Harry needs to go NC

[Twatalert]

Harry needs to go NC with his family and grieve for the kind of family he never had.

It is clear they are completely dysfunctional. I believe everything he says. He has gained awareness of the abuse going on, but now sees abuse everywhere. It is typical for abuse survivors. Once you have seen it you see it everywhere and it is hard to distinguish which part is the abuse and which part is human.

He needs to spend time with himself, continue to process and come to terms with everything rather than selling it.

In time he might understand that he cannot change them and he cannot convince them to change. They'll either wake up or they won't. He can only decice how he wants to deal with what they give him. He has not yet understood he needs to let go of them, which is the reality of many that have been abused.

William was the golden child and Harry the scapegoat. Trouble is he finds issue with 'normal' things (bigger and smaller bedroom's..) rather than pinpointing the systematic abuse he has suffered.

He's trying to convince the world he was treated unfairly. A sign that he is not ready to let go and wants approval from millions. He is in pain.

Instead of books and interviews, he should write a diary (and not publish it).

He is part of the system

Yes, of course he was, a system that he was born into, though.

I initially believed he didn't want to be (hence leaving)

They were trying to navigate a way to stay as serving but in a way where it wasnt damaging to them, to get away from the toxicity brittish media (and rightly so in my opinion) they wanted to serve the common wealth but not live in the Uk.

but when he starting using the courts to try to get his security paid for by tax payers

He was asking to use his uk security, but he was happy to pay for it himself. The argument was then whether he should have access to the security.

then I don't believe he actually wants to bring the system down at all. His words may suggest that to you (though obvious I disagree) but his actions certainly don't

I dont believe, nor do i suggest he wants to bring the royal family down. I said he is wanting to show their failings and wanting to bring about change. He wants to be part of it and serve, if they can acknowledge their mistakes as he is willing to do the same in a sit down.

Can people not understand that when they are complaining about Harry "constantly" putting himself in our faces.
He initially did 1 interview with Oprah where he told of the concern he had about the conservations realting to his childs skin colour. The brittish media then headlined Harry and Meghan call the RF racists (they never) then the brittish media repeatedly ran that story and shoved Harry in your faces, he never. And its worked, the constant barage is working.
(A great distraction by our tory owned press to distract by the wsy, but that's another story)

He obviously had always had plans of putting his own side of the story forward in different streams once the relationship turned more toxic, but this constant that people are talking about is being pushed on you by the press. People may find it distasteful to monetise his story, but in my opinion he had every right to get it out there however he saw fit, he was not forcing anyone to watch it, it was there if you were interested in hearing both sides. He is not out their daily talking about it.

People are talking as if hes mandated, people watching him and forcing them into it. If you dont want him front page daily, that's on the public (you guys) and the press.

Neither are you a suitable judge, your history is clouding logical thoughts.

@tiggergoesbounce Harry shouldn’t blame the British press when the US media did exactly the same

time.com/5944613/meghan-markle-oprah-racism/

Hmm I think when one has that username the assumption would be that a bit of ribbing would not be the end of the world.

He was asking to use his uk security, but he was happy to pay for it himself. The argument was then whether he should have access to the security.

The UK security in the court case is the state security services. I'm absolutely shocked that anyone (even the royal family) thinks you should be able to pay for "better" services from them. The state, rightly, provides individual security to those who need protection, regardless of ability to pay (or how much / little they deserve it eg Andrew). And the state will not (and never should) act as a private security service for the wealthy.

He can (and does) pay for private security when he is here, but doesn't think that the service they provide is sufficient to keep him and his family safe. I don't think he is correct, but I can see how what happened to his mother is likely clouding his view. Perhaps the judicial review will agree that he needs the protection, in which case it needs to be state funded.

If you believe everything he says you must be very confused. If he phoned his therapist post the dog bowl scuffle why couldn't he share the therapist with Meghan?? Why accuse the family of racism snd now day they are not? That's just 2 inconsistencies there are many more.

I have a sister very like Harry. A gas lighter, a liar and a narcissist. I went non contact last year. Best thing I ever did I hope William does the same

Just to add some clarity to the security thing - the government have said the security services will protect Harry in the UK when the risk warrants such protection, but that they won't provide it when the risk is lower. They haven't issued a blanket refusal to provide security, just that the security provided needs to be proportionate to the risk.

I'm absolutely shocked that anyone (even the royal family) thinks you should be able to pay for "better" services from them. The state, rightly, provides individual security to those who need protection, regardless of ability to pay (or how much / little they deserve it eg Andrew). And the state will not (and never should) act as a private security service for the wealthy

He can (and does) pay for private security when he is here, but doesn't think that the service they provide is sufficient to keep him and his family safe. I don't think he is correct, but I can see how what happened to his mother is likely clouding his view. Perhaps the judicial review will agree that he needs the protection, in which case it needs to be state funded

Whilst i completely agree ordinarily this should not be something people can buy Harry recieved tax funded security whilst being a working Royal, that was then pulled when he stopped being a working royal and while i do agree this should not ordinarily be something people can just buy, he is still a member of the royal family and i personally believe that he should be able to pay to keep that level of security as i dont think he in any less need of it in the Uk just because he is no longer a working royal. While Charles is the king, Harry will always be the kings son, and i believe he deserves protection as he has no choice over his family link.
The better security will have access to more intelligence, i believe.

I would imagine that after Diana, he would be terrified of history repeating itself.

Yes, It will be interesting to see how the review finds.

People already pay the Royal Family for honours through donations to their favoured charities.

You have a sister very like Harry?

