Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

255 replies

Figmentofmyimagination · 03/05/2025 12:31

Not usually a royal watcher but I watched this as it was on the bbc and I was surprised to feel sympathetic towards his main argument. It’s somewhat crazy that even Liz Truss gets life long security at the expense of the taxpayer, and he was born into this position rather than choosing it, and private security is no substitute if they don’t have arms or access to intelligence. He’s also right that the wider fallout if eg one of his children were to be kidnapped would be something to be seen.

Surely there must be a deal to be struck where he gets high level security provided by the state but contributes to the cost through the tax system. I’m not surprised he’s upset about it and although he was never going to win his case because of the nature of the particular decision making regime, he has put the issue in the public eye in a more effective way than he usually achieves!

OP posts:
SalfordQuays · 03/05/2025 14:07

comfyshoes2022 · 03/05/2025 13:18

I am not super pro-Harry but I think the discussion here misses two points:

  1. he offered to pay for the enhanced security (ie access to armed security, which he’s allowed to have in other countries but not automatically in the UK, and intelligence) in the UK and this was declined
  2. he feels his mother was killed partially due to a lack of security

I don’t think harry is at all blameless in the current situation, which is mostly just sad. But I find it strange that ravec (which has people from the royal household involved and so we can assume has KC’s buyin) is making this the hill to die on.

Diana died because the driver of the car was drunk and speeding, and she wasn’t wearing a seatbelt.

FancyBiscuitsLevel · 03/05/2025 14:06

If anything happens to Harry, Meghan or the kids - regardless of the rights or wrongs of the security issues or what he’s written in books etc- the King (who is already far less respected than his late mother) will come under attack from the press and public. It doesn’t matter that it’s an external committee or the status of Harry - all that will matter is Harry has begged for security for his family (and offered to cover the cost, even if that’s impractical), and his Dad will be seen as the one who let him go without.

This is a big risk the family is taking now. Harry and Meghan haters really hate them, it’s got to be a realistic risk someone will attack them at some point.

Swiftie1878 · 03/05/2025 14:06

redcord · 03/05/2025 13:57

I think the security thing for Liz Truss for eg is that she is a public servant who makes decisions in her working life on behalf of the country that might aggrieve organisations or individuals (look at poor Jo Cox for eg). We entrust her (or any PM) to represent us and make difficult political decisions, so the state needs to have her back.

Harry does not make those decisions so sure, he might face a threat but it is not of the state's making? And he is not working for the country.

Liz Truss was also privy to details of National Security and the nuclear codes. She needs to be protected for our sakes more than hers.

Theunamedcat · 03/05/2025 14:05

YearlySubscriptionRenewal · 03/05/2025 13:03

if newspaper and some racists commentators had made as many vile, insulting and aggressive comments against your wife, you wouldn't feel safe either.

The level of abuse this woman faced in the UK is unreal. You only one nutjob to push it too far.

You don't have to like Meghan, you can dislike her clothes style, but in a world of known and famous rapists, paeodophiles, child abusers.. it's beyond ridiculous that she's such a victim of haters.

Show quote history

The headlines used in the Oprah winfrey show? Most of them were not even from the UK they were the overseas versions and while that is still fucking awful and uncalled for it's simply not a representation of the country as a whole harry and meghan were popular even after they left we rooted for them in there new lives but then the interviews came the blame the we hate the UK malarkey in recent interviews harry has struggled to say anything he has missed about the UK suddenly he wants to come "home" and bring his family "home" why? Money running low? Run out of stories to sell?

Spidey66 · 03/05/2025 14:03

He's left the job. He doesn't get to keep the company car.

Motherknowsrest · 03/05/2025 14:02

midlandsmummy123 · 03/05/2025 13:52

Surely though certain diplomats have armed protection not provided by the police, I can't see Trump rocking up without his own armed guards.

Is this the IPP (international protected person) situation?

midlandsmummy123 · 03/05/2025 13:59

So Andrew had police armed protection until 2022 and then privately funded non armed protection paid for by Charles until the end of last year - so he was happy to pay for Andrew until he decided he wanted the Royal Lodge for William but not happy to pay for Harry.

redcord · 03/05/2025 13:57

I think the security thing for Liz Truss for eg is that she is a public servant who makes decisions in her working life on behalf of the country that might aggrieve organisations or individuals (look at poor Jo Cox for eg). We entrust her (or any PM) to represent us and make difficult political decisions, so the state needs to have her back.

Harry does not make those decisions so sure, he might face a threat but it is not of the state's making? And he is not working for the country.

Theunamedcat · 03/05/2025 13:57

midlandsmummy123 · 03/05/2025 13:41

He only gets security if he is invited to visit officially is what he said, (in the same way that Anne etc only has armed security on official state duties) the problem is the threat towards him hasn't changed and as a pp said his private security cannot be armed nor have access to intelligence that the police would have.

The Royal family were happy to pay for Andrews security until the end of last year.

Andrew was cut off in 2022 security wise and personal allowance was removed Charles is attempting to get him out of royal Lodge if he cannot maintain it he breaks the legal agreement

Theunamedcat · 03/05/2025 13:54

Lupin4747 · 03/05/2025 13:48

But the king could have supported him during this case, he’s the king. Instead he sent some minion to speak against him. Really not ok as a father or grandfather.

