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.

@ANameChangeAgain

Our police service are not there for his private use. This is what private security is for. He doesn't work for this country by choice, so he need to dig into his own enormous pockets to fund security for his family. He is a celebrity now, not a working royal.

Exactly.

@ajandjjmum

I would have thought the Palace would have known where they were, as they were providing security at that point.

I don't think they were in Canada, were they? Only after their whereabouts were revealed.

Of course it’s reasonable - he’s paying for it unlike other Royals or your ex prime ministers. I don’t understand the hate.
They left for obvious reasons - he should be able to return home without a fuss. You don’t want Royals? Then do away with them all. I suppose Williams daughter and second son should never have any protection?

My understanding is that he wants to pay for armed Met protection which is not possible

@Chilledchablis1

My understanding is that he wants to pay for armed Met protection which is not possible

Yes. No -royal famous people hire private security. If M&H think that's not good enough, we'll they should have thought of that before leaving the RF. You can't have your cake, and eat it.

Of course it’s reasonable - he’s paying for it unlike other Royals or your ex prime ministers

He has said he is willing to pay for it but that is not how Special Protection works as has been said many times on this thread. If there was a threat to him whilst here then he would receive protection, as pp have said on this thread. If he attends royal events then he will receive protection, along with other Royals.
Harry has stepped down as a senior Royal and does not live in this country so as such does not receive Special Protection. William’s children at this stage are mainly receiving protection when they are with their parents and as children of someone directly in line to the throne. There may well come a time when they are older that they will not receive full time protection, much like the younger children of the Queen.

Then remove Williams wife and children’s protection - as well as Andrews. I don’t understand the hatred for Harry / Meghan at all.

Catherine is a future Queen. Why would she have her protection removed? There are probably credible threats in this country to the safety of someone in direct line to the throne and their family. Andrew’s security status is rightly under review given his recent downgrade in status. Harry and Meghan are no longer senior Royals. It’s not a question if “hatred”, it’s a question of them not living in a royal palace (which would have security) and not being able to access scarce protection resources if the threat level does not warrant it when they do rock up here. And as pp have said many times up thread, if there was a credible threat which warranted security, it would be provided to them.

What’s to stop any Celeb who fancies it paying for armed protection from the Met? He’s not a working Royal and he doesn’t even live here now.
He’s being ridiculous.

Why do people keeping talking about hatred in regard to H and M ? I don’t know anyone who hates them . I certainly don’t but their behaviour leaves a lot to be desired . And yes Andrew is a despicable creature but that’s not what this thread is about.
Harry and his wife don’t want to be working members of the RF . They don’t want to live in this country . They made shocking accusations against the RF.
As has been said, if they attend Royal events they will have Met protection otherwise the Netflix/Spotify millions will have to be used to pay for private security.

Yet again a balanced response, Chablis
As you rightly say it's quite possible to object to behaviours without hating the person involved, and how could we anyway since we (presumably) don't know them?

In answer to your question, though, I find the "haters" thing tends to be Facebook/Twitter speak which seeps onto other sites such as this - except on the first two it's usually spelled with a z

@MonAlana

Then remove Williams wife and children’s protection - as well as Andrews. I don’t understand the hatred for Harry / Meghan at all.

Saying that armed police protection is not available for purchase is not 'hate'. Not that I actually believe Harry ever intended to pay.

As for William and his family, he is a future king, as is his eldest son. His wife is a future queen. They are resident in Britain and their role is to represent the monarchy. Harry and Meghan are private citizens resident in California. Completely different situations. Had they chosen to remain as full-time royals, they would have retained their security, but they found freedom from all that.

As for Andrew, from what I have read he does not have round the clock police protection. The only royals that do are those direct in line, and their spouses and children.

@MonAlana

Of course it’s reasonable - he’s paying for it unlike other Royals or your ex prime ministers. I don’t understand the hate. They left for obvious reasons - he should be able to return home without a fuss. You don’t want Royals? Then do away with them all. I suppose Williams daughter and second son should never have any protection?

Do you think it's ok for the rich and famous to pay for whatever they want which is unavailable to the average person just because of their status?

The met are not for sale as it should be. If he was allowed to pay it would open the door for many others. There needs to be a blanket rule.

He opted out. Now he wants to weasle his way back in to get fodder for his next Oprah show o r Netflix deal. He's been told no.

The bottom line is they want it all their own way.
They don’t see how contradictory they are.
I bet Harry is full of regrets and misses being a member of the royal family and England.

