To think that Harry and his kids should have security

Hopefully RAVEC will tell them NO to the school-run nee-naws and they'll go back to Cali, where everyone can carry a gun.

But if you are going to state so strongly that they need armed security, you must have thought about it at least a little bit?

If you think they need armed goons - implying you think there's a very real threat to their safety - the need would be 24/7, wouldn't it? Even if the baddies take tea breaks and have the weekends off, they're hardly likely to share their plans ( wittingly, at least) with RAVEC.

No, they were not.

So - once again - all the other members of the RF who swan about without armed security. How do you think they've managed to stay safe for decades?

No one is interested in them? Come on now.

It is bizarre that Beatrice and Eugenie were given armed security for so long, even during Eugenie’s gap year, when they were 5th and 6th in line, but now Harry is 5th in line and the King’s child, it’s not given. I know it’s been changed to be linked to active royal service, but it must be a bit of a mind fuck going from being told your cousins need armed security, despite them having no working role, to then you yourself being deemed to no longer need armed security.

They should get the same security as Princess Ann and Prince Edward’s children did. They were also grandchildren of the Monarch.

Mind you, Princess Ann and Prince Edward were working royals.

They have security. As non working royals they should get the same as Peter, Zara, Eugenie and Beatrice. They are just throwing a hissy fit because they deem what they get isn’t enough. Ironically if they just didn’t court the media attention then they and their children would probably be safer.

Exactly my thinking.

They either need it full time or only when there is a threat there really isn’t a inbetween.

Hardly a, Sorry chaps no armed guards between 10-2am or Wednesdays situation is it.

Or guards at home but not out or only when out and not home.

Either way would leave them wide open to this huge threat that the people in the know don’t believe currently exists anyway.

It’s not really that bizarre when you consider that a major part in the revamp of royal security was the fact that the Good Friday Agreement had been in place for a decent period of time and one of the major threats had been removed.

Royal security was increased considerably in 1979 after the assassination of Mountbatten (as was the security of other high profile figures). There was a whole revamp of how threats were assessed and how the security worked. A similar review was done when the bulk of royals lost their 24/7 security.

I think if we are going to have a monarchy in this country then we need to accept that we have to pay for their security, even if they are annoying.

But, we should also demand that the Crown give up its ‘private ownership’ of the sea bed which is allowing them to cash in on wind farms. It’s outrageous that they can treat this as a private asset.

These didn't have security. HAM already have security.

Of course Harry can keep a low profile and his children can even more so. Look at Margaret’s children. I hardly knew what Edward’s kids looked like until recently and he’s been a working royal!
They had the perfect opportunity to step back and give their children a quiet life especially when they were young, but they are clearly worth too much not to merch out.

I think the kids deserve security but I voted yabu because why are you so bothered by this?!

We certainly shouldn't be providing security on the basis that some people don't like wondering where Harry will live.

RAVEC are the people best placed to make this assessment. If ever they say it's needed, fine. They currently don't, so no thank you we won't be paying for it. I see no reason to assume they're not doing a competent job at keeping the royals safe, since the proof is in the pudding.

And no, Meghan shouldn't be paying for it because having this sort of state backed security for hire is a truly fucking atrocious idea with nothing to recommend it. If she's assessed as needing it by people who are actually qualified to do that, she shouldn't have to pay for it herself anyway.

I think that Harry and Meghan need to keep their children (age 5 and 7) off Instagram (ironically on one of the platforms they criticise - Meta), and stop banging on about them in public. No-one normal needs to know what they look like from the side and the rear, where they are, what type of school they're at, how they're getting there, what their security arrangments are, what the security flaws are, what they smell like, and what they like to do.

IMO Harry and Meghan are being wilfully negligent with their own children's security, and in that I also include the lack of lifejackets, seat restraints and safety helmets as shown on Instagram by their own mother.

The AIBU poll here is interesting - 87% v 13%.

He cannot keep a low profile. He’s Prince Harry. Nor can his children.

Of course he can keep a low profile. Every other member of the RF manages it when not carrying out official engagements. Just stay off social media and stop leaking/encouraging friends to leak information to the press.

It was nothing to do with the Good Friday Agreement which happened almost 15 years earlier. It was because the princesses security bill was all over the press and no one liked them, and Prince Charles wanted it stopped.

The change in levels of security, after the review, were in huge part because the threat from the IRA no longer existed.

The review was sparked by the press complaints about cost. The reduction in security was made because the threat had changed massively, in large part because of the GFA.

He is by no fault of his own a senior member of the royal family ,born to one of the most famous /tragic women ever .
Of course he should have security his dad should be paying for keeping his son safe and his grandchildren safe .

We do. We automatically pay for the monarch, their spouse, their heir, the heirs spouse and any young children, plus any working royals when it’s required (during engagements).

Harry and Meghan have security as and when, and to the levels, RAVEC deem it necessary.

Not thinking an adult member of the royal family, who isn’t a working royal, should dictate their own level of security needed isn’t the same as saying nobody should have paid for security.

I cant believe so many people seem to think he has zero security.

A multimillionaire prince always has some sort of security. He just doesn’t have armed security 24/7 it’s on a as and when needed basis.

They have definitely done a number with the story telling in the papers to convince so many people 😂

I always read comments about him not having security as meaning not the 24/7 all singing all dancing level Charles has, rather than nothing at all. But maybe that's too kind!

Agreed OP, son of the king FFS, not something he chose, whether or not he's a working royal, he's at risk.

If we're giving Liz Truss lifelong protection, then I think we can extend the same to the King's son, daughter in law and grandchildren, regardless of their career choice.