If you were as fearful for your family's safety as Harry is....

[PostingForTheFirstTime]

...why would you want to have them participate in a really high-profile public bash?

Particularly one to celebrate an institution you have walked away from.

Genuinely puzzled.

[quote AllThePogs]@SallyLockheart In February 2006, it was announced that Kate Middleton would receive her own 24-hour security detail from the Royalty and Diplomatic Protection Department. Four years before the engagement.[/quote]
quick google shows that she didn't receive any protection until the engagement and suffered considerable paparazzi attention before then.

@Pawprintpaper

Maybe the palace are happy to protect H&M as long as they can keep an eye/control what they’re up to.

Maybe H&M want the freedom to safely go where they please, maybe they don’t even trust the palace and it’s staff to maintain their privacy.

It has echoes of Diana. Very messy. Who knows what the truth is.

I’m starting to think the same thing.

Maybe H&M want the freedom to safely go where they please, maybe they don’t even trust the palace and it’s staff to maintain their privacy.

If they want to go where they please and don’t trust the Palace, why would they want Special Protection officers ? Didn’t Diana refuse them because she didn’t trust them? (Although it would seem that her mistrust was largely caused by Martin Bashir 🤪). Also it would be staggeringly stupid if the Palace to allow anything to happen to HaM after what happened to Diana as was said elsewhere.

@SallyLockheart

www.biography.com/royalty/kate-middleton

www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1275278/Kate-Middleton-Prince-William-relationship-anniversary-when-did-kate-and-william-marry

www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-23/profile3a-william-and-catherine/4803604?nw=0&r=Gallery

All say Kate Middleton got police protection for 2006, four years before the engagement. It was widely reported at the time as it was seen as a sign that the relationship was a serious one.

I googled this too and some reports say 2906, others say not until they were engaged so it’s not very clear which is correct 🤷‍♀️

2006 🙄

@smilesy

I googled this too and some reports say 2906, others say not until they were engaged so it’s not very clear which is correct 🤷‍♀️

that's what I found too, though obviously 2006!

^LondonWolf Mon 17-Jan-22 14:02:46
Roussette

Your posts are getting increasingly unhinged.

I'm surprised that posts telling people they're "unhinged" meaning suffering delusions, mental health issues etc I take it? are left to stand. I question the personal nature of individuals who declare others who don't agree with them to be suffering from impaired mental health and not in their right mind.

So kind, so righteous, so decent...^

I could be wrong, but if someone words it as "posts are unhinged", that is different to "you are unhinged". MN deletes the latter but not the former?

[quote smilesy]Yes, that may have happened too. But is that what he was referring to? Since he does not say it.

The report on sky says that the incident with the paps happened as he left a charity event so that is what Harry is referring to in his statement. He mentions leaving a charity event.

news.sky.com/story/duke-of-sussex-seeks-judicial-review-after-home-office-bans-him-from-paying-for-police-protection-for-archie-and-lilibet-in-uk-12517296[/quote]
I guess it's not that big a deal, but this is the thing. Throughout the article, the reporter quotes what the rep says. At no point does she say the rap cited the paparazzi chase as the incident that Harry is referring to. So the 'incident' that took place as Harry was leaving the charity could be any number of things :

• As he was leaving, before he reached his car and paparazzi, an incident occurred.
• A suspect pretended to be part of the press pack.
• Something took place as he reached his destination after the paparazzi left.

It's things like this.
Now people will be asking, oh why is he scared of the paparazzi.
Harry is not obliged to divulge the details of his security ofcourse, but assumptions should not be made on unsubstantiated events.

A real journalist would note : We are aware that Harry was followed by the paps, but his team has not confirmed that this in itself was the actual cause of concern.

Only in the British Media I guess.

@lightand

^LondonWolf Mon 17-Jan-22 14:02:46 Roussette

Your posts are getting increasingly unhinged.

I'm surprised that posts telling people they're "unhinged" meaning suffering delusions, mental health issues etc I take it? are left to stand. I question the personal nature of individuals who declare others who don't agree with them to be suffering from impaired mental health and not in their right mind.