I have a family very like the Royals!

They must be praying he'll go NC!

he is still a member of the royal family and i personally believe that he should be able to pay to keep that level of security as i dont think he in any less need of it in the Uk just because he is no longer a working royal.

Paying for state security is a red line for me. We (as a country) cover the cost of protecting likely targets from our citizens / on our soil. It is completely right that the only thing that matters is risk.

Direct heirs of the monarch (currently William and his children) are a constitutional risk, like the PM, and so get permanent full time security. Others who are important but not (constitutionally) as important (eg Harry, ordinary MPs) are only entitled to it based on an individual risk assessment. Although the likelihood of attack may be broadly similar, the consequences (to the country) are much higher for the first group.

Royals on public engagements are at higher risk than at home / enjoying a private trip to the cinema and are (supposedly) only doing the engagements as an act of service to the country. They therefore get the security during those engagements only, unless they meet the threshold for individuals via security services risk assessment.

I see Harry the same as Anne was before the Queen died. If she’d stepped back from total duties she wouldn’t have been entitled to any security either. And she actually escaped an attempted kidnapping!

The better security will have access to more intelligence, i believe.

Yep, access to state secret level intelligence (I read but can’t now remember where). I’d rather not have even the whiff of potentially divided loyalties for those members of the security services. And wherever money or goods changes hands there is the potential for divided loyalties (which is also why those in positions of responsibility shouldn’t be allowed second jobs, or “gifts” of redecorating houses).

People already pay the Royal Family for honours through donations to their favoured charities.

Which is also a shitty system. Personally, I’d completely revolutionise the way honours and peerages are distributed rather than seeing that as a reason to make it worse by letting some people pay for state security.

Sorry for the epic post / derail. I read a lot about it when the court case was in the news and still find it fascinating to think about.

Anyone who actually sympathises with anything Harry claims to have suffered from seriously needs their mind examined. Harry has been born into privilege, power, money, status..the list goes on. He's a grown man who has been manipulated by his wife, they both believe they are poor little victims in their 10 million house the British taxpayer has paid for.

We are the real victims here.

Royals on public engagements are at higher risk than at home / enjoying a private trip to the cinema and are (supposedly) only doing the engagements as an act of service to the country. They therefore get the security during those engagements only, unless they meet the threshold for individuals via security services risk assessment

Which makes perfect sense that the "lower risk" individuals have less security and would not need around the clock security.

I see Harry the same as Anne was before the Queen died. If she’d stepped back from total duties she wouldn’t have been entitled to any security either. And she actually escaped an attempted kidnapping!

See i can absolutely see the comparison in "rank" so to speak, but I do think Harry is more of a high profile royal. Even before all this, I think what happened with Diana propelled them into the limelight and forced them into a more prominent royal.

Yep, access to state secret level intelligence (I read but can’t now remember where). I’d rather not have even the whiff of potentially divided loyalties for those members of the security services. And wherever money or goods changes hands there is the potential for divided loyalties (which is also why those in positions of responsibility shouldn’t be allowed second jobs, or “gifts” of redecorating houses)

Wherever their is power their is the opportunity to abuse that power and by not allowing security to be bought may lower that, I think if those Individuals were going to be bought they would be anyway. But I do recognise it maybe makes it more difficult for that to happen, which can't be a bad thing. I'm all for stopping any corrupt, immoral backhanders from the boys club.

I think I just see this case as slightly different as I do believe him to be more of a risk due to his profile, even before all this. But the case will determine one way or the other. I think it would be a mistake to not protect him and his family.

People already pay the Royal Family for honours through donations to their favoured charities

Which is also a shitty system. Personally, I’d completely revolutionise the way honours and peerages are distributed rather than seeing that as a reason to make it worse by letting some people pay for state security

I agree it needs reform, as do most things which pertain to power in this country and I don't think the honours system is respected at all as much as it used to be as it is well known most of the honours are simply bought

Well said

This is my favourite post of the last few days.

Unpalatable as it may be to some, there are individuals for whom the risk assessment will be shifted because they have a significant constitutional role. So Harry may be at the same likelihood of random madman attack as William (for example) but the danger is much higher for the country if William were killed (as George is still a child and so there would be no adult heir for more nearly a decade). In terms of the functioning of the country, that is significant - who would do the public engagements as KC ages, and there’s the potential for a regency (with exactly who as regent?!) if KC doesn’t live very much longer.

When you then consider the probability of terrorists or foreign powers seeking to undermine the functioning of the country, William is a much bigger target for them. So his risk (in my absolutely non-expert opinion) is higher because the likelihood is higher and the consequences are higher. He’s probably on a par with the King tbh.

Harry has probably increased the likelihood of attack with his Taliban comments, but they probably would always have wanted to get to him so it may not have changed much. IMO, the monarch’s children were always much of a muchness in terms of risk, except for the heir (once the hair has reproduced of course). New babies don’t just push their aunts and uncles further down the line of succession, they also reduce their risk.

To be clear, I don’t want anything to happen to Harry, William, Charles or anyone else. I’m just ruminating on the potential complications and why a risk assessment might come down on the side of the government. I’d personally love to hear the security services reasoning for their decisions, but sadly I’m neither important enough nor discrete enough to warrant inclusion.

From a risk perspective, it’s not the taliban that’s the issue, but rather the ‘lone wolf’. sympathiser. In fact, they don’t even need to be a taliban supporter/follower, but just a fundamentalist; there’s a wider religious based issue. There was always a residual risk because of who he was and what he’s done, but the risk from such an attack scenario has definitely increased significantly.