Security for Harry and Meghan not a priority

[Viviennemary]

Article in the DM reporting that Rishi Sunak has apparently said Harry and Meghan's security issues in New York are not a priority for him when he was asked about the car chase. He is concentrating on policing and safety of people in this country.

TP is known to be an empathetic man. He probably knows all about trying to make your dc financially secure.

He had an empty house (one of several actually), and he lent it to H&M.
He could afford it, why not. Unlike billionaire Charles who could not even bother with his own son who had lived with him for years, working for both the firm and the country via military.

Why should Charles pay for something, which H&M were entitled to but opted out of?

Choices bring consequences.

Oh dear lord.
Tyler Perry - very generous man
Charles - provides Harry and later Meghan with millions. Yet not generous? 🙄

I'm no expert, but I highly doubt that you can just 'apply' for IPP status.

You'd surely have to be accredited with some form of diplomatic status by your home country. Harry has no official role, so IPP status is completely out of the question for him.

Like I said, there are people for whom nothing is ever enough. It's not an attractive trait.

(a)a person who at the time of the alleged offence is a Head of State, a member of a body which performs the functions of Head of State under the constitution of the State, a Head of Government or a Minister for Foreign Affairs and is outside the territory of the State in which he holds office;

(b)a person who at the time of the alleged offence is a representative or an offical of a State or an offical or agent of an international organisation of an intergovernmental character, is entitled under international law to special protection from attack on his person, freedom or dignity and does not fall within the preceding paragraph;

(c)a person who at the time of the alleged offence is a member of the family of another person mentioned in either of the preceding paragraphs and—

(i)if the other person is mentioned in paragraph (a) above, is accompanying him,

(ii)if the other person is mentioned in paragraph (b) above, is a member of his household;

This is from the 1978 Internationally Protected Persons Act.
As Harry is no longer a working royal he wouldn't qualify under sections (a) and (b). He might not have qualified anyway.
He is a member of KC'S family, though, so might get protected under that. Except he never accompanies KC nor is he any longer a member of his household.
So I don't see how he could qualify for IPP status. Is he actually looking for that? Or just the right to pay for 24hr armed protection for him and his family when he comes to the UK?

@IcedPurple

Perhaps Meghan and Harry can bring their ripple of hope award and her Ms award to show how important they are to get their IPP statue . Surely Ravec cannot fail to be moved by their account of being chased by bicycles around New York at 80 mph

Well has he?
Because it was reported that he did for Camilla's children.

Why leave out that he is doing the same for A&L?

Why you asking me to prove a negative.

Maybe Harry would have mentioned this just as much as he mentioned Diana's inheritance.

Your question its so random..............

Because it was reported that he did for Camilla's children

And did he? Lots of things have been reported about Harry and Meghan that you don’t believe. Why do you believe this?

Thanks again, IcedPurple, and to you now too, Haywirecity - much appreciated

The other countries seem to follow the same definitions of who an IPP is. I think it's because it was a UN initiative and so definitions were drafted by their international legislatory body, which were then adopted by countries who signed up to the idea. I might not be 100% on this but I think that's the gist. 🤔
SHarry could only get IPP through Charles (unless he got a job in the US govt, etc). So if he can't get it in the UK, he wouldn't be entitled to it anywhere.

How would I know what a random man’s pays out his bank account? And furthermore - how do you?? Unless you know him personally it’s pure speculation. WHY would we know if he’s bunged A&L money.

Besides I’m not sure I can cry too many a tears over millionaire toddlers not having more millions.

He also doesn’t have a relationship with them - thanks to H&M. he does with Camilla’s children he is godparent to them. He can do what he wants with his money I’m not quite sure why it’s anyone else’s business

Excellent question

He also doesn’t have a relationship with them - thanks to H&M. he does with Camilla’s children he is godparent to them. He can do what he wants with his money I’m not quite sure why it’s anyone else’s business

Yes, the usual MN line is that no child or grandchild has any right to expect any financial help or inheritance from their parents - fully-grown adults can do what they want with their money. Can't see why Charles should be any different.

The rags were getting false stories about H&M from the firm. Don't know of the firm being against Charles.

So are you staying that there was no trust fund for Camilla children? Why didn't the palace dispute that then, considering they dispute botox and hair extension stories.

Also, why didn't the palace also announce that they are paying for A&L - after all, they did put out statements of 'recollections may vary' and told us about how harry had Diana's inheritance.

It's a theme on these threads.

The same 'rags' that are the source of 'vile rumours' somehow become unimpeachable truth when it suits.

It's really quite bizarre how people, or more accurately one person, think they know about the king's private financial affairs. Who cares how rich people choose to spend their own money?

The security and money were taken away before interviews and books.

What was his relationship with Camilla's children. He was not even their stepfather at that time.

So basically @notanotheroneagain you have absolutely no clue of what you're saying is correct.

The rags were getting false stories about H&M from the firm. Don't know of the firm being against Charles

How do you know they're false? I thought H&M fans disdained the tabloids.

'The rags were getting false stories about H&M from the firm.'
Which false stories?

'Why didn't the palace dispute that then, considering they dispute botox and hair extension stories.'
The reason these stories were disputed was because the Botox and hair extension stories suggested Kate was a client of the companies who were using her in their advertising. They were told to stop it. The same was also done when a company suggested Meghan was using their diet pills.

Well Charles may have set up money for Archie and Lilibet. He may not have. None of us knows one way or the other because we're not Coutts.
However, he's been very generous to Harry and Meghan, so maybe equally generous to Archie and Lilibet. We don't know.

@Butitsnotfunnyisititsserious . In a nutshell.

Or in my case at least, care.

Not sure what any of this has to do with security at any rate.

Harry and Meghan are private citizens living in California. Their security is nobody's concern but their own.

*It's a theme on these threads.

The same 'rags' that are the source of 'vile rumours' somehow become unimpeachable truth when it suits.

It's really quite bizarre how people, or more accurately one person, think they know about the king's private financial affairs. Who cares how rich people choose to spend their own money?*

But of course. The press is only good when it's saying things they want to hear.
And it really is very bizarre.

The same 'rags' that are the source of 'vile rumours' somehow become unimpeachable truth when it suits

I'd like to know what other sources of information there are. I regularly see the H&M supporters claiming that the haters get their info from the tabloids, but where do the supporters get theirs?