Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Why can’t Harry just pay for his own private security?

636 replies

jennylamb1 · 03/05/2025 14:36

Don’t get it. He says that he can’t ever visit the UK again because his security won’t be provided. Loads of celebrities and high profile business people pay for their own security, why should tax payers pay for his security when he isn’t a working royal anymore?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
Ukisgaslit · 03/05/2025 20:39

cumbriaisbest · 03/05/2025 20:37

Is " working royal" an oxymoron?

Yes

AquaPeer · 03/05/2025 20:38

IBelieveinSomething · 03/05/2025 20:37

I am absolutely not a royalist. I dislike them all intensely. He is the kings SON. The king is madly madly rich mostly because of all of us and our taxes. The king needs to pay for whatever security he wants.

The king can’t pay for it either.

IBelieveinSomething · 03/05/2025 20:38

IBelieveinSomething · 03/05/2025 20:37

I am absolutely not a royalist. I dislike them all intensely. He is the kings SON. The king is madly madly rich mostly because of all of us and our taxes. The king needs to pay for whatever security he wants.

That would lead to a reconciliation and they would all live happily ever after!

cumbriaisbest · 03/05/2025 20:37

Is " working royal" an oxymoron?

IBelieveinSomething · 03/05/2025 20:37

I am absolutely not a royalist. I dislike them all intensely. He is the kings SON. The king is madly madly rich mostly because of all of us and our taxes. The king needs to pay for whatever security he wants.

MyHeartyCoralSnail · 03/05/2025 20:34

I would be more sympathetic if they had moved on to live a quiet light away from the spotlight. But this comes across when taken with all their other actions they want the benefits of being royals without the responsibility.

JoyousEagle · 03/05/2025 20:33

Nottodaythankyou123 · 03/05/2025 20:03

What I find interesting about the Catherine Carey theory being the daughter of Henry and Mary Boleyn is that she was related to Elizabeth through her mother’s side, which means IF Catherine was Henry’s daughter, Elizabeth II was the first direct descendant of Henry VIII since Elizabeth I and that only came about because of her uncle abdicating. It fascinates me to an embarrassing degree 🤣

Show quote history

Really? The Bowes-Lyons were descended from the Careys? I also find that very interesting, with the Catherine Carey/Henry VIII theory. That’s a great fact.

JoyousEagle · 03/05/2025 20:30

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 03/05/2025 19:51

AquaPeer
So how do you know the security arrangements are sufficient/ don’t have anything “wrong” with them?

That one is easy! There is nothing wrong with them, they are working, and we know this because nobody has yet wrung Harry's blasted neck.

Also we can presumably judge RAVEC’s judgement by looking at other royals. For example, they have decided that Anne and Edward, despite being working royals who were children of and are now siblings of the monarch, do not need full time security and only need it when at royal events. They’re both fine. As are their spouses and children.
It’s not like RAVEC has a history of getting things wrong by being too lax. We don’t have a string of dead royals who should have had security but had it taken away.
I also think that a group of people who know they will definitely be fired if they get this wrong and something happens are probably more likely to lean towards being over cautious than not.
So with those things in mind, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that they’ve probably judged it correctly.

lazyarse123 · 03/05/2025 20:27

Doesn't bother him going to Columbia, drug capital of the world and all the risks that brings with it. He's also the idiot who bragged about how many taliban he'd killed.
As for being the King's son perhaps he should have thought about that before slagging off his entire family.
I am definitely not a royalist and especially don't like how Charles has behaved but I wouldn't have anything to do with my son if he carried on like Harry.

CleaningSilverCandlesticks · 03/05/2025 20:25

Spectre8 · 03/05/2025 20:20

He said he would pay for it and he was told no.

And you bang on baout him and taxpayers money but never me tion why the hell the sovereign grant keeps going up when they have slimmed down the monarchy and number of things they do. Not to then mention the lack of tra sparency around all the finances. But hey how lets just moan about Harry

Show quote history

Feel free to start a thread on the sovereign grant

CleaningSilverCandlesticks · 03/05/2025 20:23

justasking111 · 03/05/2025 20:17

Okay. So anyone can get police protection if it's been assessed that there's a risk to life?

Show quote history

Well yes. If someone was threatening you with a knife at a football match, then the police would step in to protect you.

BigWillyLittleTodger · 03/05/2025 20:23

Kinkyroots · 03/05/2025 20:21

Yes, it’s the tip of the iceberg of what we pay to keep the elite alive so we can continue paying for them to be alive. In luxury.

Show quote history

Yes, “normal” people just have to get on with it.

Kinkyroots · 03/05/2025 20:21

justasking111 · 03/05/2025 20:17

Okay. So anyone can get police protection if it's been assessed that there's a risk to life?

Show quote history

Yes, it’s the tip of the iceberg of what we pay to keep the elite alive so we can continue paying for them to be alive. In luxury.

