Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Why can’t Harry just pay for his own private security?

636 replies

jennylamb1 · 03/05/2025 14:36

Don’t get it. He says that he can’t ever visit the UK again because his security won’t be provided. Loads of celebrities and high profile business people pay for their own security, why should tax payers pay for his security when he isn’t a working royal anymore?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
TheDevilFindsWorkForIdleMums · 03/05/2025 16:29

He shouldn't have to pay.

His life is at risk because of who he is and the family he was born into.

His life is at risk because his family chose to use him to promote their brand whether he wanted to or not. He will always be at risk because of that and because of who he is. He shouldn't have to pay.

JoyousEagle · 03/05/2025 16:34

CalypsoCuthbertson · 03/05/2025 15:57

That’s not what he said in the interview.

Show quote history

He was a bit selective in that interview. It is not the case that he will only get security if on an official/invited trip.

Leafy3 · 03/05/2025 16:38

Iwantmyoldnameback · 03/05/2025 16:26

Does anyone truly believe the Kings grandchildren are not targets? And Archie and Lilibet will be much easier to get to than the others. Especially if people know they are not protected by armed security
If Diana hadn't refused Royal protection she'd probably be alive today.

But Diana didn't die because she didn't have armed security, she died because her driver was drunk and she wasn't wearing a seat belt.

BigWillyLittleTodger · 03/05/2025 16:43

PinkArt · 03/05/2025 15:38

Harry is a unique case because he was born into the level of risk that the has. He didn't strive to become a pop star or actor, didn't get voted into power, did nothing himself to have been a kidnap threat since the day he was born.
It doesn't matter if he's a non working royal or the most working royal ever, he is still the King's son. He could try to rebrand as just Harry Sussex/ Mountbatten-Windsor and get a job in Lidl, but he is still the King's son with all of the risks that brings, through no choice of his own.
I haven't seen the whole of the interview but thought he made that point very clearly - his royal job might have changed but the threat level brought by who his family is hasn't.

On that basis then we should be paying for 24/7 365 days per year armed security for Andrew, Anne, Edward, plus all their spouses and children.

StClabberts · 03/05/2025 16:44

TheDevilFindsWorkForIdleMums · 03/05/2025 16:29

He shouldn't have to pay.

His life is at risk because of who he is and the family he was born into.

His life is at risk because his family chose to use him to promote their brand whether he wanted to or not. He will always be at risk because of that and because of who he is. He shouldn't have to pay.

And he doesn't. The UK provide him with security for free. He just wants to be able to pay for a different type of state provided security, which is not a good precedent for us to set.

FenellaFeldman · 03/05/2025 16:45

notanothernamechange24 · 03/05/2025 14:51

It also only covers him - not Meghan or his children. There have been very credible threats to Archie when they were living in Windsor.

Show quote history

There are credible threats to all of them. The Sussexes are not an exception.
Also - Meghan and the children do get protection. Of course they do! Do you honestly think they wouldn't get security?!

BigWillyLittleTodger · 03/05/2025 16:46

Ponoka7 · 03/05/2025 14:45

Because the security needs to be privy to royal arrangements, be able to carry weapons and have information shared from the anti terrorism etc police. He did offer to pay, King Charles said no, probably because it goes against royal protocol, you are either entitled security or not.
When the Pope visited, it was in a bullet proof vehicle. It still cost us £12 million. There was no intel on serious threats. There are always credible threats against Harry and in particular, his children.

King Charles did not say no, it wasn’t his decision to make. Are you a member of the National Security services per chance? Otherwise how do you have any idea who has a credible threat against them or not?

FenellaFeldman · 03/05/2025 16:46

Ponoka7 · 03/05/2025 14:45

Because the security needs to be privy to royal arrangements, be able to carry weapons and have information shared from the anti terrorism etc police. He did offer to pay, King Charles said no, probably because it goes against royal protocol, you are either entitled security or not.
When the Pope visited, it was in a bullet proof vehicle. It still cost us £12 million. There was no intel on serious threats. There are always credible threats against Harry and in particular, his children.

It's not up to Charles. Harry is lying about this.

midlandsmummy123 · 03/05/2025 16:47

We were paying for armed protection for Andrew until 2022 and then KC payed privately for unarmed protection until the end of last year when he wanted the Royal Lodge back.

FenellaFeldman · 03/05/2025 16:48

PinkArt · 03/05/2025 15:38

Harry is a unique case because he was born into the level of risk that the has. He didn't strive to become a pop star or actor, didn't get voted into power, did nothing himself to have been a kidnap threat since the day he was born.
It doesn't matter if he's a non working royal or the most working royal ever, he is still the King's son. He could try to rebrand as just Harry Sussex/ Mountbatten-Windsor and get a job in Lidl, but he is still the King's son with all of the risks that brings, through no choice of his own.
I haven't seen the whole of the interview but thought he made that point very clearly - his royal job might have changed but the threat level brought by who his family is hasn't.

He didn't make his point very clearly. He kept repeating himself. He gets protection. His family gets protection - he just wants armed protection, giving no notice.

BigWillyLittleTodger · 03/05/2025 16:48

TheDevilFindsWorkForIdleMums · 03/05/2025 16:29

He shouldn't have to pay.

His life is at risk because of who he is and the family he was born into.

His life is at risk because his family chose to use him to promote their brand whether he wanted to or not. He will always be at risk because of that and because of who he is. He shouldn't have to pay.

So all members of the Royal family should have round the clock armed security then, if Harry needs it so do they.

