Was Princess Diana offered security after her divorce?

[antelopevalley]

There is an interesting article in The Sun that says amongst other things, that Harry is asking lots of questions about Diana's death e.g. " Official judicial sources in Paris say the Duke of Sussex’s researchers have been seeking information about the car crash that killed his mother 25 years ago." One of the questions is allegedly whether Diana had been offered security after her divorce.

After her fatal crash Scotland Yard asked why Diana had no security. Tina Brown said that Diana had turned down security. But the suspicion is that Diana is in the same situation as Harry i.e. only offered security if attending an official royal event such as the Jubilee, but refused security for the rest of the time.

I know it is The Sun, but given Harry's fight around official security in the UK, which he has offered to pay for but still been refused - it rings true that he would be asking questions about his mother's security. It is clear if she was using official security at the time, she would still be alive.

www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/19503595/prince-harry-diana-final-moments-book/

Trevor ReesJones was a security officer paid for by the Fayeed family. None of the occupants of the car were wearing seatbelts, which is why three of them died.

Trevor Rees-Jones was wearing a seatbelt, and was the only survivor although his injuries were significant.

IIRC it was widely reported at the time of the Waleses divorce & Diana’s death that she had declined PPO. But it’s a long time ago & my memory is hazy.

For those saying that Harry should have PPO as the son & brother of a future king at all times, I’m not sure Anne & Edward have protection unless carrying out royal duties.

I’m sure someone with more knowledge will know if I’m correct.

No, you're right, they don't.

Well, if the car driver hadn't been drunk, the car probably wouldn't have crashed. If she had security, do you think she would have been driven by someone who was well over the drink drive limit and taking medication which may impair judgment?

I don't know, but (as a republican who is no great fan of Harry), I do think it's absurd that he isn't entitled to protection when he visits the UK.

Regardless of whether or not he is a working royal, he is by virtue of his birth alone an obvious target for all sorts of terrorists and disturbed individuals. I think it's entirely reasonable not to offer protection if he chooses to live abroad, as I presume that the costs of that would be excessive, but while he is in the UK, I think he has a right to be adequately protected. He did not choose to be born into that family, and for all that he may have quit the job, he cannot ever actually opt out of being part of the system that puts a very high price on his head. I think it's inhumane and immoral to deny him access to proper security in the UK.

He might get security in UK

RAVEC’s position is that it will be assessed for each trip, and will be provided when indicated,

His position appears to be that he should get blanket security regardless of threat assessment

I want to know what Harry is planning on doing when he visits that warrants extra security, since as far as I can make out they are driven in large cars to venues where the public has no access to meet people who have already been vetted by means of being already known and admitted by invitation only. I could be wrong but I don’t think he is planning a stroll down Oxford Street on a Saturday afternoon holding the kids hands while Meghan nips into M and S for some sandwiches to eat in the park after a footie kick about with random strangers. They will probably be staying in some grace and favour property that has cctv and armed police patrols the way the rest of us have double glazing and dishwashers.

His mother was killed while being chased by photographers. Meghan has attracted considerable public vitriol, including at least one credible plot to attack and kill her. He has publicly said he is worried history will repeat itself and Meghan will be killed.
You may not think there is a credible threat to Meghan's life, but Harry's actions appear to stem from his belief that there is a credible threat.

His mother was killed because she was being driven by a drunk driver , she wasn’t wearing a seat belt and had refused official protection.
It was a tragedy but let’s stick to the facts .
H is so paranoid about security that he invented a situation that he was being chased by paps when footage ( widely available on the internet) showed no such thing .
H chose to walk away , he cannot expect the same perks as W and C .

I want to know what Harry is planning on doing when he visits that warrants extra security

It may be if he gets security in the UK, this will affect their security status in other countries (meaning that he may be able to get it more easily elsewhere). The issue is predictably complex but I have read one or two things to this effect although I don't know how accurate this is.

Harry's actions appear to stem from his belief that there is a credible threat.

