To be surprised that I see Harry’s point about the security

He's also had terrorist organisations threaten his life, he has to take his security seriously and he didn't ask to be born into the Royal family - maybe he hasn't handled leaving it well but if Andrew was still getting paid for protection until the end of 2024 then why wasn't Harry?

I feel sympathy for him and completely understand why he feels vulnerable. His mother was hounded to death by paparazzi. He and his wife have been on the receiving end of an insane level of hate. I would absolutely want security if I was him.
I do think he says too much though. He keeps claiming to want reconciliation with his family yet repeatedly reveals very private information about them. I think he does it from a place of deep hurt.

He gets a higher level of security than most working royals. He gets the same level of security that Edward had when he was 5th in line to the throne!

I’m not sure if Harry’s realised this, but his wife has exactly zero intention of ever setting foot back in the UK for any meaningful length of time. I imagine she’ll avoid it altogether. The kids won’t go without her either. So this is largely a moot point.
I hear the argument that he was born into this…but so was Beatrice and Eugene, who I’m sure get a lot of threats due to their royal status and fact their father is….well, let’s not go there. Harry is not a working royal. He works paid jobs now, as does Meghan. They’re just celebrities now, same as Beyoncé and Taylor Swift - who pay for their own security.
Why does he need tax payer funded security in the UK, but not in the US? A country where almost any adult can walk around with a gun. Honestly, I’m not even sure he knows why he’s fighting these court cases anymore. And why he thinks he can keep talking trash about his family but reconcile with them. Deluded over-privileged and out of touch.

He quit his job. You no longer get the company benefits after you leave.
Anne, Edward & Sophie only receive protection when they are on official engagements.
Andrew gets nothing (obviously!)
The only one of the Queen’s grandchildren who receives any protection is William and his family. He is the Prince of Wales and Heir to the throne.
Peter & Zara don’t get it
Beatrice and Eugenie don’t get it
Louise and James don’t get it
🤷‍♀️

if he wants protection he can pay for it himself.

Honestly 🙄 let’s waste millions on Harry “security” when we can’t even protect women walking home on their own. Get a grip

But the other non-working RF members don't get extra security either do they, Zaras children for instance, who would have been the same relation to the Queen as Harry's child when he left? More of a threat specifically now that Harry's are directly related to the King though I guess (I'm not in UK, so maybe they do all get extra security)

I totally agree. He is a member of that family by birth and as a result, is a target, regardless of whether he is a working royal.

And even if he doesn’t get state funded security, if I was his very rich parents, I would be paying to keep my kid and grandkids safe. Even if we weren’t on talking terms.

yet another example of “The Firm” putting business before the wellbeing of their family - who never chose this path in the first place, yet are experiencing the “hate” and “fallout” of trying to get out.

Her security wasn’t pulled.
She rejected her security. She died making a rash decision with her boyfriend, to not put on a seatbelt and use a less than reliable driver. If she had belted up she would have most probably survived the crash.

It wasn’t Diana’s security, it was Mohammed Al Fayed’s security. Who did not have the power to say “No” to the boss’ son (Dodi Al Fayed). Which led to tragedy…

This post is conflating two different things that RAVEC commissioned and worked with: threat assessments and Royal Risk Management Boards (referred to as RMBs).

A threat assessment is a dynamic assessment carried out whenever necessary (for example when Harry lets the Palace know he is planning a trip to the UK) to assess the level of threat he would face, to enable appropriate security arrangements to be put in place. That is on the following basis:

1. Capability + intent = threat
2. Threat + vulnerability = likelihood
3. Likelihood + impact = risk

Separately to this, RAVEC’s responsibilities include determining on an annual basis (or more frequently as necessary), a set of reasonable worst-case scenarios against which potential threats to an individual will be assessed. This is the RMB. The RMB only applies to scenarios in the UK, as it is premised on the basis that the royal family member lives in the UK, and the UK government is only in a position to assess UK risks.