Lucelady · 03/05/2025 16:48

So even ex prime ministers get full time secruity for life on less than two months public service? Get real, he's a target. He might be as mad as a bag of fogs but he didn't choose to be a Royal.
All this nonsense about being JHs child is codswalop, look at a portrait of Henry the eighth!
He is a blabbering fool but he didn't have good role models. His father was bullied, his mother was coerced. Tbh if I was him I'd come home, seek a suitable safe house and get out there smiling for the plebs. Better than flogging a dead horse. The USA has not worked for them. He has a lot to offer if he engaged a good set of advisers. All the Royal family needs fresh counsel.

BigWillyLittleTodger · 03/05/2025 16:50

TheDevilFindsWorkForIdleMums · 03/05/2025 16:29

He shouldn't have to pay.

His life is at risk because of who he is and the family he was born into.

His life is at risk because his family chose to use him to promote their brand whether he wanted to or not. He will always be at risk because of that and because of who he is. He shouldn't have to pay.

Just to be clear he does get security and he doesn’t have to pay, he just needs to give 28 days notice. Why people are not getting this is maddening.

FenellaFeldman · 03/05/2025 16:50

BigWillyLittleTodger · 03/05/2025 16:48

So all members of the Royal family should have round the clock armed security then, if Harry needs it so do they.

Show quote history

Can you imagine the Home Office bill to the taxpayer?

FenellaFeldman · 03/05/2025 16:51

BigWillyLittleTodger · 03/05/2025 16:50

Just to be clear he does get security and he doesn’t have to pay, he just needs to give 28 days notice. Why people are not getting this is maddening.

Show quote history

They must choose not to. It's very strange, I agree.

StClabberts · 03/05/2025 16:51

So even ex prime ministers get full time secruity for life on less than two months public service?

Yes of course they do, because it would be a heroically stupid idea for us not to do that.

Anyone who has been PM of the UK is going to be party to the sort of official security information that means we'd all be at risk if they were ever compromised. The question isn't whether Liz Truss is a twat, it's whether she knows things we don't want tortured out of her. The answer to both questions is yes.

None of which has anything whatsoever to do with the protection given to the royals.

Lucelady · 03/05/2025 16:51

@FenellaFeldman we are already paying it!

Fkhgfv · 03/05/2025 16:51

UK private security is not armed so less likely to be able to protect you from a threat.

Chewygummy · 03/05/2025 16:52

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

BethDuttonYeHaw · 03/05/2025 16:52

jennylamb1 · 03/05/2025 14:36

Don’t get it. He says that he can’t ever visit the UK again because his security won’t be provided. Loads of celebrities and high profile business people pay for their own security, why should tax payers pay for his security when he isn’t a working royal anymore?

He can and does pay for private security.

what he wants, though, is security provided by British police (special branch) on-demand which isn’t available for purchase by celebrities or ex royals.

he will be provided either British police security as and when it’s assessed that it’s needed.

FenellaFeldman · 03/05/2025 16:53

Lucelady · 03/05/2025 16:48

So even ex prime ministers get full time secruity for life on less than two months public service? Get real, he's a target. He might be as mad as a bag of fogs but he didn't choose to be a Royal.
All this nonsense about being JHs child is codswalop, look at a portrait of Henry the eighth!
He is a blabbering fool but he didn't have good role models. His father was bullied, his mother was coerced. Tbh if I was him I'd come home, seek a suitable safe house and get out there smiling for the plebs. Better than flogging a dead horse. The USA has not worked for them. He has a lot to offer if he engaged a good set of advisers. All the Royal family needs fresh counsel.

No. Liz Truss gets full protection because she was the Head of Government, and privy to all manner of Official Secrets.
Security isn't about whether you like someone or not. Harry gets - free of charge, thanks to us - top level security for him and his family when in the UK. However, what he doesn't like is giving notice, and what he also doesn't like is that it may not always be armed, and he may not always have outriders.

BigWillyLittleTodger · 03/05/2025 16:53

Lucelady · 03/05/2025 16:48

So even ex prime ministers get full time secruity for life on less than two months public service? Get real, he's a target. He might be as mad as a bag of fogs but he didn't choose to be a Royal.
All this nonsense about being JHs child is codswalop, look at a portrait of Henry the eighth!
He is a blabbering fool but he didn't have good role models. His father was bullied, his mother was coerced. Tbh if I was him I'd come home, seek a suitable safe house and get out there smiling for the plebs. Better than flogging a dead horse. The USA has not worked for them. He has a lot to offer if he engaged a good set of advisers. All the Royal family needs fresh counsel.

He doesn’t have the status of actually running the country like a Prime Minister ribbon cutting is really not the same level.

JoyousEagle · 03/05/2025 16:54

BethDuttonYeHaw · 03/05/2025 16:52

He can and does pay for private security.

what he wants, though, is security provided by British police (special branch) on-demand which isn’t available for purchase by celebrities or ex royals.

he will be provided either British police security as and when it’s assessed that it’s needed.

Edited
Show quote history

And to be clear, he does actually get that security provided and paid for. It’s just not arranged exactly how he’d like it.

FenellaFeldman · 03/05/2025 16:54

Lucelady · 03/05/2025 16:51

@FenellaFeldman we are already paying it!

We are! I just meant if Anne,Edward and Sophie carried on and made demands like Harry!

PinkArt · 03/05/2025 16:54

BigWillyLittleTodger · 03/05/2025 16:43

On that basis then we should be paying for 24/7 365 days per year armed security for Andrew, Anne, Edward, plus all their spouses and children.

Show quote history

If that's the level of security they is required to keep them safe, yes we should. I would guess that Harry and his family are at higher risk than say Edward's kids, which presumably is all part of the risk assessment, but they should all have suitable protection.