To think if "Prince" Harry wants 5m a year of taxpayer money he needs to start twerking for pennies as a working royal again

[CurdinHenry]

Otherwise he can fund it himself or stay in the US?

She shouldn’t get it either

H/M aren't wanted.

Is this the case? He did get security when visiting, he just had to give four weeks (iirc) notice.

He boasted about killing Taliban, or whoever. What a fool.

You can because they are non serving royals as well

Lilibet wasn't even born in the UK. Her parents need to continue to pay for their own security as not working royals. When Eugenie and Beatrice had paid for security Andrew was a working royal.

Yes, he put a target on his own back and on Meghan and his DC. What an idiot.

Prince Harry wants armed security. That can only be provided by the government (state). No one can pay for their own armed security in this country, and that includes the King paying for Harry. He couldn’t even if he wanted to.

So Harry is very welcome to pay for 100 heavies - but not ones with guns, which is what he wants - full-time for all four of them, no matter what they are doing from charity work to just hanging out with oafish pals for Harry or celebs for Meghan.

Highly-trained protection officers round-the-clock for four people (two of whom do not seem keen on keeping out of public view) will cost ££££££££££.

Well here’s a new idea if he wants armed guards providing their security why don’t they stay in America where they get just that.

hes a British citizen. If he needs security, he should have it. He shouldn’t have it just because he wants it and there’s no credible threat.

the working royal vs non-working royal is a distraction, the “work” is just charitable work and made up duties, William has shown that what the previous generation felt were important duties can be dumped for a different approach to “royal work” so it’s sort of irrelevant.

The fact they want to keep their dcs as private as possible is a good thing, it lessens the risk to the children for their security and as such should mean they aren’t targets that need protection.

She should get the security part. Anyone who's been PM potentially has access to valuable information that we don't want tortured out of them. It's better for us all that anyone in that position is protected.

But we need to think about putting a minimum service requirement on the office supplies and other staff grant.

You do realise there are about 90 million UK citizens who also would like security too.

People like Liz Truss don’t get protection because they “deserve” it after being PM, or as some kind of perk. It’s because they will have had access to highly-secure information and protocols etc. No one wants to assassinate Luz Truss but they might want to torture her for valuable information.

Though of course as time goes on I expect people’s worth and consequently their security is downgraded.

Like or need? Because many people get secure when it’s a need. As others have said, former PMs, authors who have chosen to write books that upset others have had small fortunes spent on them.

If there’s a credible reason for it, then of course this is why we have these trained people and only the security deemed essential not what he wants.

It can’t be on a deserving or undeserving decision process, but need. He shouldn’t have to do certain levels of duties or not, just is this needed.

Too much emotion on all harry related issues, from both his supporters and haters!

I don’t subscribe to the Megan/Harry hate. I think there is a lot going on behind closed doors that we are not privy to and all families are complicated, royal or not. I adore the Princess of Wales’ style, poise and quiet dignity - Wills traded up IMHO - but I think the whole family is a bit fucked on the whole.

That said, if Harry is returning to the Uk and expecting tax-payer funded security etc (ie if his dad is NOT paying for it out his own private funds, or Harry himself paying), then yes, he needs to work for the Firm and earn his keep.

Actually the 90 million need and deserve the security as well but they don’t have the funds to pay for it. I want my children to be able to walk down a street safely. Are their lives less important than the Sussexes? No they are not and if Harry wants the armed protection he should stay where he is where he gets it, all paid for by himself.

So? She’s still British. The Queen’s husband was in Greece.

Unless you’ve seen her passport you don’t know she’s British

I am most certainly not a fan but he will be a target because of who he is not if he is a so-called working royal or not. He would be a target for any crazy kidnappers as his dad is obviously loaded.

That said there is not a chance it should be publicly funded, his df should pay out of his pocket imo.

Wiki says she has dual citizenship, so she is British.

I don’t care what he wants. You resign from a job, you lose the perks. You don’t get to go back and plead for your old job back or plead for the perks. He can live wherever he wants, as long as he finds his own lifestyle. Luckily, I think William and Catherine will do a better job of ensuring their children are employable when they are adults, so this issue of poorly qualified peripheral royals expecting to live the high life at the state’s expense will not continue into the next generation.

Indeed, the revolving door of prime ministers in the last decade is costing us a fortune in security.

On the £115k per year though, she isn’t entitled to that per se, but can claim anything up to that for work carried out relating to being an ex-pm. I think her office has cost us about 120k in the 4 years she’s been out of office.

He is an absolute prat but you have to think what a carry on it would be if we had another tragedy like Diana.

You don’t think a public institution which has cosseted a member of their family and by dint of them being part of it increases their personal threat level, preventing them from being self sufficient until they are in their late 20s, has at least a partial responsibility to ensure that person and their children are kept at least a little bit safe?

In any case, there is no suggestion the taxpayer has been asked to or will be providing security for them. The only way this could happen is if RAVEC provide it. Given their refusal previously (despite independent recommendations to them) it seems unlikely. If they approve it, it will be because his or his children’s safety and security is in grave danger. Presumably you’d be on board with that? Or do his actions mean we should just throw him to the wolves, just like we did with his mother?

Exactly. She left the family because they treated her so badly her mental health was seriously damaged, and everyone loved her, supporting her for it. Even after she published a book and did an interview laying bare the secrets of the institution. wonder why, when her son did the same, he is hated. Is it because he is ginger?