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

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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
FenellaFeldman · 03/05/2025 16:55

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.

Thank you - slight cross post!

PinkArt · 03/05/2025 16:56

FenellaFeldman · 03/05/2025 16:48

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.

Perhaps he was less clear in other parts - as I said I've not watched the whole interview.

Lucelady · 03/05/2025 16:59

FenellaFeldman · 03/05/2025 16:53

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.

You are quite wrong here. Liz Truss was not in office long enough to know Jack anything.
Harry is ex services plus a Royal*. He chose the former. That was not a wise move. I have worked close to these people and we have an obligation to this man even if it just about decency.

  • he's not an ex royal, he never will be.
BigWillyLittleTodger · 03/05/2025 16:59

PinkArt · 03/05/2025 16:54

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.

They have all been risk assessed and security is provided for them all on that basis, it’s not difficult to understand, and yes you are guessing, fortunately the British Security Services know what they are doing, unlike random mumsnetters.

FenellaFeldman · 03/05/2025 16:59

PinkArt · 03/05/2025 16:56

Perhaps he was less clear in other parts - as I said I've not watched the whole interview.

Well, really, he was less than honest or perhaps he doesn't understand how security services work. Of course he gets security - see all the responses on this thread. Charles is not in charge. Why on earth would special services leave decisions to Charles?! He's not an expert!
Harry just kept saying stuff about his father and his family, the usual about his mother etc. it wasn't great.

FenellaFeldman · 03/05/2025 17:00

Lucelady · 03/05/2025 16:59

You are quite wrong here. Liz Truss was not in office long enough to know Jack anything.
Harry is ex services plus a Royal*. He chose the former. That was not a wise move. I have worked close to these people and we have an obligation to this man even if it just about decency.

  • he's not an ex royal, he never will be.

How do you know what information Truss was privy to? She was the PM. She'd need to be briefed on defence, including nuclear codes.

BigWillyLittleTodger · 03/05/2025 17:02

Lucelady · 03/05/2025 16:59

You are quite wrong here. Liz Truss was not in office long enough to know Jack anything.
Harry is ex services plus a Royal*. He chose the former. That was not a wise move. I have worked close to these people and we have an obligation to this man even if it just about decency.

  • he's not an ex royal, he never will be.

Liz Truss wasn’t plucked from obscurity to become the next Prime Minister, she wasn’t the equivalent of an X Factor contestant, the lack of knowledge on here is astounding.

The member of Parliament (MP) for South West Norfolk from 2010 to 2024, Truss held various Cabinet positions under three prime ministers—David Cameron, Theresa May, and Boris Johnson—lastly as foreign secretary from 2021 to 2022

FenellaFeldman · 03/05/2025 17:02

@Lucelady you are wrong.
Harry gets security.

FloatingSquirrel · 03/05/2025 17:03

As much as I dislike him I do think he should get protection. It's different to a celebrity where they have chosen to be high profile, he was born into it.

FenellaFeldman · 03/05/2025 17:03

BigWillyLittleTodger · 03/05/2025 17:02

Liz Truss wasn’t plucked from obscurity to become the next Prime Minister, she wasn’t the equivalent of an X Factor contestant, the lack of knowledge on here is astounding.

The member of Parliament (MP) for South West Norfolk from 2010 to 2024, Truss held various Cabinet positions under three prime ministers—David Cameron, Theresa May, and Boris Johnson—lastly as foreign secretary from 2021 to 2022

Quite. She knows a lot of stuff critical to the security of the UK. Of course she is protected.

FenellaFeldman · 03/05/2025 17:03

FloatingSquirrel · 03/05/2025 17:03

As much as I dislike him I do think he should get protection. It's different to a celebrity where they have chosen to be high profile, he was born into it.

He gets protection.

FenellaFeldman · 03/05/2025 17:04

BigWillyLittleTodger · 03/05/2025 16:59

They have all been risk assessed and security is provided for them all on that basis, it’s not difficult to understand, and yes you are guessing, fortunately the British Security Services know what they are doing, unlike random mumsnetters.

Well, that's a relief 😂

BigWillyLittleTodger · 03/05/2025 17:04

FloatingSquirrel · 03/05/2025 17:03

As much as I dislike him I do think he should get protection. It's different to a celebrity where they have chosen to be high profile, he was born into it.

For the gazillionth time he does get protection, he just has to give 28 days notice, why is this so difficult to understand?

Nunaluna · 03/05/2025 17:05

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.

