Revealed: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle cost Canadian taxpayers $539k for private protection including $365k in one year alone while they were dating and $10,586 to guard Duchess during a girls' weekend 55%

By Martin Robinson83%

7/31/2026, 6:29:27 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Confirmation Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 32.8% saturation with 266 hits. Analysis detected 1,624 faulty-reasoning hits from 811 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46.2% and a BS Rank of 55% (12,654 of 27,913 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 54.70% of the article peer group.

Prince Harry racked up the highest taxpayer-funded security bill of any VIP visiting Canada over a five-year period - including $365,000 (£195,000) in 12 months while he was courting Meghan Markle, newly released figures revealed today. 
Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) records show public spending on protection for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex was $539,000 (£286,686) between April 2015 and March 2020. 
Canadian taxpayers may even have picked up a $10,586 (£5,642) bill for Mountie bodyguards during the Duchess of Sussex's private three-day girls' trip to Toronto with her former best friend Jessica Mulroney in 2018, it has emerged. 
State broadcaster CBC has won a six-year freedom of information battle to uncover the true cost of protecting dignitaries visiting the country. 
The $539,000 (£286,686) spent protecting Harry was the highest security bill for any VIP over the same five-year period - more than the Obamas, the Clintons and the Trumps. 
His annual security bill peaked at $364,859 in 2017-18, the year he proposed to Meghan, who was filming the final series of Suits in Toronto. 
In the 2016-17, the year they first met and began secretly dating, the cost to Canadian taxpayers was $106,000. 
The amount spent protecting Harry, then a working member of the Royal Family, dwarfed the $178,584 bill for his father, then-Prince Charles, who visited Ontario and Quebec with Camilla in 2017. 
Harry stayed with Meghan at her home in Toronto (pictured) when she was filming Suits. 
Their relationship was a secret for around six months 
'We had a good five, six months almost with just privacy, which was amazing', Meghan said at that time. 
The cost of protecting the Sussexes in Canada dropped sharply to $866 in 2018-19 and $904 in 2019-20 - when they spent most of their time in the UK after marrying - before rising again to $56,405 in 2019-20. 
Harry and Meghan had briefly moved to Vancouver after Megxit in January 2020, before relocating to California on a secret trip Harry called their 'freedom flight'. 
In its accounts, the RCMP attributes the vast majority of the $539,000 costs over five years to Prince Harry. 
According to the Court Circular, Prince Harry had one public visit to Canada during 2017 and 2018 - a weeklong trip to Toronto related to Invictus and the Duke of Edinburgh Awards. 
The newly released documents show a separate entry for the Duchess of Sussex in 2018-19, totalling $10,586. 
CBC has linked the expenditure directly to a trip Meghan made in August 2018 to spend three days with Jessica Mulroney. 
It is believed to be her only visit to Canada in that financial year. 
They became close while Meghan was filming Suits in Toronto for seven years, with Jessica often credited with helping shape many of Meghan's most stylish looks. 
But their friendship is said to have later crumbled when Jessica was cancelled in June 2020 after a Black influencer accused her of exhibiting 'textbook white privilege' during a dispute linked to the Black Lives Matter movement. 
Meghan reportedly cut off contact. 
Jessica had been inseparable from Meghan for years, helped keep her relationship with Harry secret and was among the first people Meghan called from Kensington Palace after Harry proposed. 
Jessica's twin sons, John and Brian, then seven, had the honour of carrying Meghan's train down the aisle at St George's Chapel, Windsor, while her daughter Ivy, then two, served as a bridesmaid alongside Princess Charlotte at the royal wedding. 
But Jessica was later cut adrift by her former best friend, and effectively cancelled, after expressing her views on Black Lives Matter. 
'She was upset their friendship ended,' an insider told the Daily Mail last year. 
While Prince Harry topped the list for VIP security costs, the bill for Canadian Mounties protecting former US presidents and their families was at $497,544. 
A number of these visits were related speeches, book tours and even ski holidays. 
Canadian security expert Phil Gurski told CBC that VIPs visiting the country for commercial engagements should help cover the costs. 
He said: 'Why are we paying for the privilege of them coming here to make money from Canadians?' 
Security for Barack and Michelle Obama cost $295,411, followed by Bill and Hillary Clinton on $143,927. 
'President Trump & Family' is also listed in the accounts, with $51,558 incurred in 2016-17, $13,078 in 2017-18 and $1,769 in 2018-19. 
