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.

They have all round 24/7 security. Are you saying you believe that they have 24/7 threats,( but you don't believe that Harry has any currently or when he comes over here)

I looked in to this and Tony Blair has full security mainly because of his role in the Iraq war ( which is a whole other can of worms), but no couldn’t find anything definitive about anyone else. It appears to be allocated on a risk basis. I can’t find evidence that it is 24/7, but am happy to be proved wrong. Apparently the security is quite intrusive, so it’s not always welcome.
I am sure Harry would be given 24/7 security if it was felt to be necessary.

@smilesy

They have all round 24/7 security. Are you saying you believe that they have 24/7 threats,( but you don't believe that Harry has any currently or when he comes over here)

I looked in to this and Tony Blair has full security mainly because of his role in the Iraq war ( which is a whole other can of worms), but no couldn’t find anything definitive about anyone else. It appears to be allocated on a risk basis. I can’t find evidence that it is 24/7, but am happy to be proved wrong. Apparently the security is quite intrusive, so it’s not always welcome.
I am sure Harry would be given 24/7 security if it was felt to be necessary.

He gets 24/7 security. I know because as I had said on here, I live in Westminster. Not too far from his house.

Not sure if MN would let me name the square, but I can tell you it's in Paddington. They have a prep at a corner, and strangely enough a GP office (which I always thought was bringing too much plausible traffic to the place). You can see the officers walk up and down the square - usually on the side of the house. All the locals will tell you without you needing to as much (why there are armed police officers there). Its close to Hyde Park too.

Yes, I can understand why Blair needs security.

PS: I should also say, that his family also gets that 24/7 security understandably, as the officers are there even if Blair is out of the country.

@rubicscubicle

Maybe former PM’s and the like have credible current threats against them and therefore have security. I don’t know.

They have all round 24/7 security. Are you saying you believe that they have 24/7 threats,( but you don't believe that Harry has any currently or when he comes over here)

The former PM's are protected because they have had first hand access to state secrets. It's for all our security.

The former PM's are protected because they have had first hand access to state secrets. It's for all our security.

Their family does not, but they are protected.

Their family does not, but they are protected

Presumably the family could be used by bad agents as leverage against the former PM 🤷‍♀️

Blair’s children now range from 38 to 21 so I would be surprised they are all protected, especially as the eldest is very very commercially successful and worth a fortune. Do you mean the family home is protected by police protection officers, regardless of who is at home?

*Blair’s children now range from 38 to 21+

Wow. It’s easy to forget how long it is since he was in number 10 with the baby. I suppose it’s because he (Blair) never seems to have gone away 😂

That surprised me too but if you work back, Cameron came to power in 2010 - nearly 12 years ago - and Blair was PM for a number of years before Brown.

Not sure who is protected as we hardly see them, but it has always been as such for well a over a decade now.

We would see him on TV/news as being in a another country, but the house always remained with those officers 24/7.
So not too sure what they are protecting (maybe an empty house or Cherie or the DC?).

But if you say the children are leverage, then so would Harry and Archie and Lilli.

I never followed what happened with Blair DC, but I know they are grown up now, I have no idea of where they live or if they are protected currently.

Who is saying the children are leverage?

Ah, just noticed that smilesy said that. However if Harry and family came to the UK, the children are likely to be kept private so Charles’s offer to host them at his house with his protection would the ideal answer to the security concerns.

Yes, Sally I did say that but I was meaning more in relation to Blair’s family as he is a potential target due to his involvement with Iraq. And I agree that it would be easy to keep the children safe if they stayed in a Royal Residence.

I was saying Harry and his kids could be leverage because of their relation to HMQ and PC. They can be protected when visiting royal houses. But they won't be if they want to visit friends, old charities etc.

Interesting how when it's harry everyone says you cannot pay the met ( I'm not referring to royal, but special protection nonetheless ). TBlair did pay the taxpayer back some money - I assume when he took his trips he would take extra protection with him.

I think the difference is that Tony Blair as an ex PM is by default assumed to be entitled to high level police protection. I seem to recall that he was asked to pay some costs back as he was doing a number of highly paid commercial ventures.