This is how I feel, when I stand back and see it objectively and not through the lens of finding him extremely annoying. He didn’t ask to be a Prince, but he is, and the level of threat toward him won’t vanish to nothing now he’s left the RF.

FloatingSquirrel · 03/05/2025 17:05

BigWillyLittleTodger · 03/05/2025 17:04

For the gazillionth time he does get protection, he just has to give 28 days notice, why is this so difficult to understand?

What have they declined then?

buffyajp · 03/05/2025 17:05

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.

What a load of hysterical nonsense. He is not being treated any differently to Anne or Edward in regards of security. He is NOT a UK resident anymore. If you and his supporters want to pay to protect his family crack on but you don’t get to decide for the rest of us who pay taxes. Security will be decided by those in the know each time he comes and if a credible threat identified at that point armed security would be provided. What gives you the right to determine what the risk is to him over those whose job it is to determine these things and who have a far higher security clearance than you or I will ever have.

FenellaFeldman · 03/05/2025 17:05

BigWillyLittleTodger · 03/05/2025 17:04

For the gazillionth time he does get protection, he just has to give 28 days notice, why is this so difficult to understand?

Perhaps this needs to be in a larger font?

Kinkyroots · 03/05/2025 17:05

There isn’t a box of firearms close protection police sat around in case he comes over. Would the UK public be happy paying for a 24/7/365 team of them to be at his disposal? And their ongoing training/pensions etc?

This latest tv interview highlights even more what a tone-deaf entitled brat he is. If he thinks that’s the way to persuade KC etc to invite him back into the fold….and emotionally manipulative too ‘how long he has left’ FFS if he’s concerned about his dad’s health stop pulling shit like this and get on with your bloody life.

FenellaFeldman · 03/05/2025 17:07

FloatingSquirrel · 03/05/2025 17:05

What have they declined then?

Harry's request that:
He doesn't have to give notice.
It will be assessed each time for threat level
He may not always get armed protection
This is what he challenged, this is what was denied. Not by Charles. By the Home Office.
The judge said "grievance is not grounds" to give him extra protection.

Nunaluna · 03/05/2025 17:08

Having read the facts on BBC, I think the decision is reasonable. He hasn’t lost his protection, he just needs to give 28 days notice to arrange it. And why shouldn’t he? We can’t pay for 24/7 armed guards to sit around drinking tea waiting for news that Harry is on a plane over.

JoyousEagle · 03/05/2025 17:08

FloatingSquirrel · 03/05/2025 17:05

What have they declined then?

The exact arrangements he would like. For example, he has to let them know in advance so that the security can be arranged. He doesn’t want to do this.

HonoriaBulstrode · 03/05/2025 17:09

When the Pope visited, it was in a bullet proof vehicle. It still cost us £12 million. There was no intel on serious threats.

How would you know? That is never going to be public information.

And Pope John Paul II was shot and seriously injured in Rome in 1981, so evidently the Pope is a potential target.

Harry is a unique case because he was born into the level of risk that the has.

He is not unique. Anne and Edward were also born into it. And Anne, let us not forget, actually was in immediate danger at one time. Yet they who are working royals and permanently resident in the UK, and their families, get less security than Harry is demanding for himself and his family.

AgnesX · 03/05/2025 17:11

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.

Do Anne and Edward have security., since they're on a par when it comes to the royal succession. Presumably that precedent helped form the court decision?

Maybe if Harry piped down and didn't court (!) the media quite as controversially as does he wouldn't be in the public eye.

He bleats on about media privacy but only when it suits him it seems.

BigWillyLittleTodger · 03/05/2025 17:12

FloatingSquirrel · 03/05/2025 17:05

What have they declined then?

Basically Harry wants a team of armed Met officers sat at Heathrow 24/7 365 days a year just in case on a whim, he fancies popping over for a jolly, the Home Office are saying, fine, pop over for a jolly, just give us 28 days notice and we will do a risk assessment for you and provide suitable security.

StClabberts · 03/05/2025 17:13

Lucelady · 03/05/2025 16:59

You are quite wrong here. Liz Truss was not in office long enough to know Jack anything.
Harry is ex services plus a Royal*. He chose the former. That was not a wise move. I have worked close to these people and we have an obligation to this man even if it just about decency.

  • he's not an ex royal, he never will be.

Right, so how long does a PM have to be in office to know 'Jack anything' and what exactly happens with matters of state security and national defence whilst they serve this unofficial apprenticeship? And how have you acquired this information?

Swipe left for the next trending thread