So kind, so righteous, so decent...^

I could be wrong, but if someone words it as "posts are unhinged", that is different to "you are unhinged". MN deletes the latter but not the former?

My understanding too.

On top, @Roussette has been called all sorts on here, and the posts were left to stand.

@ChiefInspectorParker

Didn't they say they don't have a budget for Meghan, so she must go work?

She said that.

How could they ‘not have a budget’ for one half of a working royal couple?

Which is why Harry said, "I realised that this is not going to be easy".

They simply did not believe it.

It is one of the things that show how unwelcome MM was, and an indication of how hard they would make her life.
All followed by the leaks and the 'no comment' on lies to the press.

The people who think Kate didn't need security before marrying ... really?

@cherryonthecakes I have said that I am fine with Kate getting security four years before her engagement. But the double standards are striking.

@rubicscubicle

Didn't Meghan get security after her engagement and pre wedding, but no security prior to the engagement? Same as Kate?

Didn't they say they don't have a budget for Meghan, so she must go work?

According to Meghan and Harry, that was what was implied. However, as much of that interview has been proven to be incorrect, I would take it with a pinch of salt.

They were certainly telling a different story in their engagement interview, where she was welcomed into the family like no other!

The engagement interview was over a year ahead, right after they were engaged. Were the logistics sorted then? They did not talk about them.

No, they did not lie, we have already gone through that right on this thread.

@TheHairyDinosaur if you know CP people, would you happen to know if US security really aren't allowed firearms over here?
As said upthread, I've always wondered if a "blind eye" is turned to it, but the closest I can get is an LAPD detective friend who laughed like a drain when I said it's not allowed ... but he's not worked over here personally so perhaps he's wrong?

A real journalist would note : We are aware that Harry was followed by the paps, but his team has not confirmed that this in itself was the actual cause of concern

Absolutely spot on, rubics, but unfortunately there aren't too many proper journalists left now and all they seem to value is clickbait

*I guess it's not that big a deal, but this is the thing. Throughout the article, the reporter quotes what the rep says. At no point does she say the rap cited the paparazzi chase as the incident that Harry is referring to. So the 'incident' that took place as Harry was leaving the charity could be any number of things :

• As he was leaving, before he reached his car and paparazzi, an incident occurred.
• A suspect pretended to be part of the press pack.
• Something took place as he reached his destination after the paparazzi left.*

Or you could take it at face value that he was pursued by paps and not read any more in to it. I’m not saying that it wasn’t unpleasant, but it’s not dangerous as such and as pp said, a skilled driver would be of more use than armed protection. I’m not sure it’s legal to shoot at paps even if it is very tempting. And Harry does have a problem with paps and journalists.

Double standards?
What, you mean like Meghan being invited for Christmas at Sandringham before the wedding when Kate had to wait years?

@ChiefInspectorParker how did they bend over backwards?

@rubicscubicle

The engagement interview was over a year ahead, right after they were engaged. Were the logistics sorted then? They did not talk about them.

No, they did not lie, we have already gone through that right on this thread.

Again @rubicscubicle , just because you've said it and really believe it, doesn't make it true.

You're not the teacher on this thread - you can't dictate what is discussed, when and how often, although I agree there has certainly been a lot of repetition.

None of us know the facts, but they were certainly full of praise with how Meghan had been welcomed into the family in their engagement interview - but which time she had been part of the scene for some time.

@CallmeHendricks

Double standards? What, you mean like Meghan being invited for Christmas at Sandringham before the wedding when Kate had to wait years?

Yes I have always found that interesting. It makes me wonder if the stories are true that the Royal Family really are not keen on Kate.

I don't recall the exact details - I'm sure someone could. it was discussed right on these royal threads that almost all the home married in, have had. a 'special' treatment of being invited to one thing or the other before marriage, that others were not invited to.

Meghan is not unique in this regard.

Harry's legal representative

"“During his last visit to the UK in July 2021 – to unveil a statue in honour of his late mother – his security was compromised due to the absence of police protection, whilst leaving a charity event."

It's from that statement starting with "Prince Harry inherited a security risk at birth, for life"

I think William happily accepted the rule but Harry didnt accept it. He insisted meghan be included.