Show quote history

What are you talking about? The Queen (Elizabeth) sent a letter to Ravec in 2020/21 asking them to consider continuing his security they refused the King has stayed hands off in this situation and rightly so the Queen should never have attempted to sway them it's unfair

Allseeingallknowing · 03/05/2025 13:52

theotherplace · 03/05/2025 13:43

Why does Liz truss get security? What are we protecting her from?

All ex PMs get security, as do all ex presidents in other countries. They are still at risk due to the confidential nature of their job.

myrtleWilson · 03/05/2025 13:52

@Lupin4747 Principals don't sit on RAVEC. However, at time of Sandringham Summit the Queen wrote a letter expressing her support for H&M to be safe and secure and in that letter acknowledged that the decision making process rested with RAVEC, so no - the King could not have interfered.

midlandsmummy123 · 03/05/2025 13:52

Surely though certain diplomats have armed protection not provided by the police, I can't see Trump rocking up without his own armed guards.

Allseeingallknowing · 03/05/2025 13:50

DancingDucks · 03/05/2025 13:01

If I thought my family was at risk I would do whatever I could to ensure their safety. I wouldn't expect it to be paid for by anyone else and nor should he. He's not exactly short of a bob or two.

He offered to pay for it! The money isn’t the issue.

Motherknowsrest · 03/05/2025 13:50

He cannot pay for armed security when in the UK. It would leave us open to having every flippin cocky arms dealer and suspected big time drug dealer trying to get it too.

Theunamedcat · 03/05/2025 13:50

Figmentofmyimagination · 03/05/2025 12:37

I thought he was saying that he was only entitled to security funded by the taxpayer on an ad hoc basis and provided he was formally invited to visit.

No he just has to give notice he is coming they risk assess him and provide the required level of security

EasterBunnyFeelingFunny · 03/05/2025 13:49

He can't be paying for armed police protection when he's here in a private capacity.

Otherwise anyone who has the money could pay for armed police protection. That would work out well, wouldn't it. 🙄🙄

The King doesn't pay for it either. The government does, because the King is Head of State.

YearlySubscriptionRenewal · 03/05/2025 13:48

TheAutumnCrow · 03/05/2025 13:13

You are muddled as to who your current and future Head of State is? Fair enough, but not everyone is, and not everyone misunderstands way the constitutional monarchy works in the UK (and the implications for the Commonwealth Realms).

I think many republicans and monarchists alike are quite well informed, possibly as a result of Queen Elizabeth's death and the accession of a new monarch and Head of State occurring in a media age, and for the first time being able to follow the entire process on television and via SM in real time with the accompanying discussion and debates in the media and Parliament.

Show quote history

you are muddled as to who your current and future Head of State is?

I am sorry you did not understand my post, let me try to explain it to you.
I was saying that the "head of state" and "member of the royal family" status WERE muddled, and that it comes down to the exact same thing in real life. The royal family just uses whichever "label" suits them better at the time.

I dont think my answer was so confusing.

Lupin4747 · 03/05/2025 13:48

Rainbowqueeen · 03/05/2025 13:45

For all those making the point that the King could pay for it, the same rules apply to the King as they do to Harry. The King can’t pay for it because Harry wants armed security which only UK police can provide and they cannot be hired by anyone, including the King. This is not the Kings decision and he, quite rightly, is not interfering in the decision making process that is clearly laid out

But the king could have supported him during this case, he’s the king. Instead he sent some minion to speak against him. Really not ok as a father or grandfather.

Lupin4747 · 03/05/2025 13:48

Rainbowqueeen · 03/05/2025 13:45

For all those making the point that the King could pay for it, the same rules apply to the King as they do to Harry. The King can’t pay for it because Harry wants armed security which only UK police can provide and they cannot be hired by anyone, including the King. This is not the Kings decision and he, quite rightly, is not interfering in the decision making process that is clearly laid out

But the king could have supported him during this case, he’s the king. Instead he sent some minion to speak against him. Really not ok as a father or grandfather.

Rainbowqueeen · 03/05/2025 13:45

For all those making the point that the King could pay for it, the same rules apply to the King as they do to Harry. The King can’t pay for it because Harry wants armed security which only UK police can provide and they cannot be hired by anyone, including the King. This is not the Kings decision and he, quite rightly, is not interfering in the decision making process that is clearly laid out

Snorlaxo · 03/05/2025 13:43

This reply has been deleted

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

Charles can’t decide where armed police “go” and how many are on duty. Harry wants armed police like his dad and brother, not unarmed security.

When Camilla became his fiancée Charles organised security for her but it was an unarmed bodyguard because we have strict laws on who can carry guns.

theotherplace · 03/05/2025 13:43

Why does Liz truss get security? What are we protecting her from?

midlandsmummy123 · 03/05/2025 13:41

He only gets security if he is invited to visit officially is what he said, (in the same way that Anne etc only has armed security on official state duties) the problem is the threat towards him hasn't changed and as a pp said his private security cannot be armed nor have access to intelligence that the police would have.

The Royal family were happy to pay for Andrews security until the end of last year.

MrTiddlesTheCat · 03/05/2025 13:40

Figmentofmyimagination · 03/05/2025 12:37

I thought he was saying that he was only entitled to security funded by the taxpayer on an ad hoc basis and provided he was formally invited to visit.

He has the same security as other non-working royals. He's whinging because he effectively wants his International Protected Person staus back, despite no longer being eligible for it. He wants the security status of the King and his representatives rather than that of the role he has chosen for himself.