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.

Didn't PC offer to host PH and MM to get around the issue of security? As PC has round the clock security PH would be safe.
That would resolve the issue. I feel uneasy about a private citizen being able to 'hire' the resources of Scotland Yard.

I think the issue is that they want to go off on their own doing stuff . They don’t want to be limited to being at Highgrove all the time. I can’t imagine they would want to be there at all really.

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

We weren't there so can't know, but who says Harry would have engaged even if they'd tried? The RF aren't exactly noted for heeding advice which doesn't suit, and remembering that Harry's public vitriol only really started when he failed to get the "deal" they wanted, I doubt he was in a frame of mind to listen by then

To an outsider it looks awfully like yet another royal throwing a hissy fit because they can't have exactly what they want, exactly as they want it all the time - except life isn't like that, which Harry is possibly only just starting to realise

@Puzzledandpissedoff

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

Sure, but the rest of them mostly have the sense to keep their mouths shut, smile and make small talk at a community centre in Leeds, and then sit back and enjoy the massive privileges.

If you're going to make a big song and dance about 'finding freedom', then you can't complain when the perks of your 'toxic' life are taken away.

Well sometimes we can't always get what we want, sometimes we have to compromise. I shouldn't think PC really wants to host them either!

Begs the question why weren't these things clarified and written in a contract before they made the break?

Because the story was broken in advance of completion of negotiations. By the ghastly Dan Wootton, bestie of Jason Knauf

Make of that what you will

Completely agree, IcedPurple - or rather I suppose they can complain, but not necessarily expect everyone else to kowtow when they do

And since it's been made clear that security will be provided if it's needed on a case-by-case basis I still don't quite understand what the problem is here, unless it really is the status and appearance that's bothering him

The golden rule is don't criticise the firm. Princess Margaret's behaviour was criticised but she didn't dpeak out agsinst thd monarchy. Andrew's behaviour no need to go there. But again not a word from him about the monarchy or personal relationships. Nothing ever from Camilla either. Or Fergie. Crawfie was frozen out and never ever contacted again. Princess Margaret when asked abou it merely said she blabbed. They won't ever be trusted again IMHO.

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'm sure things were clarified in writing, and in some detail. They just weren't what Meghan and Harry thought they deserved, and were silly enough to publicly demand in their 'Manifesto'.

In their 'statement' last month, they claimed that they had offered to pay for security at the 'Sandringham Summit', so clearly the idea that they didn't know security was going to be removed is nonsense. Mind you, the Home Office said that they never received any offer to pay, and that in any case such an offer would be 'irrelevant', so it's hard to keep up.

Errrmmm Fergie wrote a book criticising The Firm.!

It's called "My Story" and whilst not criticising individuals, is wholly critical of the establishment known as The Firm

In their 'statement' last month, they claimed that they had offered to pay for security at the 'Sandringham Summit', so clearly the idea that they didn't know security was going to be removed is nonsense

Actually that's a valid point, and one I hadn't thought of - yet another "inconsistency" perhaps?

@Puzzledandpissedoff

In their 'statement' last month, they claimed that they had offered to pay for security at the 'Sandringham Summit', so clearly the idea that they didn't know security was going to be removed is nonsense

Actually that's a valid point, and one I hadn't thought of - yet another "inconsistency" perhaps?

Recollections may vary....

@Roussette

Begs the question why weren't these things clarified and written in a contract before they made the break?

Because the story was broken in advance of completion of negotiations. By the ghastly Dan Wootton, bestie of Jason Knauf

Make of that what you will

Don't see why that changes what can be agreed in negotiations. They had supposedly been planning this out over their long Christmas break in Canada that year. They presumably knew what they wafted to ask for. Problem seems to me to be that what they wanted, the half in half out where they lived abroad but retained significant aspects of their senior royal living arrangements, such as the 24-hour protection, wasn't ever going to be granted. Politically it would have been very unpopular to financially underwrite a private life of privilege outside the UK. Why would when the story was broken, or who by, have anything to do with that?

This spoilt manchild won’t be happy until he’s destroyed the entire RF.
TBH, I wish we never had to hear from him, his father or idiot uncle ever again, brainless and greedy the lot of them.
The women should stay in charge.

Skip I would've thought that was obvious.

Delicate negotiation without the press knowing versus every paper all over it like a rash because someone broke the story which hastened official announcements

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.

