Harry’s security case

[smilesy]

The judgment is in Harry loses High Court challenge over UK security protection www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68421992 See here

surely if Harry was staying in the same location as his Dad, the King of England, security would be in place!? I mean in the same residence, sleeping in the same house as the King =guaranteed security

and paying for private security guards when out and about? What does that cost? Surely that would be covered or Haz could get his finger out and pay for himself

But that’s not what Harry wants ! He wants the armed Met security , the outriders etc - same as William !

PS no such person as the King of England!

well tough tits sunshine, you left the Royal family,
you no longer get the perks!

I suspect the “lack of security” angle is indeed more to do with not being able to tow Netflix and his own security about as easily if he were in a Royal residence. Nothing to do with actually being unsafe. More not being able to avoid the press

I agree

Yes @smilesy, I think that too. There is no way he can argue a hotel is more secure than eg KP.

But I thought the story was that he wanted to stay in Windsor Castle? If you ask me, he wanted this for the optics, was offered somewhere far less photogenic with no motorcade, and then petulantly sat in the Crowne Plaza. The fact that Meghan was lurking in the royal suite at Heathrow indicates to me that she would have been in Windsor Castle as soon as she could speed dial the paparazzi.

The late Queen handled it precisely as a constitutional monarch should, she laid it out clearly and ultimately accepted that it was not her decision. There was never a refusal by RAVEC, it was a qualified, justifiable and measured yes to security with particular terms. That is not a no. This is the nuance that is often missing in the discussion about it all - and one clearly completely ignored by Harry.

This rings lots of bells with a relative of mine who always had a delicate relationship with his parents to the extent that he ultimately emigrated, and who has always been a big fan of therapy. Despite the fact that his parents financed him in a big way, he was always very "poor me" and at one point wrote them a long letter detailing all the ways he felt they had done him down, including extraordinarily petty stuff like the time he felt they didn't show enough enthusiasm for something he'd done at school. He did nothing to help them when they become old and had major health problems, and when they died his major focus was on how soon he could get his hands on his inheritance.

I hadn't really thought before about the parallels with Harry, but they are definitely there.

I suspect the “lack of security” angle is indeed more to do with not being able to tow Netflix and his own security about as easily if he were in a Royal residence. Nothing to do with actually being unsafe. More not being able to avoid the press

If the idea was to get Netflix into a royal residence (and what a security nightmare that would be) then the security issue has saved the RF a lot of future grief, IMO. Did he expect that they'd be staying in the same place, or that they'd be casually waved through at the gate?

I think they left with no consideration in fact I do believe Harry had assumed that due to his birthright he would always receive security. However the implications are that it would not remain consistent with how security is applied to other family members where it is on a case by case basis. It would no longer apply to him and his family as they are no longer senior or working royals.
I believe he never for one moment realized the amount that security costs and all the bombshells that have been raised such as linking archies security and not being given a title of prince to issues of racism where all fundamentally it was about security.
It makes sense he is challenging the UK as I think as a family that is where there chances of having full security reinstated were far more likely than Meghan applying as a US citizen for state funded security in America. Their hope being that IPP status would be reinstated and would therefore mean they would receive this in the US, thereby reducing or removing their need to pay themselves. Also the "status" this would afford them amongst the elites.
For what it's worth, I support Harrys right to bring a judicial review. Though i think his case was crap and with little merit based on the defendants case. The issue is ALL citizens should have access to legal redress or JR and who has that sort of money which means the right to challenge is only for the privileged few who can pay. I have come across many people in my line of work who didn't get any security (domestic abuse) and people who should have had the right to challenge our institutions on serious matters but neither were able to due to lack of access to funds. Which I find really frustrating when this case appears to be ill considered and not one that would ever be relevant to the rest of society and yet is tax payer funded (admittedly at the outset) My point being that if he had won it would have been paid by us. The resulting review would have had no benefit to any other member of society than those born with a title.
Guess meghan will have to get her own coffee now than sending out a tax payer funded highly paid RPO to do so.

@twinklystar23 Harry himself said that he told Meghan there was no way their security would ever be removed.
Delusional fool.

Harry seems to operate on the 'because I say so it's true' principle.

Oh yes, this rings bells with me too. Very similar.

MrsDanversGlidesAgain

Harry seems to operate on the 'because I say so it's true' principle.

Yes. The
There’s just as much truth in what I remember and how I remember it as there is in so-called objective facts’.
principle.

I don't know what "so-called objective facts" means.
Facts are factual. "Objective" is not the same as "subjective".
I was convinced the other day that Eastenders started in 1980 because I absolutely believed I was living in a particular place when I saw the first episode.
The "objective fact" is that I was wrong.
Annoyingly.

For what it's worth, I support Harrys right to bring a judicial review. Though i think his case was crap and with little merit based on the defendants case. The issue is ALL citizens should have access to legal redress or JR and who has that sort of money which means the right to challenge is only for the privileged few who can pay.

Fair enough. He's a British citizen and has the same access to the legal system as anyone else.

But given that his case was defeated pretty comprehensively, he should also be obliged to pay all the associated costs promptly. This was public money he wasted on his little vanity case.

It makes sense he is challenging the UK as I think as a family that is where there chances of having full security reinstated were far more likely than Meghan applying as a US citizen for state funded security in America. Their hope being that IPP status would be reinstated and would therefore mean they would receive this in the US, thereby reducing or removing their need to pay themselves. Also the "status" this would afford them amongst the elites

IPP status is an outcome of having senior diplomatic status. Not the other way round. It's not something that can be 'reinstated' at the decision of a court.

Yes I agree that it wasn’t a “no” to security. What I meant was more a “no” to the monarchy being able to tell RAVEC to implement security whenever Harry felt like he needed it.
I firmly believe that Harry’s (and also I think, Meghan’s) “security” problem is more to do with being unable to control the press narrative than any actual danger they may be in. Which is why they happily trotted off to Nigeria.
I also agree with @MaturingCheeseball ’s point about the optics of Windsor being totally acceptable to Meghan. I’m sure if they had been offered to stay there they would have come out with something along the lines of “putting security concerns aside in order to spend time with the King”. Especially as she felt “safe”at Heathrow

But he would have had his own security, as he did in the hotel, for the going out and about.

but staying at St James with his own security for outside trips would have made it
much more possible for a ‘Come now! I’ve squeezed an hour free!’ visit with his dad ACROSS THE ROAD at Clarence House

I think the bit about the Royal residence having a “public” entrance “in full view “ is very telling. Harry didn’t want to hide because he isn’t safe, but because he can’t control the narrative or get his Netflix exclusives that way

typo

Well yes; he's effectively said so in his "curated memories/objective truth" statement, and that's from his own mouth rather than some media spin

Speaking of which, I don't think we actually know whether Charles offered a place to stay and that "He's too busy to see me" is therefore a lie?
I could easily believe he lied - after all he does it so often - but isn't it just another article quoting "sources"?

The Telegraph article was by Victoria Ward . Is she not sympathetic to H and M ? Did she not post a photo standing on the monogrammed (!)doormat ? Or am I mixing her up with someone else ?

He's just a big self absorbed Jessie!

I honestly don't know, Mylovelygreendress; I've never heard of her

If she's in someone's "camp", though, I'd have thought that a motivation to make up whatever suited - something which folk do all the time, though I've no way of knowing that's what's been done here

It just occurred to me that the palace have kept almost completely schtum over H&M, so I wondered how anyone was supposed to know what Harry had been offered during his visit