The Queen, Charles and Camilla, William Kate and family are also by default assumed to require full 24/7 police protection. The rest of the royal family are given protection presumably first on the basis of performing royal duties together with an assessment of risk.

Harry isn’t in the first group or the group of working royals so that puts him on par with other grandchildren. Any other risks would be assessed in the same way as a private citizen- albeit Harry has the means to employ private protection for his own peace of mind and in accordance with his own perceived level of threat. His level of perceived threat does not necessarily accord with assessments by the UK relevant departments.

Ok, this will go around in circles.

The 'work' angle is something that the press has been insisting on, to confuse things. As has been said a number of times on this thread, it's a threat level that matters.

So Blair doing commercial work, has nothing to do with anything. He is a high target due to his role in the past -fair of him to pay if he takes more PO's than he is assigned for. But that does illustrate the fact that you CAN pay for special protection.
David Cameron still has his protection. Possibly Teressa May too.
Former Ambassadors - who retain their titles and certain Diplomats retain security after serving office. For all these individuals it does not matter that they are making money afterwards or if it's lucrative or not.

Some of the above mentioned may reject the security (some have cited that they are not really doing much, and the security needs you to know what you will be doing in order to do their job effectively, among other things).

What matters for Harry is his proximity to the heart of the crown. To HMQ, Charles and William (quite possibly George too). When Prince Philippe stopped his duties, his security was not withdrawn. This would have been due to his proximity to the Queen and monarch line.

I think Harry may use the examples above and will most likely win.

There is a lot in the press about ' oh but then any celebrity will then ask for private protection'. Not really, are they related to the queen? Did they have a diplomatic role in the past where they were entitled to this protection?

Also just to point out that the press keeps pretending this is Home Office and Met decision sorely. It is a decision of RAVEC - the Royal and VIP Executive Committee, so very much HMQ and the palace decision as well.

I would say, these callers on Nick Ferrari on LBC are quite articulate.

Did Harry have a diplomatic role in the past?

Also, Anne and Edward have closer proximity to the Queen than Harry, and only receive protection while on official Royal duties. So on that basis, Harry is not guaranteed to succeed in his JR. Their threat level is unknown, and there quite rightly is no obligation on the protection services to reveal or publish threat levels against individuals.

Former Ambassadors - who retain their titles and certain Diplomats retain security after serving office

Former ambassadors do not retain their title. Diplomats receive security only when the threat assessment shows it is required. It is extremely unusual for 'security' to be place within UK, though the passing on of threat assessments is routine, as is advice on further measures

@SallyLockheart

Also, Anne and Edward have closer proximity to the Queen than Harry, and only receive protection while on official Royal duties. So on that basis, Harry is not guaranteed to succeed in his JR. Their threat level is unknown, and there quite rightly is no obligation on the protection services to reveal or publish threat levels against individuals.

This. It's only Harry and certain posters on these thread who believe him to be a very important and essential part of the royal family "firm". And before anyone leaps on me to protest that H is a much loved family member, I'm sure he is, but is not a working royal and his position in the family became, and will continue to be of less and less importance. It seems to me he just can't bear to fade away in terms of importance and having mis-sold his position to M has huge interest in pretending he's more important than he is even now. I've never for a moment blamed him for leaving - to be constantly overshadowed by your sibling and your sibling's family would grate on anyone and good for him for forging his own path. But now he has to go and forge it and not keep demanding certain trappings, which he finds convenient or which fit the narrative of him still being V V important.

I am curious to know that if, in the event he was allowed to pay for security, he would actually bring his family anyway. What if Meghan does not want to come back? Would he bring the children on his own?

@ rubicscubicle

Why are so sure that Harry will win ?

Also RAVEC includes senior Scotland Yard officers so very definite police input .

I am curious to know that if, in the event he was allowed to pay for security, he would actually bring his family anyway. What if Meghan does not want to come back? Would he bring the children on his own?

I guess that's unknowable until it happens, smilesy, though I can see no obvious reason why Meghan would want to set foot in the UK again after everything that's happened

Best hope that she'd be okay with Harry bringing the DCs alone, if that's what he wished to do

smilesy When the children are a bit older, as long as both H and M are happy about it, I don't see why he wouldn't or shouldn't come over with the children. Parents don't spend every second glued to one another.