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!

No, the King has to remain impartial and wisely did so: his youngest son took a Government department to court! The monarchy has no political power, it exists on a purely ceremonial basis. The King cannot be seen to be supporting his son against the democratically elected Government of the day, regardless of how he might feel as a father. This is what Harry meant when he said the King wouldn't speak to him because of the security issue.

In addition, Harry has proven himself to be untrustworthy. How could the King offer words of support knowing those words would almost certainly be repeated in Harry's next interview or book and give rise to accusations that the King had been meddling in Government policy? The Republicans would have a field day!

The Royal household sits on the committee that makes the decisions. Both Harry’s parents have disclosed all sorts of things to the media, why is it not ok for him.

"Someone will attack them at some point."
Oh come on, this is the UK, not the wild west! Do you think some frothing-at-the-mouth Royal extremist is going to attack them because of the Oprah interview or "Spare."

Harry has returned to Britain several times and there have been zero displays of aggression towards him other than some "boos" shouted from the crowd, a typically British response and hardly life-threatening.

Indeed his gone to countries deemed very unsafe for what reasons? And his still fine. U.K. far far too dangerous though to even visit his old man.

With our press chasing them… no
Children constantly papped on school runs… no
anyone can own a gun… no
school shootings… no
celeb car chases… no

I mean we are quite the domesticated country I believe who tend to leave celebs alone. Bar a few house robberies but I can’t imagine that happening on the royal estates due to drum roll 🥁 …. The security.

He wsa born into it but chose to opt out of it. If he was still in it this wouldn't be an issue.

So you are saying if Liz Truss went to go live in America the British tax payer would be funding her security for life?

They DO get security if they visit the UK!!!!!
And people not liking the actions of both H&M are not a threat, these are normal people who aren't going to hurt them FFS they just speak up about the dreadful behaviours, lies, cheating, dodgy charity funding etc .... so they don't need security like the king who is a political target potentially. H&M can book their own security if they're peddling jam at Netflix or a country market, if they're stopped feeding their whereabouts or their inner most word salads to the press every 5 minutes no one would know or care where they are

I think he has been traumatised all his life by what happened to his mother when her security was pulled.

Before he became King, Charles did an interview in which he talked about the breakdown of his marriage to Diana. He also commented on the importance of environmental issues and ugly architecture but to my knowledge he never made a criticism of Government policy. Diana also did the marriage breakdown interview, championed the cause of victims of land mines, aids and other charitable causes. Again, I'm not aware of Diana criticising Government policy. The King is now the monarch, he has to be seen to be apolitical.

I'm aware that representatives from the Royal family sit on the Ravec committee. This makes logistical sense given that an awful lot of the allocated armed close protection is given to members of the Royal Family. That doesn't mean that the representatives can demand armed protection for Harry or any other member of the Royal Family.

But the point is he would get security, it’s just that it would be on a case by case basis rather than some kind of standby baseline. Like for other celebrities.

There are a lot of people on this thread saying ‘someone from the Royal Household’ or ‘The King himself’ sits on RAVEC, and then either implying or outright saying that their presence on RAVEC negatively influences outcomes for Prince Harry. There is no evidence of this.

Firstly, no principals sit on RAVEC, the Royal Household’s previous confirmed members have been the sovereign’s private secretaries. At the time the decision was made by RAVEC (that is - the decision that Prince Harry is saying was made against their rules and with no good reason to depart from them. And again noting that is the ONLY thing the appeal decided - not if he should have security or not) this was The Queen’s private secretary, Sir Edward Young, and he wrote a letter on behalf of The Queen to RAVEC in early 2020, mentioning the importance of H&M getting security, but acknowledging it was RAVEC’s decision.

So the only concrete evidence of the Royal Household’s influence over RAVEC in this matter is either The Queen (and her Private Secretary) asking security continue, or that the King has declined to get involved, seeing it as not a matter for him. So their influence has been either positive or neutral for Harry.

