Harry & Meghan - to hope the Royals answer back?

[DontReallyCareBut]

I think the allegations in the Oprah interview are serious enough that protocol should be breached and the Royals should have a voice to give their side too.

The Sussexes are not working members of the Royal family. It is no longer the job of the British state to protect them.

Once again, the refusal to look at them from the pov of a terrorist group.

Can you really not understand that they are targets and that the distinction between working and non working is completely, absolutely, and 100% irrelevant?

math you are the one who cannot see that they have chosen their own path.

That is their right and I hope it works out for them.

But British taxpayer simply cannot pay for the security costs for this family. Not when they are considerable higher than they would be in the UK.

And that is me ignoring all the other reasons which make it impossible.

They no longer live in the UK, they no longer live in the Commonwealth. The British Police cannot protect them any longer.

It is their choice, not the choice of the Queen and not the choice of the British taxpayer.

I really struggling to comprehend why you can't understand this - although I suspect you can and you are chosing to ignore it.

Yes that’s why his dad wanted them to think carefully before leaving U.K. or marrying someone from abroad as it opens up security issues.
If you child grows up to be a twerp that wants to walk on airplane wings you can’t stop them and follow them around with a trampoline. Harry is a grown up and has made a choice. It’s not a punishment - he is walking in airplane wings and his dad is at home no doubt every night wishing he’d come down to earth and keep himself safe rather than creating foundations and hanging out with billionaires (who no doubt achieved it with an ounce of talent). Harry has none. He had goodwill but he has lost that. That’s the security issue done really. We get it and I know you still think what you do, but he has chosen to remove himself from security.

Security works both ways. We are all responsible for ourselves and avoid putting ourselves in risky situations. That is the point that you’re not grasping they have actively chosen to remove themselves from the reach of U.K. security.

@Marmaladeagain
There is nothing to stop the RF or the UK government paying for a top local security company and for liaison with a dedicated Met officer in London.

Nothing but spite.

Louis Mountbatten refused the security he was offered in 1979. He made the stupid mistake, by your reckoning, of going without and left his boat unguarded. Are you saying it was therefore his own fault that a terrorist organisation spotted their opportunity and made good on it, in a foreign country? That he was responsible for his own death and the deaths of the others on board who were killed?

H&M are not speeding down a road at 200 mph or doing anything analogous to that. They were not throwing caution to the wind as Mountbatten was, playing fast and loose with his own life and the lives of his family, and risking Anglo-Irish relations.

They asked for security. They were concerned that adequate security was not available for them. Providing the money for that should have been possible.

night - you don’t get it and weird you think it is spite.

It is their choice, not the choice of the Queen and not the choice of the British taxpayer.

@Wakeupin2022
It's not much of a 'choice'.
Stay and have the security you need, or leave and have none isn't a choice. That's attempted blackmail.

What you are in effect saying is that you agree they were indeed trapped - an attempt was made to deny them the freedom to leave and live wherever they wanted to in the US.

The money should have been found, and it is the RF who will face a huge and richly deserved backlash if anything happens to them. I am not so sure the monarchy itself would recover if a tragedy preventable by adequate and well briefed security were to occur while Charles was king. A pity Charles apparently has no eye for irony.

@mathanxiety

The Sussexes are not working members of the Royal family. It is no longer the job of the British state to protect them.

Once again, the refusal to look at them from the pov of a terrorist group.

Can you really not understand that they are targets and that the distinction between working and non working is completely, absolutely, and 100% irrelevant?

Do you honestly believe that the British tax payer will happily pay to protect H&M after what they said in that interview? Not a chance, and why should they? Harry is a grown man, if he wants a certain level of security and protection then he should damn well pay for it himself.

It’s not a punishment - he is walking in airplane wings and his dad is at home no doubt every night wishing he’d come down to earth and keep himself safe rather than creating foundations and hanging out with billionaires (who no doubt achieved it with an ounce of talent). Harry has none. He had goodwill but he has lost that. That’s the security issue done really. We get it and I know you still think what you do, but he has chosen to remove himself from security.

What happened was his family attempted to blackmail him into staying and he called their bluff.

The fact that Tyler Perry stepped in to provide security for a Prince of the UK and his wife and child when that Prince's family would not should be profoundly embarrassing for both the UK government and the RF.

Do you honestly believe that the British tax payer will happily pay to protect H&M after what they said in that interview? Not a chance, and why should they? Harry is a grown man, if he wants a certain level of security and protection then he should damn well pay for it himself.

More spite, I see.

@mathanxiety you seem a bit over invested in this
What you think isn't how it is , thats all there is to it. Your opinion is fine but you don't make those decisions which I am sure are pretty tough as there always has to be a cut off somewhere.