Harry has not had an RMB conducted since 2019, it is true, as he was mid-cycle when he left the UK in January 2020. He has not lived in the UK since, so the practice of annual RMBs has been overtaken by events. He has so far as we know, had regular threat assessments conducted, however. Harry focussed on teh first bit only, however…

(And I am no insider! All of this is set out clearly in the judgement from the first instance hearing of Harry’s claim: https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2024/418.html&query=Duke+of+sussex+home+office )

kindly, @Magentaflies your post contains so many factual inaccuracies, it’s not possible to give your conclusions any weight.

Firstly, the UK did not chose to have a Royal Family. You’d be looking back at history and the divine right of Kings and the Reformation to argue your position here, but I don’t think your looking at this period of history and seeking to argue this.

Secondly, you immediately equate being a member of the Royal Fsmily with being at risk. This is not the case, and many members of the RF have no security, or only security for limited engagements. The RAVEC committee was formed to apply to members of the RF and other VIPs, determine risk, and determine security accordingly. Inherit in this, is the knowledge that risks will change at different times and for different events, and security might be higher or lower as needed.

You say we have a moral responsibility to pay for his security - leaving aside the many, many posts on this thread that have explained that we DO pay for his security, and the way in which it is determined what, when and how it will be paid for, a moral responsibilty means nothing. I may think there is a moral responsibility not to pay for it, but to pay for everyone’s tertiary education. Others may not, The UK pays for medical care via the NHS, other countries do not believe in doing so and either only partially subsidise it (eg Australia) or don’t subsidise it at all. Moral responsibility is an individual thing, and one persons morals (that then involve payment) can’t be imposed on the whole
country.

However in this case, the UK does pay for his security, and there is an expert body which determines when, where and how much should be in place at each time he is in the UK. So good news! You don’t need to find it disgraceful that we don’t fund it - because we do!

William could be as dull as ditchwater

Could be?

Exactly this. William & Kate aren't chosen for certain public engagements due to their glittering personalities FFS. They're chosen for their rank obviously, because William is the POW and heir to the throne. William could be as dull as ditchwater with a squint, club foot and 6 fingers on each hand and he would still always be chosen over Harry, for certain occasions.

I can’t remember being taught in history lessons about a referendum to have a monarchy…when did we make this decision?

Blunt not aggressive thread after thread another one has cropped up just now and it's been explained since he started these court cases over a year ago? even the Palace pointed out in their statement

The whole bunch of these multimillionaire benefit scrounges can bloody well pay for whatever protection they want…I just object to my taxes keeping them in the luxury they demand.

I think this has always been at the heart of Harry's issues. He can't seperate out his family as family members from their roles as head of state/heirs. He said it in his Oprah interview when he griped about William and Kate being prioritised for plum roles he felt would suit him and Meghan better. He sees what his brother gets and wants the same and seems incapable of understanding that his brother isn't treated better, the heir to the throne is.

He's not the first second son to harbour that resentment. Kings and heirs have had issues with younger brothers ever since kings existed.

Really no need to be so aggressive about it

So Prince Andrew needs govt funded 24/7 armed personal guards then… his a royal. Brother of the king.

He wanted his families privacy and left the Royal Family for his wife's well being. Both reasonable choices as an adult and husband.

They could have gone anywhere. They could be living out of the limelight in any low key location. They chose Netflix, Opera, podcasts, book publishing etc etc and Montecito. They can do what they like, but I understand why the King is not on board.

Seriously Harry gets as much protection as he could possibly need. He just wants even more. He fancies himself at Head of State level. He is not.

He can stop throwing his toys out of his pram and accept that he needs to work within the parameters the government has set.

And if you mean that he should have tax payer funded protection when he is abroad then no. Absolutely not.

She declined official security because she was presumably concerned about her ex and his family knowing her whereabouts.

But we do. He gets security.

Unless I’ve misunderstood you, and you mean that we should pay for it in America as well?

We do.

My god how many times does it need to be said??