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!

He's left the job. He doesn't get to keep the company car.

The headlines used in the Oprah winfrey show? Most of them were not even from the UK they were the overseas versions and while that is still fucking awful and uncalled for it's simply not a representation of the country as a whole harry and meghan were popular even after they left we rooted for them in there new lives but then the interviews came the blame the we hate the UK malarkey in recent interviews harry has struggled to say anything he has missed about the UK suddenly he wants to come "home" and bring his family "home" why? Money running low? Run out of stories to sell?

Liz Truss was also privy to details of National Security and the nuclear codes. She needs to be protected for our sakes more than hers.

If anything happens to Harry, Meghan or the kids - regardless of the rights or wrongs of the security issues or what he’s written in books etc- the King (who is already far less respected than his late mother) will come under attack from the press and public. It doesn’t matter that it’s an external committee or the status of Harry - all that will matter is Harry has begged for security for his family (and offered to cover the cost, even if that’s impractical), and his Dad will be seen as the one who let him go without.

This is a big risk the family is taking now. Harry and Meghan haters really hate them, it’s got to be a realistic risk someone will attack them at some point.

But that was his point - he hasn’t had a proper risk assessment done in 5 years. He wants the security decision to be based on facts, not feelings. RAVEC have to decide to do a yearly or more frequent risk assessment, and members of the royal household (presumably the King) sit on RAVEC. So this is in the King’s power to influence.

The argument that protection paid for by Harry would open the flood gates to other rich people asking for protection is a lazy one. There’s no requirement to have a process that treats people equally. Lots of processes to do with risk and crime have stringent measures to decide things on a case by case risk assessment basis and this should be no different.

Diana died because the driver of the car was drunk and speeding, and she wasn’t wearing a seatbelt.

I don’t think he actually had personal armed protection all that often more that he was always around those that did. His been clinging on to any type of being royal and important more than a limpet.

But we don’t know who’s been getting more threats either. Maybe Andrew had a ton for being a nob head accused of sleeping with a sex trafficked person. Lots of people hate them.

Charles also paid Harry money after he had decided to leave so not far different to Andrew’s personal money there which has been cut off.

If he gives 28 days notice of intent to come they review what’s required.

But a representative from the royal household sits on RAVEC

Diana died because the driver of the car was drunk and speeding, and she wasn’t wearing a seatbelt.

which could quite possible be entirely due to a lack of due diligence regarding his character during the recruitment process I.e. a lack of security measures. And don’t forget the press chasing her - which would have been averted had their been security surrounding her to arrest them for harrassment.

I do think he is traumatised but you can absolutely see why when his family refuse to rally round him. It’s a double trauma because of their lack of support.

Sorry, I disagree. Princess Anne and Prince Edward only get armed security when on official duties. They are both children of the late Queen and to follow Harry's argument both they, their children and their spouses should be entitled to armed police protection 24/7 for life and at the tax payer's expense?

This isn't the way armed security is assigned, it is assigned on a need-to-have basis based on intelligence reports. If Harry and his family warranted armed security, they would be given it free of charge. Clearly, Intel suggests that they are not at risk.

Frankly, to me this smacks of yet another example of Harry's arrogant entitlement. He wants the close protection that William - (as heir to the throne) - and his family are afforded because this would make Harry look important. The reality is he isn't. He's a former working Royal who simply perceives himself to be.

In addition, it's ironic that Harry allegedly fears for his family's security in the UK where gun laws are extremely strict and where (through choice) only a small percentage of our police force are licensed to carry a gun, but he chooses to raise his family in a country where owing a gun is considered not only a democratic right but a necessity; and mass shootings at schools and other places are an ongoing tragic occurrence. (My apologies to American readers).

This!

They decide on his security needs on a case by case basis. How else do they decide that except by weighing risk? They may not do a full risk assessment but they are looking at threats and assessing risk.

When it comes to finite resources it absolutely is important to have specific set of rules to follow. Otherwise the system becomes unfair. Harry is no different to anyone else with a high public profile.

Her crappy security let her get in a car with a drunk driver.

Wasn’t the driver of her car nothing to do with her and what’s his names driver?

So unless her security was supposed to tell her she couldn’t get into a car because they say so what else could they do.

No, he was saying that if he stayed at a Royal residence or attended a state event at which the King or another senior working Royal was present, he would have the benefit of armed security afforded to them by default.

Surely if UK security have any intelligence to suggest Harry and/ or his family are going to be targeted they would pass it on to his security guards? Does he really think they will withhold that information and just sit back and watch an assassination or kidnap happen? I can’t imagine the worldwide media attention should harm come to Harry or his family would do the royal family any favours and despite the bad blood I doubt Prince Charles wants to see his son or family harmed either. I’m sure its something UK intelligence would want to avoid and so would do what they need to do to protect the family if they did have anything to suggest they’re going to be targeted, I don’t see why his security guards need their own access to UK intelligence, just a reassurance that any relevant information will be passed on if and when necessary.

That’s not correct. If he provides the proper notice, RAVEC will do a risk assessment for each visit regardless of the reason/official invitation. Security will then be provided and paid for.
I think he’s being disingenuous and misrepresenting the fact, which is presumably that he only gets automatic protection if he’s at an official event.

Yes I think it’s odd that people think the royal family should be able to personally hire armed police.

who pays for his security in America? not the government thats for sure. who pays for his security when he travels abroad on holiday or for one of his charitable trusts? Security costs etc are an absolute red herring in this case. He had a vision of what a wonderful life he would have outside of the royal family - undertaking no duties, being responsible to no one but still being surrounded by sycophantic cap doffers everywhere he went. and guess what? it hasnt worked out like that has it and he is annoyed, hurt, angry, let down. because he is yesterdays news and now he is chip paper. He thought he was a celebrity and that the money and cap doffing would just keep on rolling in. He isnt and it hasnt.

He is being treated like the citizen that he is. if there are credible threats security will be provided. if he is at an event with other members of the royal family, security will be provided. anything else, he can pay for. and if he cant afford it tough shit. My purse is not open for him to dip in and out of every time he fancies popping over to London with his family.

I imagine she mainly needs protecting from herself.

Trump is the President of the USA. Protection comes with the job/role. Harry is a nobody now, who is feeling hurt because he's not as important as he could've been. He didn't want to work as a senior royal in service of King and Country, so no, he doesn't get the (perceived) 'perks' of the job.

He just doesn't like to be told no.

It’s the family Harry should be worried about.

I’m not surprised Harry wants enhanced security. Look at the vitriol written about him and his wife.
They are more at risk from a lunatic attacking than the king is

Both the first decision in December 2023 and this appeal against that Decision sought judicial review of the decision RAVEC made, saying they did not apply their own policies when making it, and did not have good reasons to depart from those policies. If Prince Harry won the case, it would just send the matter back to RAVEC to make the decision again. The Court cases would not ‘give’ Harry security or force RAVEC to give it to him.

The quote above by @3LemonsAndLime Is spot on. And I think lots of people, including Harry, haven't understood that. The Appeal was never about whether he should get automatic and constant security every time he comes to the UK, which a lot of posters seem to be assuming. Each visit to UK is assessed and will continue to be assessed on it's own individual merit