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!

They do and he does pay for his own private security. That's not what this is about. He's not asking for freebies he's asking for the same level of security as his brother when he's in the UK. I.e armed close protection officers.

His private security aren't allowed to carry guns in the UK, the police/close protection officers can but the police /RAVEC are declining to offer him that level of service without a bit of notice first.

Private security can not be armed in the UK, a position i absolutely wouldn't want changing. The only armed option would be close protection police, however no one can hire them privately. For good reason.

Diana ditched her official protection because she thought they were spying on her (see the Martin Bashir scandal), they were never removed by the Palace

Harry knows all this but chooses to misrepresent.

If in the U.K. he needs armed security he will get it. If he isn’t deemed to need armed protection he will just have normal protection.

So he is always protected in the uk. His even turned down staying in royal houses because he didn’t feel safe, to stay in hotels.

This is all about his feelings. He wants what William has and nothing less. It’s always been about wanting what William has. His just having a constant toddler tantrum because in his actual family his brother is more important and will always be.

I think the confusion lies in the way so much of what he says around this issue is do with emotion rather than fact. I can understand why anyone who hasn't followed the case or read what the judge said might get the impression from Harry that he is in danger. Harry believes he is in danger so of course if you listen to him you will believe that. But the facts are that his security needs here are assessed by experts and based on fact not his feelings.

He offered to pay after the media started reporting on the lawsuit against the Home Office. He initially sued the Mail for disclosing this but dropped legal action as they can presumably prove when the offer to pay came

His mother’s bodyguard was in the car when he she died and was the only person in the car wearing a seatbelt and survived. A bodyguard can’t make another grown adult wear a seatbelt.

If Harry (a foreign resident) could pay for armed security then everybody rich in London would ask for that service - especially the ones who are higher risk of kidnap, assassination etc He gets armed security when he travels here on business (eg the Coronation) but during the court case objected to having to give 2 weeks notice of arrival.

He has the same security as other non-working royals. He's whinging because he effectively wants his International Protected Person staus back, despite no longer being eligible for it. He wants the security status of the King and his representatives rather than that of the role he has chosen for himself.

He only gets security if he is invited to visit officially is what he said, (in the same way that Anne etc only has armed security on official state duties) the problem is the threat towards him hasn't changed and as a pp said his private security cannot be armed nor have access to intelligence that the police would have.

The Royal family were happy to pay for Andrews security until the end of last year.

Why does Liz truss get security? What are we protecting her from?

Charles can’t decide where armed police “go” and how many are on duty. Harry wants armed police like his dad and brother, not unarmed security.

When Camilla became his fiancée Charles organised security for her but it was an unarmed bodyguard because we have strict laws on who can carry guns.

For all those making the point that the King could pay for it, the same rules apply to the King as they do to Harry. The King can’t pay for it because Harry wants armed security which only UK police can provide and they cannot be hired by anyone, including the King. This is not the Kings decision and he, quite rightly, is not interfering in the decision making process that is clearly laid out

But the king could have supported him during this case, he’s the king. Instead he sent some minion to speak against him. Really not ok as a father or grandfather.

But the king could have supported him during this case, he’s the king. Instead he sent some minion to speak against him. Really not ok as a father or grandfather.

you are muddled as to who your current and future Head of State is?

I am sorry you did not understand my post, let me try to explain it to you.
I was saying that the "head of state" and "member of the royal family" status WERE muddled, and that it comes down to the exact same thing in real life. The royal family just uses whichever "label" suits them better at the time.

I dont think my answer was so confusing.

He can't be paying for armed police protection when he's here in a private capacity.

Otherwise anyone who has the money could pay for armed police protection. That would work out well, wouldn't it. 🙄🙄

The King doesn't pay for it either. The government does, because the King is Head of State.

No he just has to give notice he is coming they risk assess him and provide the required level of security

He cannot pay for armed security when in the UK. It would leave us open to having every flippin cocky arms dealer and suspected big time drug dealer trying to get it too.

He offered to pay for it! The money isn’t the issue.

Surely though certain diplomats have armed protection not provided by the police, I can't see Trump rocking up without his own armed guards.

@Lupin4747 Principals don't sit on RAVEC. However, at time of Sandringham Summit the Queen wrote a letter expressing her support for H&M to be safe and secure and in that letter acknowledged that the decision making process rested with RAVEC, so no - the King could not have interfered.

All ex PMs get security, as do all ex presidents in other countries. They are still at risk due to the confidential nature of their job.

What are you talking about? The Queen (Elizabeth) sent a letter to Ravec in 2020/21 asking them to consider continuing his security they refused the King has stayed hands off in this situation and rightly so the Queen should never have attempted to sway them it's unfair

Andrew was cut off in 2022 security wise and personal allowance was removed Charles is attempting to get him out of royal Lodge if he cannot maintain it he breaks the legal agreement

I think the security thing for Liz Truss for eg is that she is a public servant who makes decisions in her working life on behalf of the country that might aggrieve organisations or individuals (look at poor Jo Cox for eg). We entrust her (or any PM) to represent us and make difficult political decisions, so the state needs to have her back.

Harry does not make those decisions so sure, he might face a threat but it is not of the state's making? And he is not working for the country.

So Andrew had police armed protection until 2022 and then privately funded non armed protection paid for by Charles until the end of last year - so he was happy to pay for Andrew until he decided he wanted the Royal Lodge for William but not happy to pay for Harry.

Is this the IPP (international protected person) situation?