Spectre8 · 03/05/2025 20:20

jeffgoldblum · 03/05/2025 20:08

I would ask people, when our country is struggling with lack of funds to the point the government is stripping funds from pensioners and those with disabilities, why they think a multimillionaire prince who quit his job and moved to the USA deserves the extra funding from already struggling taxpayers?
do you consider him more deserving?
because what he really wants is 24/7 armed security with outriders , everywhere he goes including in other countries ( the clue is the fact he boldly claimed Charles had told other countries not to provide security!)
this will cost a very large amount of money that has to come from somewhere!
yep we would have to pay , if you think this won’t affect you then you are wrong.

He said he would pay for it and he was told no.

And you bang on baout him and taxpayers money but never me tion why the hell the sovereign grant keeps going up when they have slimmed down the monarchy and number of things they do. Not to then mention the lack of tra sparency around all the finances. But hey how lets just moan about Harry

TheMeasure · 03/05/2025 20:20

Taylor Swift had had a very credible threat made against her whilst in Vienna (I think??)
Bear in mind that anyone planning an attack at one of her concerts would have put many British citizens also at risk.

ThePiglet · 03/05/2025 20:20

justasking111 · 03/05/2025 20:17

Okay. So anyone can get police protection if it's been assessed that there's a risk to life?

Show quote history

Yes. The taxpayer paid for Salman Rushdie's security for years.

CleaningSilverCandlesticks · 03/05/2025 20:17

Bigcat25 · 03/05/2025 20:06

They'll be made on a case by case basis, ie they might not always be provided with any security. I'm not defending him, I don't believe royals are any more important than anyone else.

Show quote history

If he was not provided with security that would be because the very experienced security experts, after considering all the evidence including secret intelligence, decided there was no risk. If that was the case then why should we pay for it?

justasking111 · 03/05/2025 20:17

CleaningSilverCandlesticks · 03/05/2025 20:14

Why did Taylor Swift get police protection?

Because she was assessed to be at risk.

Okay. So anyone can get police protection if it's been assessed that there's a risk to life?

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 03/05/2025 20:16

Lavenderfarmcottage
It does beg the question that if at the end of the day, Harry feels insafe and it’s causing division and with astronomical wealth - why doesn’t Charles pay up,

Pay for what, and to whom, though? In this country the monarch can no more buy armed police to look out for his son than can Mr Joe Bloggs of Street Avenue, Townham, Countyshire.

King Charles III has offered what it is in his power to offer: accommodation in a Royal residence, with Royal security. Harry apparently turned this down and preferred to stay in a hotel.

CleaningSilverCandlesticks · 03/05/2025 20:14

Why did Taylor Swift get police protection?

Because she was assessed to be at risk.

Kinkyroots · 03/05/2025 20:13

KeepTalkingBeth · 03/05/2025 19:49

I don't think this is about "armed police being for hire" but about contributing to the cost and having access to intelligence.

As an example, let's think about football matches. Clubs normally pay for officers inside the stadium, but we taxpayers fund all the policing on the streets. Through the years there has been pressure for clubs to contribute towards the "outside the stadium" costs. Premier League clubs can more than afford it. Armed officers have been used around football matches during high terrorist threat periods. Personally I think it's not great that taxpayers money is being spent on controlling football thugs but there you go.

No. Councils contribute to the cost of policing football matches. The clubs contribute nothing. Ergo, the clubs keep the revenue they make and the taxpayer funds the policing.

BigWillyLittleTodger · 03/05/2025 20:12

justasking111 · 03/05/2025 20:09

Why did Taylor Swift get police protection?

Are American secret service agents allowed to carry arms when president etc visit?

Because their was a significant threat, there was a serious terrorist threat a few days prior at her concert which had to be cancelled.

Lauralou19 · 03/05/2025 20:12

StClabberts · 03/05/2025 20:02

I was about to say, this is one of the funnier wrong thread posts I've seen on here!

Show quote history

Sorry tried to delete! 😂 Shouldn’t post abd juggle the kids at the same time! 🙈

JudgeJ · 03/05/2025 20:11

JoyousEagle · 03/05/2025 19:06

Yes, he doesn’t have any direct descendants. Or rather, if he does they are from illegitimate children and nothing to do with Harry.

Henry VIII’s sister maybe, through her marriage to James IV of Scotland. But that line goes to Diana’s family anyway I think, as well as the royal family. So I’m not sure similarity to a portrait of Henry VIII proves much.

Although I do think obviously Harry is Charles’s son. I think he looks like Zara - I saw a picture of her once in a woolly hat and pulled up scarf and it was just like Harry.

Show quote history

Harry looks very much like Philip when they were similar ages.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3882024/Photo-Prince-Philip-1957-bears-striking-resemblance-Harry.html

Photo of Prince Philip from 1957 bears striking resemblance to Harry

Royal fans have gone into a frenzy over a 1957 photo of Prince Philip with a full red beard in which he bears a striking resemblance to his youngest grandson Prince Harry.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3882024/Photo-Prince-Philip-1957-bears-striking-resemblance-Harry.html

KidsDoBetter · 03/05/2025 20:11

StClabberts · 03/05/2025 20:02

I was about to say, this is one of the funnier wrong thread posts I've seen on here!

Show quote history

Agreed. Thought it was the cost of a one of visit with level 2 security.

Sell more jam and crappy cookie mix maybe?