To think that not speaking to your own son is not a good look for the King ?

[Marmaladelover]

Don’t get me wrong I think Harry has been a bit of an entitled burk but even so I was shocked that there has not been a reconciliation between Harry and Megan and the King and Queen at least to be civil to each other .
Refusing to even speak just seems like sulking to me !
That said I don’t think Harry telling the world and washing yet more dirty laundry in public is going to help matters .

Maybe some folk will think this comment belongs in the Royal Family thread rather than AIBU but it’s more about mumsnet standards ( sulking is not good ) and whether they should apply to those in high office .

Even JFK and Krushev had a hotline after the Cuban Crisis !

He has no security - applying each time means he has no security .
Harry had no choice - he was born into that royal life and when he finally exercised agency and left, he was punished relentlessly in the media , and more importantly, regarding his security.

We all know the royals are behind both

Your first sentence makes no sense.

@Normative

Im sure Harry and family would be reassured since you are ‘quite sure’ that a full risk assessment would be done …

Did you follow the case ? It revealed that NO risk assessment had been done for Harry for years . Despite Harry’s asking repeatedly.

I think you're more than naive if you think people don't know some of this. You take the greater public for fools.

As I said it was his own account (Harry's) from his autobiography Spare. Of course that's subject to bias.

Yes his own personal poor me bias.

@foreverblowingbubbless

It does . Harry does not have security and must apply each time .
Harry can be refused security .

And that’s how the Windsors want it .
Time to have another look at the story that Diana ‘refused’ security - or was it taken ?

Do people believe Harry is the King's son?

Yes. Have you seen photos of Prince Phillip in his younger years, with a beard, he's his double

he says what he feels with his full chest

What does ths mean? is it some kind of weird Google translate? Why is it appearing in posts by more than one person?

Did you follow the case ? It revealed that NO risk assessment had been done for Harry for years . Despite Harry’s asking repeatedly.

Because he doesn't live in the UK! RAVEC are experts on/have up to date intelligence information on the security situation in the UK. They are not experts on California.

In order to carry out a meaningful risk assessment, they would also need information about Harry's travel plans - which it seems he doesn't want to give them.

Have you read both judgements @Ukisgaslit - they detail why the RMB assessment was no longer useful once Harry moved away and also the approach used on assessment following his leaving. The judges all agreed that they (RAVEC) had good reason (in legal sense) to make this adjustment. Also, the judgements detail the ToR for RAVEC including the constituent bodies.
Were you persuaded by any of the detailed legal referencing in the judgements?

Yes 100%
And you know what even if he isn't it's nobodies business. Charles has accepted him as his son and Harry accepts Charles as his father, even if they are low contact.
That should be the end of it.

How can it possibly mean he has no security? Do you really believe that he and his children would be left as target practice for terrorists if he applied?

The Queen and Charles offered to pay for his security when he left, and it was rightly pointed out to them that they couldn't pay for the armed security he wants. How does that make them a driving force behind RAVEC's decisions?

I think you misunderstand what has happened. The risk analysis RAVEC carries out in other circumstances are principally to establish which individuals require protection. Those are individuals within the UK as RAVEC cannot dictate what other countries do. They took a considered view that risk levels for Harry and his family were unlikely to have changed, but that that process of necessity could not decide on risk levels for the future when they have no idea when and in what circumstances he might decide to come here and/or to bring his family. Instead, they would decide on a case by case basis on bespoke arrangements each time he comes, which will include a whole spectrum of security which will fully take into account what is known at that time about the relevant risk levels. The original judge and the Court of Appeal both thought that Sir Richard Mottram and RAVEC are uniquely fitted to decide on those arrangements and that the proposals were both appropriate and sensible. I don't recall seeing any sort of sensible case put forward by Harry demonstrating what is wrong with that or why it puts him at any greater risk than whatever it is that he wants instead.

Do you really believe that anyone in the government or the RF seriously wants him or his family to be killed? Only the most bonkers species of conspiracy theorist could seriously believe that to be the case. On the contrary, they are desperate not to create another Diana-type martyr and excuses for yet more conspiracy theories.

Not just bias but more than a few proven lies.

Not a fan of the royal family but like all families there will be two sides to this issue and I don't think we know anywhere near enough to judge. I didn't speak to my brother, many thought I was too harsh. When I told them what had led to the rift let's say they were shocked!

@HonoriaBulstrode

Are you trying to imply that my use of the phrase ‘with his full chest ‘ means I am not a UK citizen ?
You are also implying that I have name changed or have several usernames . That implication is an attempt to denigrate posters opinions and is against guidelines
I can say with ‘my whole chest’ that I am a UK citizen and I have one username - the one you see .

Since you are confused it means to speak confidently and without guile . Don’t you have teenager in the house lol ?

Shouldn't the phrase be "whole hearted"?

I'm 67 and have never, ever heard someone say "with his/her full chest".

@BMW6 , wholehearted.

Never heard this phrase in my life either. 🤷‍♀️

I've never heard it either.

Interesting that Harry claims King Charles is not talking to him because of the security issue. Not the Oprah interview, the Netflix series or the books. He is trying to rewrite history to avoid taking accountability for his part in this. We only have his version of the story so who says KC isn't talking to him behind closed doors? To be honest I would have more respect if he stopped courting the media he claims to loathe.

This.

Non contact with a man child who runs around constantly bad mouthing his family. His interview to attempt to get all the attention on him on VE remembrance day was disgusting. I'd avoid talking to someone who shares everything, he's totally untrustworthy.

In defence of that poster I’ve heard it a few times recently. My teen cousin said it, and a friend of my daughter’s said it too.

I've never heard it either.