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.

Sorry to be repetitive but I shall keep mentioning it as much as I want because it's relevant. If you don't like my posts just avoid them, I'm not always enamoured of yours

As I said above, let's see if he's stripped of it?

And when there is a direct comparison on security, of course it will be brought up. It would be odd otherwise.

But it isn't a direct comparison.

Andrew is resident in Britain and lives on a royal estate which would already be covered by police protection. Neither is true for Harry. Also, he is the queen's son, not her grandson.

And as others have pointed out, for all we know he may well be the subject of credible security threats. If the same were judged to be the case for Harry, he too would get full protection when in the UK.

The queen has 8 grandchildren, only one of whom, a future king, gets full protection. The other 7, including those who hold HRH styling, manage by themselves. Why ignore this 'direct comparison'?

Doesn't look like they know what they are talking about frankly.

One minute, you are assessed based on risk, the next, it depends on what duties you are doing.

One minute, you cannot pay for security, next, it depends on case by case.

@Roussette

Sorry to be repetitive but I shall keep mentioning it as much as I want because it's relevant. If you don't like my posts just avoid them, I'm not always enamoured of yours

As I said above, let's see if he's stripped of it?

But you seem to fail to see you are the only one who sees it as a direct comparison and a valid point.

Now, the previous posters point about the queens other grandchildren. Now that's a direct comparison. One I hadn't actually considered.

The Queen's other grandchildren are not Charles children and William's brother.

Because iced PA is HRH and gets 24hr protection, as I said if he went for a game of golf he'd have PPOs with him

So Ive no idea what direct comparison you mean

sparky quite clear on what I see thx!

@Roussette

Because iced PA is HRH and gets 24hr protection, as I said if he went for a game of golf he'd have PPOs with him

So Ive no idea what direct comparison you mean

You're the one going on about 'direct comparisons'. Not me.

Andrew and Harry's situations are very different for a number of reasons, as I pointed out above. Definitely not a 'direct comparison'.

You put "why ignore this direct comparison" saying HRHs manage by themselves.

HRH Andrew doesnt

The Queen's other grandchildren are not Charles children and William's brother.

You mean like PA is the current monarchy son and the brother of the future king?

Which is more senior in your eyes?
Maybe H's security will be reviewed once again once his dad/brother become king.

Anyway, I really don't care enough about this non comparison to argue anymore.

If Harry feels unsafe in the UK, it seems to me that he could liaise with everyone he wants to by the Zooms and Skypes and Facetimes and whatever. I thought that he and Meghan and the Queen were often chatting that way. That's the impression I got from the OW interview. Surely he can keep in touch with his charities like that. As for his book, which will be advertised as a tell-all, and will tell not-a-damn-sight, surely it can be launched from the USA without him having to come to Dangerland to sign copies at Waterstones.

@Roussette

You put "why ignore this direct comparison" saying HRHs manage by themselves.

HRH Andrew doesnt

I put 'direct comparison' in scare quotes.

And I was referring not to the queen's son but to her other grandchildren, some of whom are HRHs and, with the exception of William, have no police security.

Not sure why you insist that Andrew is a 'direct comparison' but the others in Harry's generation are not. Well, I kind of am sure, but I find the whole whataboutery thing tedious. This discussion is about Harry. Not Andrew or Eugenie or William or Zara. RAVEC, who are vastly more expert on this matter than you, I or Harry, have decided that his security needs will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Given that he is a private citizen resident abroad, that seems reasonable to me. Nobody here has made a case as to why RAVEC have erred in this matter. The "What about Andrew?" 'arguments' don't really cut it.

Don't cut it with you.

Do with me.

Both don't do royal duties

James, Louise, Zara, Peter, Eugenie and Beatrice do not have protection so why does Harry need it ? William does because he is the future King. Harry is a private citizen therefore should not be benefitting form tax payers money, he choose to walk away and he knew what benefits he would be leaving behind. He can't have his cake and eat it.