Any poster mentioning that someone from the Royal Household sits on RAVEC and trying to imply that this is negative for Harry, is doing so against established evidence, and either needs to produce some to the contrary, or stop relying on it as an argument, as it makes them look ill informed and weakens any other points they raise.

edited: to fix typos

King Charles has also discussed his painful and lonely childhood. He don’t experience the death of his mother at a very young age or the breakdown of his parents marriage and his mother struggling massively. So it seems it’s ok for him to whine about far less publicly but not Harry.

I'd hope so. Because anyone who has been the UK PM, even for only a few weeks, will have had access to the sort of classified information that could put us all at risk if they were ever in a position where it might be tortured out of them.

Harry will get first class security whenever he visits the UK, he just needs to provide RAVEC with 28 days notice. It's really that simple.

By giving 28 days notice, RAVEC can be very thorough at assessing risks, doing the correct analysis etc? It's a far more effective, safer form of security surely, as opposed to Harry arriving out of the blue and expecting close protection officers to just bloody wing it?

Exactly

I find it odd that he’s only concerned about U.K. security and doesn’t have similar concerns in US where the paparazzi are just as interested

Her security wasn't pulled. Diana dismissed her official protection because she thought they were spying on her. She was paranoid and not helped by people like Martin Bashir who encouraged that paranoia

One theory is the thinking behind all this was if H had improved his situation from the current one, Roughly speaking free security when in UK subject to threat assessment 28 days notice needed...

...to what he wanted - free security in UK, same level as KC and PoW, no notice period required...

.... then his next move would be a push for IPP status which could mean tax payer funded security worldwide...

Follow the money is strong on this one..

His security are allowed to carry guns in the US

Been explained on fucking repeat but in case you have missed it

The met is not for sale

Armed protection is not allowed in the UK

Ex prime minister's get protection because they have made political decisions which impact people. They make financial decisions, they make decisions about justice and prisons, they make decisions about who gets what NHS treatment, they make education decisions and crucially they make foreign policy decisions including decisions on arms and whether to get involved in war or supporting war. When people die due to any of those decisions. Or when people suffer, it can cause extreme reactions against them. Any number of foreign or UK citizens could be extremely angry with government home or foreign policy to the point of wanting the death of the PM who was ultimately responsible.

Harry has not pissed anyone off as a result of leading UK policy. Of course he's made stupid decisions like printing his kill count - but that was his own choice. He was not making policy decisions as part of his job. This is why there is a distinction.

He's asking for the same level of security as the King & Camilla, William & Catherine and their children. When right now he gets the same level as Anne, Edward, Sophie etc.

he's definitely more of a target, I mean most of the UK population seem to hate him for writing a book 🤷🏻‍♀️

I wouldn't want to be in the RF & all the crap that does with it. Why he's hated for leaving is beyond me.

I think the issue is he can’t as the access to intelligence isn’t available to private security? Not defending him, his actions etc but it does seem nonsensical as if one of his children was kidnapped it would surely cost more to sort?

He's really not a target just because people can't stand him. Come on. People can find him an entitled, whiny, insufferable numpty but that doesn't mean anyone's going to do anything to him/his wife/his children.

The fact is that politically he's really not important. Which I think he's actually finding very difficult to come to terms with. He wants to be a big player on the world stage but he threw that all away.

That said, he would still get perfectly adequate security with all the bells and whistles, bespoke to his specific needs and circumstances, if he would just deign to comply with the required notice period. So if there were any threat, he would be protected. However that's not good enough for our Harold.

I don’t think people actually hate him. I think they are just fed up with the moaning from someone born with such privilege yet nothing is ever good enough. It’s just moan after moan yet moaning about the very thing that makes it so anyone’s willing to pay money to listen to him.

It’s all moan moan life sucks poor me give me money poor me not my fault give me security loan I shot people moan life’s hard my poor self moan did drugs moans takes the piss out of female staff at school woe is me moan moan need money love me respect me.