To be surprised that I see Harry’s point about the security

[Figmentofmyimagination]

Not usually a royal watcher but I watched this as it was on the bbc and I was surprised to feel sympathetic towards his main argument. It’s somewhat crazy that even Liz Truss gets life long security at the expense of the taxpayer, and he was born into this position rather than choosing it, and private security is no substitute if they don’t have arms or access to intelligence. He’s also right that the wider fallout if eg one of his children were to be kidnapped would be something to be seen.

Surely there must be a deal to be struck where he gets high level security provided by the state but contributes to the cost through the tax system. I’m not surprised he’s upset about it and although he was never going to win his case because of the nature of the particular decision making regime, he has put the issue in the public eye in a more effective way than he usually achieves!

If he were to attend any event with working members of the Royal Family (eg William or Edward) he would be included at their level of security provision, funded by the tax payer.

Harry wanted more than this, though still funded by the tax payer.

He got himself into this situation, by his hasty, poorly thought out decision to opt out of The Firm, and I'm sure a lot of the knock on results of that decision have come as nasty shocks to him.

I agree.

He has security when he visits, he just needs to give notice. His security needs are addressed each time he visits and are flexible depending on the assessment made by the security service at the time.

The only royals who received full time security are the King and Queen and the Wales family. They are IPPs because of their political position as Head of State and Heir, not their royal one as a member of the King's family. IPP status is governed by international agreements because it guarantees security in any country, by that country, for those who qualify.

Anne, Edward and Sophie as non IPPs receive security appropriate to their assessed needs when they are carrying out duties on behalf of the King. The same will be true for a Charlotte and Louis if they carry out duties as adults.

Harry isn't a working royal, he isn't politically important. He isn't a former Prime Minister, or anyone else whose security is threatened in a way that could affect those around them. This is why his security is described as bespoke, it is outside existing arrangements but they found a way to assess his security needs when he visits. All he needs to do is give notice so cover can be arranged as necessary.

He is conflating the very clear security position, as laid out in the judgement, with his feelings around his family and his mother's death, as laid out in Spare. That is sad to watch but as the judge said in his statement "his sense of grievance does not constitute a legal argument".

if newspaper and some racists commentators had made as many vile, insulting and aggressive comments against your wife, you wouldn't feel safe either.

The level of abuse this woman faced in the UK is unreal. You only one nutjob to push it too far.

You don't have to like Meghan, you can dislike her clothes style, but in a world of known and famous rapists, paeodophiles, child abusers.. it's beyond ridiculous that she's such a victim of haters.

The only royals who received full time security are the King and Queen and the Wales family. They are IPPs because of their political position as Head of State and Heir, not their royal one as a member of the King's family.

Oh come on, you know that in practice it's all muddled up anyway and basically the same. They only use whatever label suits them better at the time.

Judging by the proliferation of these ridiculous threads that unerringly mimic Harry in getting the facts wrong, I think this self-destructive, whining, self-important and misleading interview must have really spooked what the Chair of Sentebale called the 'Sussex PR machine'.

Perhaps if he hadn't sold details of his family for money, he wouldn't need so much security to protect him?

Judging by the hate that people spew out for them on these threads, they very much need high level security.
He is the King’s Son. To not give Harry and his family protection is just spiteful.
The media whip up stories about them continuously. They have alot to answer for.
Perfect William and Kate, and lowlife Harry and Meghan. Why do people fall for it??

This is an interesting observation. I wonder if the interview was made at the suggestion or with the approval of the ‘Sussex PR machine’, or if this was a Captain’s call from Harry.

You are muddled as to who your current and future Head of State is? Fair enough, but not everyone is, and not everyone misunderstands way the constitutional monarchy works in the UK (and the implications for the Commonwealth Realms).

I think many republicans and monarchists alike are quite well informed, possibly as a result of Queen Elizabeth's death and the accession of a new monarch and Head of State occurring in a media age, and for the first time being able to follow the entire process on television and via SM in real time with the accompanying discussion and debates in the media and Parliament.

@MrsLeonFarrell has summed it up very succinctly, perhaps the best I have seen on all the threads regarding this subject

This is a good point.

It's really very straightforward. I'm constantly boggled at the fact that people don't understand these very basic principles.

Harry is a dimwit, and an entitled brat.

I am not super pro-Harry but I think the discussion here misses two points:

1. he offered to pay for the enhanced security (ie access to armed security, which he’s allowed to have in other countries but not automatically in the UK, and intelligence) in the UK and this was declined
2. he feels his mother was killed partially due to a lack of security

I don’t think harry is at all blameless in the current situation, which is mostly just sad. But I find it strange that ravec (which has people from the royal household involved and so we can assume has KC’s buyin) is making this the hill to die on.

He has got security as and when needed.

What strikes me is why is there so much confusion about what he wants, what he gets, what the case was about and so on. Wven after several court cases and now interviews.

He wants armed security and only the police provide that in the UK

And you can't hire the police privately

When anyone talks about others who have security I’m sure they don’t just come and go places as they want.
Harry wants more than they get, this is the issue. He wants total freedom.

He's only kicking off because he doesn't want to pay the legal fees he has accumulated in taking this unnecessary case.

Remember, this is all tax payer funded....at a time when there are better things for the country to spend money on.

If he's no worried, he can stay in the US.

No he just needs to give 28 days notice to be provided with RAVEC security, no matter why he is visiting.

He cannot pay for armed response police close protection officers, which is the only armed security available here. No one in the UK can pay for on duty armed police officers. They are provided for him at tax payers expense if that visit's security assessment deems them necessary.

He obviously has deep seated trauma around his mother's death. This is entirely understandable and I hope that one day he can process it in a healthy way.

But his emotion led responses and demands, whilst sad to hear, are not good arguments for a different security agreement. Security assessments are based on fact not emotion.

The threat is against him. Not just him in the UK.
He copes perfectly well with his private security in the U.S. and elsewhere, so he can do the same here. Pay for it himself.

Former PMs can only claim up to 115k in security costs from the taxpayers. They don’t have someone guarding their residence 24/7 like at royal residences unless they pay the excess personally to make that happen.

I dont think his security should be funded by the government if he isn't attending official functions. I do think the king should pay for it himself though - Harry does need security as a result of his being born and for no other reason. Regardless of any family disputes I think it is the family's duty to use their personal funds to keep him safe. The security he has been indoctronated to believe is essential is very very expensive. If he had been given assurance (by his father) that he'd continue to have security i doubt he'd have made all the poor decisions he's made regarding interviews/books/crap but lucrative business deals. He has to fund it and his personal fortune isn't sufficient to do that for more than a few years.

He wants armed security and only the police provide that in the UK
And you can't hire the police privately

Pretty.much sums it up..and he can get an appropriate level of direct, bespoke, police protection if he gives notice (? 28 days).

Harry"s argument seems to boil down to him expecting the Met to hold a cadre of protection officers on standby to meet him just in case he decides to hop onto a flight from the States to the UK at a few hours or even no notice...

That would (according to some sources) cost multiple hundreds of thousands of pounds a year..