Hoary old chestnut there, @donewithitalltodayandxmas.

I seem to have responded rather a lot to you and a few other posters who are definitely not one bit overinvested.

I'll be interested to see the cast of hypocrites up in arms if some terrorist group attacks H&M or their children.

Decisions on whose security to pay for wouldn't be hard in a society conducted on a rational basis, as opposed to one totally committed to taking the least responsible course possible.

As a poster has already said Harry walked away from security when he left the UK. It isn't like you would have to be a genius to realise the met police couldn't help for long once living abroad.

Maybe they should actually be angry with Canada instead.

Stay and have the security you need, or leave and have none isn't a choice

The choices were stay and have security as it goes with the job or leave and yes you can still have protection but you will have to fund it yourself as part of your independant life. Unfortunately, their preferred option of 'cake and eat it' was not on the table.

They made their choice to leave the security and benefits of their 'employed' job to branch out as 'self employed' so they can focus on their specific interests. It's like saying to your previous employer I'm not interested in your job but I'm taking the company car with me. H&M have no interest in doing anything further for the U.K. so why should the U.K. tax payer front up for their security.

They could always ask President Biden, see if he's good for the money. I'm sure US citizens would be more than happy for their tax dollars to be used to provide 24hr security, unlike U.K. and Canadian citizens who are just meanies.

British security is only permitted to travel with rights to weapons, defence and arrest during sanctioned state visits. Longer term, H&M could not be protected by British security/police as they could not be armed, and could even be arrested or sued for taking down someone. Some really interesting articles are being released on this.

Not only that, but did H&M expect their security team to leave their homes and family? And the cost to support this paid for by the British tax payer while signing multi million dollar deals?

If it is appropriate for H&M to have security, it is appropriate for this to be paid for personally not by the state. Where the money comes from is a family matter; if Charles wants to support that's his decision (like Edward with his girls). If the family decision was made that this money would not be gifted, H&M need to cover their costs.

@mathanxiety

Do you know how funded security works for the royals? Essentially, who gets full time security and who doesn’t is down to the line of succession.

The Queen, Prince Philip, Prince Charles, Camilla, Prince William, Kate and their three children receive round the clock funded protection. This is because this is the direct line of succession.

The Queen and Prince Philip’s other children, Princess Anne and Prince Edward, also receive state security when carrying out official duties but not when running day-to-day errands. Princess Beatrice and Prince Eugenie also do not have funded security, as they are not full-time working royals.

Prince Andrew had his right to taxpayer-funded security removed following the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. He is now funded by the Queen’s private funds.

Why should H&M be treated differently than the Queen's children?! Given H is the great grand son of the reigning monarch?

@mathanxiety most mp's are not nobodys , do you actually understand British politics

I was under the impression that Mathsnxiety is British/Irish and a long term resident of the states.

The choices were stay and have security as it goes with the job or leave and yes you can still have protection but you will have to fund it yourself as part of your independant life.

And that is an impossible choice. They were indeed trapped.

There is no sensible reason why they couldn't have had security funded. Since the risk level for H&M didn't change despite their change of location and 'working' status, it could only be spite that fueled the decision to withdraw security and refuse to fund private security for them.

The money BP spends on terrible PR could have gone toward security for them. The money the Queen spends on Andrew's security would be better spent on H&M.

Prince Andrew had his right to taxpayer-funded security removed following the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. He is now funded by the Queen’s private funds.
But H&M, who are not bosom pals with scum like Epstein, are not. What does that tell you about the court and its values?

Why should H&M be treated differently than the Queen's children?! Given H is the great grand son of the reigning monarch?
Because they are the son, daughter in law and grandchild of the future king? Therefore high on the list of terrorist targets.

Maybe you don't really understand the purpose of security?
In case of confusion - it's there to protect potential victims from attacks of all kinds. It's not there as a mark of respect or a sign of where you are in the pecking order. H was told by BP that the level of risk/threat to him and Meghan and Archie had not changed at the time security was withdrawn.

I think they deserve at least the favour the Queen is doing for the lowlife Andrew. How do you justify that, incidentally?

How was the family decision made that resulted in Andrew receiving the gift of protection but H&M were not?

It's like saying to your previous employer I'm not interested in your job but I'm taking the company car with me.
No it's not, and this silly analogy has been trotted out upthread.
They are prominent members of the family, regardless of what BP thinks of them. They are therefore significant terrorist targets. To refuse to pay for appropriate security for them is absolutely appalling. The RF comes across as a bunch of people who were raised by wolves. Andrew gets security, H&M do not. BP has no conception of decency whatsoever.