@LowlandLucky

James, Louise, Zara, Peter, Eugenie and Beatrice do not have protection so why does Harry need it ? William does because he is the future King. Harry is a private citizen therefore should not be benefitting form tax payers money, he choose to walk away and he knew what benefits he would be leaving behind. He can't have his cake and eat it.

Apparently in his Oprah interview he didn't think that would including loosing his security.

Realistically, what Harry is asking for is PPOs wherever he, his wife and his children go when they’re in the U.K.. So, if Meghan goes shopping in Mayfair, or gets her hair done: PPOs. If she goes out to dinner with her friends: PPOs. If she takes any work meetings: PPOs. If she goes to Wimbledon: PPOs. If they take the children on the log ride at Thorpe Park: PPOs. If Harry and Meghan have a weekend away at Soho House in the shires: PPOs.

Diana didn’t die while she was carrying out public duties. It was private time. That’s what Harry is thinking about.

Which begs the question: does Harry think he needs this level of protection in every country in the world that has paparazzi? Is he going to want overseas protection too? Or does he think the Neo-Nazis and whoever else are only a safety consideration on British soil? Does he think Paris is unsafe? French intelligence aren’t going to share information with his American, gun-toting, privately hired muscle any more than British intelligence are. Is the Eiffel Tower off limits for his family?

I don’t know that this is as much about safety as it is about the “indignity” of losing protection, and the unfavourable (in his eyes) treatment he receives from the U.K. compared to his brother’s family. Maybe it is, he’s quite consistent about his mother’s death being the paparazzi’s fault. But like everything Harry does that makes it into the MSM, it’s ill thought through, half-baked, and totally opaque.

They’re all raised to be entitled and it shakes them to the core when they lose any trappings of royalty. They don’t know who they are if they’re not treated as special by others. The only ones who cope well are direct heirs to the throne (Charles, William - because they’re going to be treated as special for life) and those who marry in.

@givethatbabyaname

Realistically, what Harry is asking for is PPOs wherever he, his wife and his children go when they’re in the U.K.. So, if Meghan goes shopping in Mayfair, or gets her hair done: PPOs. If she goes out to dinner with her friends: PPOs. If she takes any work meetings: PPOs. If she goes to Wimbledon: PPOs. If they take the children on the log ride at Thorpe Park: PPOs. If Harry and Meghan have a weekend away at Soho House in the shires: PPOs.

Diana didn’t die while she was carrying out public duties. It was private time. That’s what Harry is thinking about.

Which begs the question: does Harry think he needs this level of protection in every country in the world that has paparazzi? Is he going to want overseas protection too? Or does he think the Neo-Nazis and whoever else are only a safety consideration on British soil? Does he think Paris is unsafe? French intelligence aren’t going to share information with his American, gun-toting, privately hired muscle any more than British intelligence are. Is the Eiffel Tower off limits for his family?

I don’t know that this is as much about safety as it is about the “indignity” of losing protection, and the unfavourable (in his eyes) treatment he receives from the U.K. compared to his brother’s family. Maybe it is, he’s quite consistent about his mother’s death being the paparazzi’s fault. But like everything Harry does that makes it into the MSM, it’s ill thought through, half-baked, and totally opaque.

They’re all raised to be entitled and it shakes them to the core when they lose any trappings of royalty. They don’t know who they are if they’re not treated as special by others. The only ones who cope well are direct heirs to the throne (Charles, William - because they’re going to be treated as special for life) and those who marry in.

Nail on head.

Do you honestly believe that the police and Home Office would be indifferent to a genuine danger to the queen's grandson?

