RAVEC - Prince Harry

[pilates]

Can someone explain to me the procedure and how this works?

What? You telling me I'm really reaching here.... okaaaaaay...

No.

The part you quoted right there, at the top of your post.

They have never had any privileges denied to Harry.

Those last 3 words are actually pretty crucial to the discussion.

You still haven't been able to tell us any privileges granted to the 'York girls' which have been denied to Harry. Which was the question being asked.

@Roussette

So non working members of the RF ( York sisters) had full security until their early 20s . There was an outcry . It was removed . Daddy wasn’t happy but Beatrice and Eugenie accepted it and got on with their lives and seem fine . This was despite them being DGC of the then Monarch.
Harry had full security until he was about 36 ( including on holidays) then decided he didn’t want to be a working member of the RF ( unless it was purely on his terms) so his security was removed . Cue hissy fit .
What is the difference ?

It's a bit like a direct debit that drifts on because you don't pay much attention to company A (security because DGC of monarch). Then you notice, and end the direct debit.

And next time you are on the ball and end an out of date direct debit (security because DGC of monarch) as soon as it ends for company B. But then company B turns round and complains, because you let the direct debit for company A run on for a while after you could have ended it.

So your direct debit to company B should run forever, because you were late cancelling it for company A.

Very odd reasoning

Especially when you did have the same direct debit in place for company B, and for longer, while company B was on his gap year and in the army

@Mylovelygreendress
I understad security was provided at first while H&M were in Canada, and then removed later; but not sure if this was when they went to the US, or before.
Security is provided for working members of the RF when carrying out public engagements, I believe. (ie when engaging in Royal visits, and here I mean for Anne, Edward, etc)
If H&M had stayed in the UK, and continued to live at FC, they would have had some kind of security as FC is on the Windsor estate.
I understand the current situation is that they will receive security in the UK, on a 'needs' basis. ie when attending Royal Functions such as the jubilee, funeral or coronation.

I'm not sure what Harry ultimately wants from this.

1. To demonstrate that his security was unfairly removed (hence giving credence to his belief that having people from the royal household on the RAVEC committee was thatbthe decision was biased against him)

2 to have 24/7 security reinstated when on UK soil. 3 in addition to the above, to receive protection whilst in the U.S. I suspect 2. As Harry has mentioned in respect of his family "when on UK soil" Not 3 surely! Would cost ££££ to have royal protection officers to fetch meghan her favourite coffee.

You could well be correct, but it’s a bit of a weird one since his argument that he can’t bring his family here because it’s not safe doesn’t really work, as, allegedly, his wife never wants to come back to the UK 🤷‍♀️

It really speaks to Harry’s paranoia that he thinks having members of the Royal staff as part of RAVEC is a bad thing for royalty.

Yes, if by "royal" you mean official close protection, because it all falls to the same part of the police.

To use an example that has been made public, Salman Rushdie had protection for years - and may still have in UK, given that he was attacked and stabbed (in US) in 2022.

It's pretty rare for someone other than a working royal or a government minister (certain posts only) to get close protection, and IPP is for the monarch as head of state and royals who are officially representing him and the PM. Others may sometimes get security overseas, without being IPP, depending on who/why/where, but that's separately negotiated.

Yet Harry thinks that he and his family are an exception to all of this. Extraordinary..

Well to be fair I think the vilification of them has been exceptional.

Maybe if they hadn’t spent the last 4 years behaving like bitter, ungrateful prats with a dodgy grasp of the truth they wouldn’t be so vilified.

I don't think so. I also think valid criticism of someone's behaviour isn't "vilification".

Others’ security arrangements still doesn’t indicate that there is a legal requirement of the protection or that this is a permanent provision. RAVEC will presumably use the case by case procedures that led to Prince Harry’s bespoke protection plan. If Harry was found to be unfairly treated it still on a protection level may not have any changes long term. Unless it was deemed he needed permanent protection by armed police officers in the UK, which automatically leads to if he needs it in the UK where else does he need it. Especially in countries that do not allow armed private security, and who pays, who paid for Germany Invictus?

You could well be correct, but it’s a bit of a weird one since his argument that he can’t bring his family here because it’s not safe doesn’t really work, as, allegedly, his wife never wants to come back to the UK

He does say that the UK is his home and that his children should feel at home here just as they do where they live at the moment - also weird.

And also that they were forced to leave because they weren't safe - with the kind of protection he is now expecting.

None of it makes much sense.

His arguments lack logic and consistency. This is because they come from a place of grievance and perceived mistreatment.

Lord knows I think Harry is an idiot, but I think that some posters are a bit unfair on the half in half out idea. If someone is in a stressful, enmeshed situation, then it looks entirely typical to try for some halfway exit.

That by no means makes it rational, or in any sense a good idea, but it does seem normal.

I guess that because of Harry's history, he wanted to one-up the press when they wanted to announce the planned exit, but it really should have been a case of "publish and be damned" whilst they thrashed out the details privately.

@thecatsthecats - initially the late Queen suggested accommodations. To have a low key wedding, to live in a property on a royal estate with no duties, maybe Meghan continuing her career in some capacity, various experienced people giving support and guidance. It was acknowledged that it would be a big step for Meghan. However, this all seems to have been rejected in favour of "hitting the ground running" then any failures blamed on the RF. It would have been possible, I'm sure, to start discussions about time out or whatever, rather than just launch the Sussex Royal website and announcements about "carving a new role", living in North America and "collaborating with the Queen".

It's wild to think that if they had quietly negotiated a deal everyone was happy with, there might have been no Oprah, no Spare, no Netflix etc etc. Everything would just be ticking along as normal with H+M slightly out of the limelight doing their own thing, a bit like Beatrice and Eugenie.

I think it's unlikely they would have been happy with what QE2 could offer though. William would still have been more important and Harry would still be jealous and paranoid. And I don't think they wanted less limelight. So maybe it would never have worked out peacefully.

I think you're right, @Hughs . Unfortunately.

It's pretty rare for someone other than a working royal or a government minister (certain posts only) to get close protection, and IPP is for the monarch as head of state and royals who are officially representing him and the PM.

Not necessarily. Anne, Sophie and Edward officially represent the monarch overseas, but they don't have full protection even in Britain.

IPP status is a pretty big deal. It obliges signatory nations not only to provide police protection to those with that status, but also to cooperate with the diplomat's home country in sharing intelligence and in prosecuting any crimes committed against them. As I said above, it dates to the 1970s when diplomats and high officials were at real risk of kidnapping. I question whether Harry or Meghan ever held that status, but they certainly don't now.

well thats where there is disagreement isn't there, with the word 'valid'. I think if you can't see that the focus and vitriol agains them is excessive and disproportionate, and certainly you won't if you engage in it yourselves, then I think you've lost perspective.

Olivia Coleman has much less scrutiny and paparazzi harassment and she left London because of it. Or maybe you all think she's a liar too??

But she’s not demanding that someone else pay for her security in the countryside?