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!

This kind of intelligence will still be being looked at, assessed and acted on if credible by the security services.

Just because Harry doesn't have access to official protection at will, doesn't mean they won't act if a credible threat comes to light.

What's this got to do with any point I've made in my reply to the pp?

He gets security when he comes to the UK. What he doesn’t get is a team sitting around waiting for him. He has been given security on his visits to the UK for his court cases and Invictus. He was able to bring his dcs in 2022. Other members of the RF don’t get security unless they are on royal duties so he’s already getting a preferential arrangement as he is no longer a working royal.
For a member of the royal family to question the independence of the judiciary and threaten to by pass it by approaching the Home Secretary directly is absolutely unacceptable. He has gone too far.

Exactly. Some very famous people have homes in GB: George and Amal Clooney and their children, Elton John and David Furnish and their children to name just two. I've never heard either complain about not being able to have armed security because living here is so "dangerous." Both have multiple homes and wouldn't live here at all if that was the case.

I completely agree with you. As a country we have chosen to have a Royal Family which puts its members at risk. That risk doesn’t go away if they opt out of Royal life. It’s a life long risk we created by having a royal family, it’s not one PH chose. We have a moral responsibility to pay for his security.

It’s disgraceful that we don’t.

We do.

My god how many times does it need to be said??

But we do. He gets security.

Unless I’ve misunderstood you, and you mean that we should pay for it in America as well?

She declined official security because she was presumably concerned about her ex and his family knowing her whereabouts.

Seriously Harry gets as much protection as he could possibly need. He just wants even more. He fancies himself at Head of State level. He is not.

He can stop throwing his toys out of his pram and accept that he needs to work within the parameters the government has set.

And if you mean that he should have tax payer funded protection when he is abroad then no. Absolutely not.

He wanted his families privacy and left the Royal Family for his wife's well being. Both reasonable choices as an adult and husband.

They could have gone anywhere. They could be living out of the limelight in any low key location. They chose Netflix, Opera, podcasts, book publishing etc etc and Montecito. They can do what they like, but I understand why the King is not on board.

So Prince Andrew needs govt funded 24/7 armed personal guards then… his a royal. Brother of the king.

Really no need to be so aggressive about it

I think this has always been at the heart of Harry's issues. He can't seperate out his family as family members from their roles as head of state/heirs. He said it in his Oprah interview when he griped about William and Kate being prioritised for plum roles he felt would suit him and Meghan better. He sees what his brother gets and wants the same and seems incapable of understanding that his brother isn't treated better, the heir to the throne is.

He's not the first second son to harbour that resentment. Kings and heirs have had issues with younger brothers ever since kings existed.

The whole bunch of these multimillionaire benefit scrounges can bloody well pay for whatever protection they want…I just object to my taxes keeping them in the luxury they demand.

Blunt not aggressive thread after thread another one has cropped up just now and it's been explained since he started these court cases over a year ago? even the Palace pointed out in their statement

I can’t remember being taught in history lessons about a referendum to have a monarchy…when did we make this decision?

Exactly this. William & Kate aren't chosen for certain public engagements due to their glittering personalities FFS. They're chosen for their rank obviously, because William is the POW and heir to the throne. William could be as dull as ditchwater with a squint, club foot and 6 fingers on each hand and he would still always be chosen over Harry, for certain occasions.

William could be as dull as ditchwater

Could be?

kindly, @Magentaflies your post contains so many factual inaccuracies, it’s not possible to give your conclusions any weight.

Firstly, the UK did not chose to have a Royal Family. You’d be looking back at history and the divine right of Kings and the Reformation to argue your position here, but I don’t think your looking at this period of history and seeking to argue this.

Secondly, you immediately equate being a member of the Royal Fsmily with being at risk. This is not the case, and many members of the RF have no security, or only security for limited engagements. The RAVEC committee was formed to apply to members of the RF and other VIPs, determine risk, and determine security accordingly. Inherit in this, is the knowledge that risks will change at different times and for different events, and security might be higher or lower as needed.

You say we have a moral responsibility to pay for his security - leaving aside the many, many posts on this thread that have explained that we DO pay for his security, and the way in which it is determined what, when and how it will be paid for, a moral responsibilty means nothing. I may think there is a moral responsibility not to pay for it, but to pay for everyone’s tertiary education. Others may not, The UK pays for medical care via the NHS, other countries do not believe in doing so and either only partially subsidise it (eg Australia) or don’t subsidise it at all. Moral responsibility is an individual thing, and one persons morals (that then involve payment) can’t be imposed on the whole
country.

However in this case, the UK does pay for his security, and there is an expert body which determines when, where and how much should be in place at each time he is in the UK. So good news! You don’t need to find it disgraceful that we don’t fund it - because we do!

This post is conflating two different things that RAVEC commissioned and worked with: threat assessments and Royal Risk Management Boards (referred to as RMBs).

A threat assessment is a dynamic assessment carried out whenever necessary (for example when Harry lets the Palace know he is planning a trip to the UK) to assess the level of threat he would face, to enable appropriate security arrangements to be put in place. That is on the following basis:

1. Capability + intent = threat
2. Threat + vulnerability = likelihood
3. Likelihood + impact = risk

Separately to this, RAVEC’s responsibilities include determining on an annual basis (or more frequently as necessary), a set of reasonable worst-case scenarios against which potential threats to an individual will be assessed. This is the RMB. The RMB only applies to scenarios in the UK, as it is premised on the basis that the royal family member lives in the UK, and the UK government is only in a position to assess UK risks.

Harry has not had an RMB conducted since 2019, it is true, as he was mid-cycle when he left the UK in January 2020. He has not lived in the UK since, so the practice of annual RMBs has been overtaken by events. He has so far as we know, had regular threat assessments conducted, however. Harry focussed on teh first bit only, however…

(And I am no insider! All of this is set out clearly in the judgement from the first instance hearing of Harry’s claim: https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2024/418.html&query=Duke+of+sussex+home+office )

It wasn’t Diana’s security, it was Mohammed Al Fayed’s security. Who did not have the power to say “No” to the boss’ son (Dodi Al Fayed). Which led to tragedy…

Her security wasn’t pulled.
She rejected her security. She died making a rash decision with her boyfriend, to not put on a seatbelt and use a less than reliable driver. If she had belted up she would have most probably survived the crash.

I totally agree. He is a member of that family by birth and as a result, is a target, regardless of whether he is a working royal.

And even if he doesn’t get state funded security, if I was his very rich parents, I would be paying to keep my kid and grandkids safe. Even if we weren’t on talking terms.

yet another example of “The Firm” putting business before the wellbeing of their family - who never chose this path in the first place, yet are experiencing the “hate” and “fallout” of trying to get out.

But the other non-working RF members don't get extra security either do they, Zaras children for instance, who would have been the same relation to the Queen as Harry's child when he left? More of a threat specifically now that Harry's are directly related to the King though I guess (I'm not in UK, so maybe they do all get extra security)

Honestly 🙄 let’s waste millions on Harry “security” when we can’t even protect women walking home on their own. Get a grip