To think that Harry and his kids should have security

An unusual number of reluctant-to-think people on this thread.

"I haven't given it much thought, but I think <blah blah blah>".

Any counter arguments or invitations to engage in, er, thinking about it are met with - I know what I think and that's what I think, so there! - or similar.

So, if I create a social media presence for my child, build them a global identity, and pay magazines to publish stories about them on a weekly basis, the child should get paid-for state protection?

Image how you'd feel if you're doing the school run, been stuck for half an hour, and then along comes a convoy of nee-naws blue-lights-flashing-putting-on-the-speed forcing other cars to squeeze up (and further complicate the traffic jam.

Just so that the two kids of a non-working royal can get to school. Oh, and we are paying for the service.

That is what H wants. Talk about entitlement.

He's a republican's dream!

Both on his book and their docuseries, they heavily implied that they want police security because of paparazzi. They want taxpayers funded security to slay the paparazzi dragon sent by their enemy the evil dailymail.

I also think they should have security, I just dont think I as the taxpayer should have to fund it, I’d rather that money goes to schools, police, the nhs, I think they should have security and pay for it themselves. I don’t give a shit it’s not armed,their choice to live here, if they don’t like it they can fuck off back to America

Obviously you are very free to make bad arguments with nothing to back them up if you want to.

Luckily, I'm a random person on Mumsnet and not on the committee that decides these things. Therefore, I don't have to explain why at all actually - I'm simply sharing my view. My view is that I'd rather pay for Harry than Liz. We can agree to disagree.

Why not? It is for them to decide.

Of course they should have whatever security they can afford themselves.

You shouldn't, it doesn't serve your argument well. If you think the four of them need 24/7 security as a matter of principle rather than fact based assessment, you'd be better off explaining why, rather than making a comparison to people who even you admit are very different. They're not ex PMs, they're the same as Charles' siblings and their kids were til lately.

Sure, they don't need it for the same reason but they're both high profile targets. I stand by my original point.

Well, you clearly have time to scroll through Mumsnet and add eye rolls.

They are millionares so can pay for their own protection

😂 This might not be the thread for you.

I am so tired of these liars dominating headlines. Just fuck off, shut up and have your privacy, preferably in the US. Any security required needs to be paid for by H&M. They have made millions by publicly trashing the RF and UK. TV, books, social media. It’s endless. Use the millions to pay for security.

That's for RAVEC to decide.

They're genuine targets for certain..

They need security.

But do they need armed security? Probably not really..

Especially if they stop telling everyone where they live, when they'll be there etc. and hire a security team that realises that term time traffic is worse than holidays....

Al-Qaeda has called for his assassination and there have been credible threats from far right and Neo Nazi groups.

I do have some sympathy with him. How was the risk considered so severe before he left that he was placed in the highest possible threat category, and downgraded to case by case basis after leaving. I can see his point - the threat remains the same.

They do have security....

They just don't have tax payer armed security which is what they want.

Agreed. Of course they should have it. The mean spirited sentiment on here and in the UK generally about a couple of who have done nothing wrong is disgusting.

Not sure why any of this is 'doing your head in' OP. No one's forcing you to read or pay any attention to any of this.

Genuine question: why do they need security? Is there a genuine risk of anyone trying to hurt them? I mean more than any other famous person / celebrity?

Charles, William and Kate (and the kids) get 24 hour state funded security. The rest of the working royals get it only when they’re at official functions.

Andrew, Beatrice and Eugenie also used to get state funded security, despite not being working royals, but now they don’t.

Before stepping down, Harry received 24 hour state funded security, which was different to the other working royals. This was because Harry was considered to be in a high threat tier. But to get the 24 hour state funded security the royal must both be in a high threat tier and be a working royal.

Harry struggles with it because you cannot buy the security he wants.

My opinion is based solely on what children in this amount of public eye should be afforded compared to their counterparts. End of.

The children are not in the public eye.

I can’t understand why the richest family in Britain struggles with this.

Struggles with what? They can pay for private security if they want to. They can't have official security provided by the Met because that is at the discretion of RAVEC, and no-one else, not even 'the richest family in Britain', can demand it if RAVEC doesn't think it's justified.

Where did I insinuate she shouldn’t?