Harry and RAVEC #2

[Baital]

To continue...

No. His bubble is himself and his wife.

What was he hoping to gain from that interview?

If it was reconciliation with his family then all he’s done is give multiple more reasons why they should keep their distance.

Can only assume he’s playing for the US audience again.

Good thing RAVEC have assured Harry that security will be provided if intelligence assessments deem it necessary, isn't it?

And such assessments are based on current risk profiles. Not what happened 7 years ago.

Well, if he’s said he won’t bring the children over here that’ll suit Meghan nicely. She can carry on metaphorically and literally hanging on his arm, milking her so-called Royal status for all its worth, knowing that he’s very unlikely to come to the UK other than for fleeting visits.
it’s honesty about time Harry either got given a slap and told to grow up or is made to get some serious therapy.
His life must be utterly miserable with him stuck in a never ending cycle of trying to blame anyone for anything including his mother’s death and his incessant self-pity.

That was a very soft interview and I still think he failed to argue a convincing case for changing the security he currently has.

Meanwhile we call it vexatious!

It also demonstrates just what a loose cannon he is and why the royal family are wise to limit contact; goodness knows what further damage he could do.

The completely astonishing aspect for me was his belief that he was forced to leave the family. We all read the Sussex Royal statement, we all know the late Queen gave them a year to reconsider their decision. To claim security was removed to make them stay and then they had to leave is delusional.

I think he quite purposefully muddied the water between taxpayer funded protection for non-royals (politicians and general members of the public like Salman Rushdie) to claim it’s all just so unfair because he can’t make a better argument just focussing on others in his family (many of whom we know were also born into the role but don’t have security unless they are working, or at all)

How pissed must Nigel Farage be at being pushed off the top of the news. I thoroughly dislike the man, but at least he's in the position he is through (vile) competence.

As a taxpayer, I understand that Farage will face threats that require protection, of course. Unlike Harry, he's taken a milkshake to the face.

Are you sure about that? I see Theresa May in Waitrose and her security are definitely there but certainly a bit more inconspicuous than they used to be when she was PM.

In fairness he provides a lot of light entertainment for the masses .

@SerensterI'm not sure what you think but I tend to believe that the fact he gave this interview is evidence he has been told that he won't win an appeal to the Supreme Court.

I agree but I don't think it's a convincing argument and I doubt it will convince many.

I don't understand why, if Haz wants to bring the fam over for a summer holiday in Norfolk for eg, Wills can't send a car to pick them up from the airport, just as he likely would with any guest, and they can spend a couple of weeks at lovely, secluded Anmer with their cousins. There they will have all the protection afforded them courtesy of the PoW. It's almost like he's looking for an excuse not to 'reconcile'....

Also, ex PMs will have protection because they have spent a career making politically sensitive, national and global decisions. Not because they are 'mobbed by fans wanting a selfie' (his last 'security scare' at Invictus)

If there was no representative from the Royal Household, he'd say that was unfair as his interests weren't represented!

Two different people - two different risk assessments. Maybe May has had threats against her?

Edit: or maybe two different times? So more recent threats. More likely than my above message 😂tempted to delete the above to hide my stupidity. I didn't notice they were both "she".

Oh, I think he has accepted that there is no point in trying to appeal this any further - I am fairly sure the advice would have been very clear on this.

On the “you can’t leave the royal family and if you do you won’t get security” - presumably if he and Meghan had stopped being working royals and continued to live at Frogmore Cottage they would have been on a police-protected estate. If they did anything with his father and brother they would have security because the King and Charles do. If RAVEC determined there was any particular threat to them, they would have security. So that’s not true. What he wanted was his cake and to eat it - leave the UK but still have all his former security.

Last time I saw her, she was dropped off by a very official looking car at the entrance and she wandered in by herself. Maybe there was something low key but it was massively different to when she was PM and Home Secretary. I actually see her a lot less than she was in office. I suspect she is doing a lot of travelling.

I think the BBC might be surprised at the backlash to this interview that awaits. A bit like a certain Supreme Court decision of the past fortnight iykwim ... the BBC seem forever on the back foot with how most ordinary people in the UK feel about things.

William and Kate would not want Harry anywhere near them or their children. He's a security threat.

And yes, PM's get lifelong protection as a matter of national security. Harry just isn't that important.

There was a lot of emotional blackmail in that interview.

This. He's spitting blood because he believes he's being treated differently and doesn't want to admit that quitting the RF made him different. Tough.

For me this was 50% about principle and 50% about guns. His private security won't get clearance to be armed and he wants the 'VIP' treatment. Tough.

😂

I'm kind of surprised that they let all that criticism of the King go unchallenged though.

I'm now looking at Sky News and the 'royal historian' seems to be saying that Charles could change the security decision. How can a 'royal historian' not know that a Constitutional Monarch cannot get involved in court judgements and the workings of government departments?