Protecting US ambassadors to Canada, Bruce Heyman and Kelly Craft, cost $487,654 over five years, followed by the $446,333 spent on security for US vice-presidents such as Joe Biden and Mike Pence. 
The financial records were first requested in January 2020 but only were released this week after Canada's Information Commissioner Caroline Maynard intervened. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.9%Martin Robinson: 6.5%Daily Mail: 3.5%Confirmation Bias14.9%This article: 6.8%Martin Robinson: 2.7%Daily Mail: 1.0%Anchoring Bias6.8%This article: 6.4%Martin Robinson: 2.1%Daily Mail: 3.2%Availability Heuristic6.4%This article: 1.7%Martin Robinson: 0.6%Daily Mail: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic1.7%This article: 0.0%Martin Robinson: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Martin Robinson: 0.5%Daily Mail: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Martin Robinson: 9.0%Daily Mail: 8.6%Framing Effect6.3%This article: 1.7%Martin Robinson: 0.3%Daily Mail: 0.3%Loss Aversion1.7%This article: 0.0%Martin Robinson: 0.7%Daily Mail: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Martin Robinson: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect4.8%This article: 2.3%Martin Robinson: 0.9%Daily Mail: 2.3%Optimism Bias2.3%This article: 6.3%Martin Robinson: 0.4%Daily Mail: 1.1%Pessimism Bias6.3%This article: 23.4%Martin Robinson: 8.7%Daily Mail: 12.0%Negativity Bias23.4%This article: 0.0%Martin Robinson: 0.2%Daily Mail: 1.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Martin Robinson: 1.5%Daily Mail: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error3.6%This article: 0.0%Martin Robinson: 0.6%Daily Mail: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Martin Robinson: 1.2%Daily Mail: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Martin Robinson: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Martin Robinson: 7.9%Daily Mail: 4.5%Halo Effect3.2%This article: 0.0%Martin Robinson: 0.8%Daily Mail: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Martin Robinson: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.1%Martin Robinson: 0.9%Daily Mail: 1.5%Recency Bias3.1%This article: 3.6%Martin Robinson: 0.7%Daily Mail: 0.5%Primacy Effect3.6%This article: 0.0%Martin Robinson: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Martin Robinson: 0.7%Daily Mail: 1.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Martin Robinson: 0.7%Daily Mail: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.2%Martin Robinson: 4.4%Daily Mail: 3.7%Appeal to Authority7.2%This article: 0.0%Martin Robinson: 0.8%Daily Mail: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 2.7%Martin Robinson: 0.7%Daily Mail: 0.7%Slippery Slope2.7%This article: 0.0%Martin Robinson: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.9%Martin Robinson: 3.1%Daily Mail: 4.1%Hasty Generalization5.9%This article: 0.0%Martin Robinson: 0.7%Daily Mail: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Martin Robinson: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 12.3%Martin Robinson: 5.5%Daily Mail: 7.1%Appeal to Emotion12.3%This article: 0.0%Martin Robinson: 1.6%Daily Mail: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 17.4%Martin Robinson: 1.6%Daily Mail: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)17.4%This article: 0.0%Martin Robinson: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.9%Martin Robinson: 0.7%Daily Mail: 0.6%Burden of Proof3.9%This article: 0.0%Martin Robinson: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 7.8%Martin Robinson: 0.3%Daily Mail: 0.1%Composition/Division7.8%This article: 4.9%Martin Robinson: 3.1%Daily Mail: 3.1%Anecdotal4.9%This article: 0.0%Martin Robinson: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.2%Martin Robinson: 1.1%Daily Mail: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.2%This article: 0.0%Martin Robinson: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Martin Robinson: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Martin Robinson: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Martin Robinson: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Martin Robinson: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.3%Martin Robinson: 1.0%Daily Mail: 3.6%Unattributed Quote2.3%This article: 0.0%Martin Robinson: 0.2%Daily Mail: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 32.8%Martin Robinson: 6.1%Daily Mail: 8.9%Biased Writer Voice32.8%This article: 0.0%Martin Robinson: 1.0%Daily Mail: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 4.6%Martin Robinson: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%Martin Robinson: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Martin Robinson: 0.6%Daily Mail: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

811 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers7.0%attributed speech754writer words
Selected voice

Meghan Markle

100%flagged-word coverage
19 attributed words33% of attributed speech82% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Meghan Markle: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-35.3 ptsWriter: 35.3%Meghan Markle: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-4.9 ptsWriter: 4.9%Meghan Markle: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.