It’s a clear choice for him. His wife and family or his birth family and the life he was born into. He’s made his choice and has to live with the consequences. Not saying it’s the wrong choice, but it’s very much an either or situation. I don’t think the full impact of his choice has sunk in , because he still seems to think he’s entitled to many of the fringe benefits. Trading on his connections, having protection from the Police force of the country he spurned. Using his titles to gain access to money making opportunities.
He needs to wake up and smell the coffee.

Why do people still go on about the 'Scotland Yard/Met is not for sale' when this thread already showed that Kate Moss paid 10K for the police for her wedding, Toni Blair paid for extra security when he does his own personal engagements overseas, football clubs etc. pay for police.

You also say, status and job have nothing to do with it, just threat. Then you go on about how it's justified for others because they are senior .

Harry is also close to the crown due to his birth relation.

@notanotheroneagain

Why do people still go on about the 'Scotland Yard/Met is not for sale' when this thread already showed that Kate Moss paid 10K for the police for her wedding, Toni Blair paid for extra security when he does his own personal engagements overseas, football clubs etc. pay for police.

You also say, status and job have nothing to do with it, just threat. Then you go on about how it's justified for others because they are senior .

Harry is also close to the crown due to his birth relation.

You know very well that these examples are not comparable, because it's been pointed out multiple times.

Kate Moss didn't pay for a bespoke armed security escort. She paid for additional police at her wedding, because with crowds and media it could have been caused public order issues. That's quite common. Football clubs also do the same on match days. Totally different from personal armed guards.

As for 'Toni', he is entitled to round the clock protection due to his position, which is completely different from that of a California CHIMPO. He has agreed to refund some of the costs when on personal travel, but he would still be entitled to this protection even if he did not pay.

The authorities, who are vastly better informed than any of us here, have decided that Harry does not currently qualify for Met Police protection. Paying for it is not an option, so it's a complete red herring and, I'm guessing, mostly a PR ploy on Harry's part. Only one of the queen's grandchildren receive round the clock protection, and that is the one directly in line. Since finding freedom, Harry is now a private citizen and on the same level as the queen's other 7 grandkids, none of whom believe themselves entitled to armed police protection.

There is a difference between police and armed police protection units. The former are paid for for public order purposes ie football matches etc.

As for people going on about Harry is moaning about money withdrawal. He was not, he was clarifying because previously, they had agreed at Sandringham that the Sussexes would have security after the break.

Also, why does everyone conveniently leave out the fact that Charles put Camilla under St James security before they got married.
He also set up a trust fund of 2M for her children when they were well into their 30s to make sure they are secure, but he couldn't even think of little Archie and his security.

Harry did not complain, but I would be miffed if it were me.

He can be as 'miffed' as he likes but that 'statement', which is not an official royal statement, does not say anything at all about Harry being granted police protection indefinitely. It simply says they would 'continue to require effective security'. No mention of who will pay, no definition of 'effective', and no time line given.

The fact is that no official royal, police or home office source has ever said one word about Harry being entitled to police protection in his new life as a CHIMPO.

Why do people still go on about the 'Scotland Yard/Met is not for sale' when this thread already showed that Kate Moss paid 10K for the police for her wedding, Toni Blair paid for extra security when he does his own personal engagements overseas, football clubs etc. pay for police

There's a difference between being invoiced by the police for extra police required because your holding a big event that will attract lots of crowds and affect traffic in the area, and demanding your own personal protection.

The organisers of sporting events and the like (eg football matches) pay for the necessary police at the event.

Well considering the RF are always hiding behind a curtain with information, they were never going to put out the statements, because otherwise they would be pulled up on it.

Harry has been away for 2 yrs, that is not 'indefinitely'.

The family never denied it either.

And why is everyone moaning about Harry, when Charles snuggly fit in Camilla into security and took care of her adult children.

Charles can do what he likes with his private funds.

Harry chose to move abroad and become a private citizen. The authorities, who to repeat are vastly more qualified to assess these matters than anyone on MN, have decided that he does not currently qualify for police protection. Paying for it is not an option, despite the red herrings thrown out here. He would be covered by royal security when visiting senior royals or attending royal events, but for anything else, he'll have to make his own private arrangements, like countless other private citizens. Just as he does in his new homeland.

He wanted 'financial independence', didn't he?

Oh fuck off. He's in a position that 99.999% of the world will never understand. If he didn't come it would be a snub, if he does come he's criticised anyway. It's still his family at the end of the day.