK. To demand that his father or the British, Canadian or American taxpayers to fund his security was an unreasonable request IMHO.

Excellent post and they could have certainly opted for a smaller home in a gated community while residing in a less pricey region of Southern California. Montecito is in one of the U.S.A.'s most expensive zip codes.https://www.businessinsider.com/the...merica-2020-11#1-atherton-california-94027-27 They could have chosen to stay in Los Angeles, Orange or even Ventura County which would have kept them very close to Ms. Ragland and other friends/colleagues. They did not need to reside in one of my state's most expensive and exclusive communities. That was their choice to buy there. And no it is not required in my home state of California to purchase a "mansion" in order to have safe and secure housing. It is possible to own a gated property with smaller square footage that would provide ample room for a family.



Prince Harry's Uncle Edward and Aunt Anne are the children of the current reigning monarch. They perform official domestic and foreign royal duties but no longer have the full time security that they once had. They only receive it when performing official duties.



Yes Prince Harry did serve honorably overseas for two tours in Afghanistan, however he has chosen to leave with his family and reside outside of the UK. To demand that his father or the British, Canadian or American taxpayers to fund his security was an unreasonable request IMHO.

A gated community? Um no...think of the security breaches that could happen. For ex. paparazzi paying off one of the neighbors so they can spy on the couple's activity, or pretending to be guests of neighbors so they can fly drones around and get pictures and videos of Archie's birthday party or the like.
California real estate ain't cheap. Moreover, we all know their is a correlation with pricy zipcodes and safety. The most expensive zipcodes are in fact the safest zipcodes...low crime rates and more privacy.