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

As he and his consort are now so unpopular in the UK, and possibly elsewhere, what kudos is there for any international terrorist organisation in killing them?
10 years ago, in Harry's case, this would have been a very different matter.
He should never have left the army.

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

No-one can tell you what’s wrong with them because they don’t know what they are.

you’re challenging people to answer an impossible question.

Baffling isn’t it.

Of course we don't know!

Security arrangements are highly sensitive and confidential, as everyone other than Harry understands. Do you expect RAVEC to maintain a live blog or what?

Given their excellent record, why do you think RAVEC would be incapable of adequately managing the safety of the 5th in line, provided of course he gives them all the relevant information with sufficient notice?

No I’m not naive , I happen to understand the rules and position of the monarchy in the U.K. .
and if the queen’s request was denied how on earth do you think Charles could change their minds!
and whatever your opinion of him as a father he has never demonstrated anything but love for Harry .
conspiracy theory is annoying at best and downright dangerous at worst.

Oh I don’t know, probably because it is not exactly the same people in exactly same situation? 🤔

This is why.

the King is unable to speak to his son about the legal dispute because Charles is the ‘fountain of justice’ in the UK - all legal authority and power ultimately stems from the monarch's courts.

With King Charles III as the ceremonial figurehead of the legal system - and the row over Harry's security effectively taking place in his courts - any intervention from the monarch may have been deemed as improper

Under our legal system the monarch is the source of justice. It's why when you go into the courts there's the King's coat of arms above the judge.

'The monarch is the basis of justice in our system. You can't have the head of the judiciary getting involved in a court case. It's as simple as that.

Where do they get the officers from to cover him? How do they protect any intelligence shared?

The ones that are on a case by case basis therefore we don’t know what they will be?

If they wouldn't for the queen why would they listen to Charles?

Exactly.

Do people seriously believe that anyone in 'high places', regardless of their personal opinions of Harry, would want any harm to come to the King's son or grandchildren?

And nobody can tell me just what is wrong with Harry's current security arrangements.

Because Harry likes to frame things to garner pity for himself, or outright lie, for the same reasons.

I would imagine IF KC isn’t speaking to him, it’s because he called his family racists, cannot stop blabbing to the press and is a horrible loose cannon at the same time as the RF dealing with cancer.

That's such a terrifying thought!

He will be forever dropping down, William's children's children will precede him and so on. Look at Anne, she was the spare when her mother became Queen but now because of the rules of primogeniture is barely in the top 20, her brothers' children and grandchildren have all demoted her.

Possibly, however, they cannot influence top security service staff who have to act on intelligence received and manage potential threats. Now Charles knows a lot about bees, but I think MI6 stuff is beyond his capability!

Bottom line: no-one, not the Home Office, not Charles, not anyone would wish to see harm come to Harry and his family. It makes no sense.

@Seventell Charles couldn't speak to Harry about anything that may touch upon security because Charles had no way of knowing that Harry wouldn't tell the world and that could lead to consitutional crisis as the government is his government. He couldn't talk because of his constitutional role not because he was 'interfering' or 'influencing'

I can’t believe there are people out there who would think it’s acceptable for any Tom Dick or Harry (no pun intended tended) to be granted access to the UK’s security intelligence.

No, the council contributes to the extra policing the matches create to a small extent. The police presence is not ‘security’ it is to maintain the peace. The only police involved in security are Close Protection officers.

I’m not suggesting he’s done it formally but you’re naive if you think the royal household can’t influence

He doesn't have to give 28 days notice for exceptional circumstances. When his father became ill, he visited him on short notice.
He, Meghan and the children were in the UK for the Platinum Jubilee, and the late Queen's funeral.
Harry came on his own for the funeral of Philip, and the Coronation. So it's obviously no problem.

Because as he often does he lied !
charles cannot get involved! It’s against the rules and there are laws around this , and as Charles has never voiced his opinion, neither you nor I have any idea if he’s for or against Harry having his way.

I think the implication is that Royal protection officers would have been vigilant about who she associated with and checked up on the driver' competence.

Harry is a petulant child. Grow up, stop meaning about your parents, it is embarrassing.

Harry’s security seems totally adequate, provided with advance notice.

All of his shenanigans appear to be directly related to not getting what he & his wife wanted, which was the full trappings of royalty without the responsibilities. As a result of this, he has unleashed an apparently never ending diatribe against his family and an unpleasant airing of familial dirty laundry.

When this pampered man child reappears all I can think is, have you no shame?

i still can’t find what his actual security will be. Every article on google states

“Harry’s security situation will now remain as is, where he is provided state-funded police protection on a case-by-case basis when he visits the U.K”

i can’t see anything about full security with 28 days notice for any visit. It seems he hasn’t been given any certainty about the level of security he will get. Just decided case by case

People can't buy police or army protection in the UK, and rightly so.

And I agree, but could he not just reimburse the Crown for the cost?