I realise this wasn't addressed to me, but FWIW they couldn't be indifferent even if they wanted to be - not with a RF representative on the committee

Except I see the suggestions are starting to creep in that Harry can't trust any of them, even the security services who AFAIK have never lost a visiting high profiler yet

As PPs have said, if he's really so convinced that everyone's out to get him he'd do better to stay in California and invite folk to stay with him instead - except the assumption that he's safe there always surprises me since many on MN seem to regard the US as a racist, gun laden hellhole

Which begs the question: does Harry think he needs this level of protection in every country in the world that has paparazzi? Is he going to want overseas protection too? Or does he think the Neo-Nazis and whoever else are only a safety consideration on British soil? Does he think Paris is unsafe? French intelligence aren’t going to share information with his American, gun-toting, privately hired muscle any more than British intelligence are. Is the Eiffel Tower off limits for his family?

I remember in their silly 'manifesto' 2 years ago, they said that they would continue to receive police security because they were 'Internationally Protected Persons'. Soon after, that claim was quietly removed. Obviously this is speculation on my part, but I suspect the real aim of this legal action is to try to get that status restored. It would mean that wherever they go in the world, the local authorities are obliged to provided them with police protection. However, since they no longer represent the monarchy, I can't see how they would be eligible for that status.

Armed private security is horribly expensive. Last year a former RPO said that it would cost millions a year, and the costs would increase if they travel. I don't think they are pulling in anything like the sort of money they thought they would, hence their attempt to get taxpayer funded security. It makes no sense for Harry to go to all this trouble and expense over a few 'charity visits'.

I don’t know that this is as much about safety as it is about the “indignity” of losing protection, and the unfavourable (in his eyes) treatment he receives from the U.K. compared to his brother’s family.

That too. I think Harry's loss of status is rankling with him, despite it supposedly being what he wanted.

He really didn't think this through, did he?

@Puzzledandpissedoff

Do you honestly believe that the police and Home Office would be indifferent to a genuine danger to the queen's grandson?

I realise this wasn't addressed to me, but FWIW they couldn't be indifferent even if they wanted to be - not with a RF representative on the committee

Except I see the suggestions are starting to creep in that Harry can't trust any of them, even the security services who AFAIK have never lost a visiting high profiler yet

As PPs have said, if he's really so convinced that everyone's out to get him he'd do better to stay in California and invite folk to stay with him instead - except the assumption that he's safe there always surprises me since many on MN seem to regard the US as a racist, gun laden hellhole

Yes I wonder if he has armed protection officers everywhere he goes in the US. He does sound paranoid.

*That too. I think Harry's loss of status is rankling with him, despite it supposedly being what he wanted.

He really didn't think this through, did he?
*
Yep- I don't think he did. I think she saw all the perks for himself and none of the pitfalls. He thought it would be totally win-win for himself and didn't think of any of the downsides. He's always taken the privilege he has for granted so didn't consider what would happen when it was taken away.

I also don't think he considered for a second the public's view about not wanting to fund him when he is no longer a royal or the pressure the RF are under to appease this and downsize- to an extent.

I think some people on here are too infatuated with H&M they don’t see just how strange his request is .

I simply can’t believe that in California where’ve actually faced really threat twice, when an intruder tried to sneak into their properties on two separate occasions is much safer than the uk

Begs the question why weren't these things clarified and written in a contract before they made the break? Why weren't all things thought of? You would think the lawyers, advisories etc would have totally been on this.

I wonder if the RF are slightly worried about H coming over anyway and that he's going to run home shouting his mouth off about more royal secrets and conversations. If this was a RL family I know most families would be.

I think Harry's loss of status is rankling with him, despite it supposedly being what he wanted

In fairness the status is all any of them have got; most are no better than the rest of us (and in some cases are much, much worse), so obviously they'll do whatever they can to prop it up

But it doesn't follow that everyone else should have to facilitate their choices

I agree it's a lot to do with status as well as protection. Police involved means traffic stopped no pàrking allowed in the street where you are going. Your royal car. I would imagine there would be none of that with privately paid for protection. Look at the time that guy got into the Queen's bedroom. That was pretty bad.