Most MPS are backbenchers and unknown outside of their constituencies. Maybe at a pinch some people might know the MP from a neighbouring constituency.

@mathanxiety I still don't understand why you are so outraged that a couple who have paid for a $14M USD home plus have signed two contracts reported to be worth $50M USD can't pay for their own security?

They are independent and no longer international persons of interest. Senior working royals cannot earn a living like this and thus if meet the criteria are provided with 24/7 security or for engagements. This criteria is set not only by the Palace but also the police.

Don't forget H has only publicly spoken on this. The saying rings true... there is my truth, your truth, and what actually happened.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of their leaving. Harry and Meghan should have been given security
By dint of the fact that Harry was born into the royal family , (he wasn’t given the choice) and was also a serving soldier who saw active service.

My cousin is in the military and he was shocked that Harry was not given protection as he feels that Harry would be a target for terrorist.
I think it is unforgivable and cruel that the Royal institution risked the life of the Queen’s grandson( and great grandson ) in order to prevent him leaving. It was embarrassing for the Royal family that a black American movie mogul had to provide security for Harry and Meghan when they first arrived in America.

@mathanxiety

The choices were stay and have security as it goes with the job or leave and yes you can still have protection but you will have to fund it yourself as part of your independant life.

And that is an impossible choice. They were indeed trapped.

There is no sensible reason why they couldn't have had security funded. Since the risk level for H&M didn't change despite their change of location and 'working' status, it could only be spite that fueled the decision to withdraw security and refuse to fund private security for them.

The money BP spends on terrible PR could have gone toward security for them. The money the Queen spends on Andrew's security would be better spent on H&M.

Prince Andrew had his right to taxpayer-funded security removed following the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. He is now funded by the Queen’s private funds.
But H&M, who are not bosom pals with scum like Epstein, are not. What does that tell you about the court and its values?

Why should H&M be treated differently than the Queen's children?! Given H is the great grand son of the reigning monarch?
Because they are the son, daughter in law and grandchild of the future king? Therefore high on the list of terrorist targets.

Maybe you don't really understand the purpose of security?
In case of confusion - it's there to protect potential victims from attacks of all kinds. It's not there as a mark of respect or a sign of where you are in the pecking order. H was told by BP that the level of risk/threat to him and Meghan and Archie had not changed at the time security was withdrawn.

I think they deserve at least the favour the Queen is doing for the lowlife Andrew. How do you justify that, incidentally?

How was the family decision made that resulted in Andrew receiving the gift of protection but H&M were not?

It's like saying to your previous employer I'm not interested in your job but I'm taking the company car with me.
No it's not, and this silly analogy has been trotted out upthread.
They are prominent members of the family, regardless of what BP thinks of them. They are therefore significant terrorist targets. To refuse to pay for appropriate security for them is absolutely appalling. The RF comes across as a bunch of people who were raised by wolves. Andrew gets security, H&M do not. BP has no conception of decency whatsoever.

Most MPS are backbenchers and unknown outside of their constituencies. Maybe at a pinch some people might know the MP from a neighbouring constituency.

Well said

gosh I though I'd explained it really simply. will try again.

work = money
no work = no money

great grandchild of Queen = no title
when grandchild of King = title

do official event = security
don't do official event = security unnecessary

welcomed by new family = walked down aisle by future king
not welcomed = walk aisle on own

treat staff and new family well = liked
treat staff and new family badly = managed

kick off at family member & a future queen in front of witnesses, throw scalding tea at someone, argue with someone over jewellery that isn't yours, demand a nation funds your £32 million pound wedding but claim you married in secret the day before because the expensive wedding wasn't good enough for you - recollections may vary.

there are tons more, but you get the gist.

ooh another one

randomly complain about no bike rides = i?
photos of bike rides with parents and brother = busted

Why can’t PH employ some of his old army colleagues. There’s plenty who are trained in all forms of combat and unemployed. Give them a job protecting him and his family. A lot cheaper as well.

@mathanxiety And that is an impossible choice. They were indeed trapped

As are other people sometimes.

They had choices.
They chose to leave.
They knew what would happen.
They still left.

Now they have to live, as do most people, financially within their means.
If that means a smaller house for instance, so be it.

If they choose to blast the inlaws and family members, in order to live in a grand house and pay for security themselves, then that is their choice. They then have to live with the fallout in lots of directions. Not really the sensible choice in my opinion, but they will have to live with that. Is that way going to help their mental health? No it wont. But everyone makes choices, and then has to live with those choices.

@mathanxiety so it's spiteful of the uk public? Not so spiteful when we paid millions for that wedding though were we?