Totally agree. Actually - I think they are as a rule so disdainful of the public as to not care what the public think. Or, they think they can get their manadarins to manage what the public should think. That’s what all the Jason Knaufs of the world were hired to do: manage the public’s relationship with Harry/ Meghan/ whoever. That’s presumably what they hired Sunshine Sachs to do when they left the RF apparatus and had to privately hire PR.

Notable exception is HMQ, at least in public. She says all the right things about it being an honour to serve the public blah blah and that’s why she’s so loved. I think William has some of that too, for the moment. Charles seems to be coming to it late.

Tony Blair bringing HMQ to heel at the time of Diana’s funeral was a turning point for the RF. New Labour, with him at the helm, instigated the shift away from deference to the RF towards “we’re in this together”, Britain is a meritocracy, everyone gets to go to university, we’re all equals etc. It was a great levelling: bring the monarchy down, abolish the hard left and everyone’s equal. Champagne + socialism = riches for everyone! (Except of course it wasn’t. Never have we been more polarised than now.)

All the murmurings of downsizing from Charles came after that. This seismic shift in the public’s appreciation of the RF has completely replaced the old dynamic where parliament and the monarchy told the public what to think. At the same time we had intrusive paparazzi (tampongate - he’s soon to be head of state. Unbelievable!), the rise of social media, footballers accumulating more wealth than the Queen, and a generation of young royals falling out of Chelsea bars and clubs behaving just like every other Sloane.

Harry is too thick + arrogant to navigate all this and come out on top. Tbf, it would probably take someone with the smarts of Blair himself to achieve that. But as matters stand, he’s just digging himself deeper and deeper. Who knows where this will all end up.

This spoilt manchild won’t be happy until he’s destroyed the entire RF.

I wouldn't worry about it, PA has made a good job of that

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

That's not completely true.

Prince Edward, Princess Anne, Prince Richard, Prince Michael, to name but a few, all seem to have found their niche.

@Roussette

Skip I would've thought that was obvious.

Delicate negotiation without the press knowing versus every paper all over it like a rash because someone broke the story which hastened official announcements

No, I don't think that would make a bit of difference. It simply would never have been agreed that they could give up their public roles and duties as senior royals, live abroad, but still have the same level of security provided by royal protection officers but who would have to move abroad with them. It would never under any circumstances have been a realistic prospect, and I don't believe any government would have signed it off. It would be a massive financial and operational commitment that would have come back to bite them, whenever or however announced.

I think a story being broken before they'd finished finalising and negotiating would've made a huge amount of difference

No, I don't think that would make a bit of difference. It simply would never have been agreed that they could give up their public roles and duties as senior royals, live abroad, but still have the same level of security provided by royal protection officers but who would have to move abroad with them. It would never under any circumstances have been a realistic prospect, and I don't believe any government would have signed it off. It would be a massive financial and operational commitment that would have come back to bite them, whenever or however announced.

I agree.

I remember reading the 'Manifesto' and thinking there was no way they could possibly get what they were demanding. It was incredibly silly of them to publicly present it as a fait accompli, only for almost every one of their demands to be rejected.

What they should have done was issue a vague joint statement with Buckingham Palace, along the lines of 'Negotiations about the future paths of the Duke and Duchess are ongoing and details will be released in due course.' I think they have this need to always 'get their side across' and 'get one over' on the press, even when it's to their detriment in the longer term.

@sparkycats

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.

This was to the post comparing Harry to his cousins.

They are not the same, for the same reason Harry was made Senior Working member and others were not.

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.

Which is exactly what Camilla and Kate got when they were girlfriends.

The 'indignity' angle seems to come from you, not Harry. He could walk around with an entourage of 20 bodyguards if he wanted to show off. This is about his security.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

In their 'statement' last month, they claimed that they had offered to pay for security at the 'Sandringham Summit', so clearly the idea that they didn't know security was going to be removed is nonsense

Actually that's a valid point, and one I hadn't thought of - yet another "inconsistency" perhaps?

Mmmm, yes. Also hasn't thought about that. But that has been proven be be a lie hasn't it. It was only last month he offered? This is just another example of the many lies he tells.

@upinaballoon

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.

Do you keep in touch only via zoom with everyone you know?

What an odd thing to say. You don't think Harry can see people in real life now?

What do you know about the book. Nothing was said about it's launch. The time for it will come when it does.