Harry “believing” there is a threat doesn’t mean that there actually is one. It has repeatedly been said that he would be given protection on a round the clock basis if there was information of a credible threat. Not wanting to be followed and photographed doesn’t count as a credible threat. That’s people doing their jobs, even if you personally find them distasteful. As pp have said, although the fact that the paps were pursuing Diana was a contributing factor to the accident, it wasn’t the main reason that the crash occurred and was fatal. The driver was under the influence and Diana was not wearing a seat belt. She was also not really supposed to even be in France at that time.

There was a credible threat to Meghan, there was a prosecution. I am not sure Meghan had protection at the time?
But whether there is a credible threat or not, Harry is entitled to challenge any decision making through the courts, which he is doing.

Threats aren’t static though - they change over time. To take Princess Anne as an obvious example - there was a kidnap attempt on her in the 1970s. Now however she only has security when on official business. Her position as the daughter of the sovereign has not changed, but the assessed level of threat obviously has.

We don’t have the information that RAVEC has, and on which it bases its assessments. Harry is entitled to challenge their assessment via the courts. But the hurdle is high - if he cannot succeed in convincing the judge that RAVEC’s decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have made it (that’s the test the judge will be applying) then he has wasted a whole load of taxpayers’ money.

(I also note that it appears that Harry wants to be promoted to the category of people who get protection because of their position, regardless of the level of threat. The court has already confirmed that he was not considered to fall into this category even when he was a senior working royal. So in that respect he’s actually asking for more than he had when he was a working royal).

I note that Harry is currently in Africa so it appears he is able to travel without big announcements . I still don’t understand why someone who is so worried about security would announce a visit to the “ toxic, racist” U.K. .

Thank you whoever posted this. It brought back a lot of memories of that time and fairly accurately reflects those who favoured Diana and those who do not. It uses contemporary footage to tell what happened.

www2.theshit.me/watch-movie/watch-the-princess-2022-free-86076.8859597

Who gave a 'big announcement'?
I believe the Charities tweeted about how delighted they were H&M were attending various functions, but I haven't seen a 'big announcement' by H&M. They can't help it if the Charities or the media announce it.

If there has been a 'big announcement' by H&M, can you link to it? I've looked and cannot find anything.

Their spokesperson announced it .

A spokesman for the Sussexes said: 'Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are delighted to visit with several charities close to their hearts in early September.'

Thank you for that, I looked everywhere, couldn't find it. Not on Twitter that I could see.
I googled too.

Great they are doing this trip, and I have no problem with the announcement.

A quick glance at Google showed the statement on BBC , DM , Independent sites.
I just thought that in view of H’s security concerns , they would keep it low profile . As H had done with his 3 day trip to Mozambique .

I googled H&M September trip, did not find it. I'm not fibbing, I looked, I'm usually good at ferreting stuff out. Did the same on Twitter. But it's irrelevant. You found something I didn't! I'm glad they are coming and I'm not fussed about the announcement which isn't all over everywhere.

The 'announcement' is something that gets done when something is going to come out. This stops so many calls coming in with enquiries. If anyone makes an enquiry, they are just given the 'announcement'. Not a big deal really.

I can't blame Harry for making his own enquiry. Here in the UK we are also in the blank about what really happened that night. We were only able to do a little enquiry around 10yrs after the fact. By then most people admit their memories were hazy. Some main witnesses were never questioned, some had died. There is some he said, she said. The French gave us a run-around regarding the details.

The French totally botched the investigation .
The crime scene was cleaned within 5hrs. Stories were changed. Major witness were dismissed without questioning.

This documentary asks some vital questions that were never dealt with by the French. It dives deep into archives from that night with interviews from France.

Here in the UK we are also in the blank about what really happened that night.

We really aren’t. Unless you have never delved into the inquest or the Operation Paget. Both of which are hugely detailed, the results of years of investigation, and did not consider they were lacking in any particular evidence.