Harry and RAVEC #2

[Baital]

To continue...

Sky have interviewed someone who is talking some sense about Harry’s view of risk.
Jack Royston, chief royal correspondent at Newsweek, described it as "very jaw-dropping" and points out that the duke said he doesn't know how long his father has to live.
"It is such a different line than we're getting from the Palace at the moment," he said.
"The Palace have been very positive, not just with the things they've been saying, but with the whole mood."
Royston said the way in which Prince Harry delivered that line "does invite speculation that the King might be running out of time".
Turning to today's events which saw the duke lose his Court of Appeal case over UK security, Royston said Prince Harry has a "very binary" view of risk.
"He views it as if he has a police protection team standing alongside him, then he's safe," he said.
"If he does not, then he is facing an intolerable level of danger. I think in reality, risk is a much more nuanced thing than that."

Good points. I read a very good article by JR Mohringer, the ghost writer, and it was a challenging job. Harry was not one for objective truth and he worked "at a glacial pace".
I think there are many layered problems here and it's not the key to a happy life.

The interviewer is based in New York. They will have sent her as the nearest to California. Such a missed opportunity, BBC.

Thy could have had a constitutional expert in the studio - or on Zoom - with a journalist who did actually know what they were talking about, to provide some commentary after the interview.

Frankly it's the same with most experts that the MSM roll out these days, not just matters Royal.

They want somebody on their speed dial who is presentable and has the gift of the gab. Actual deep expertise is often a secondary consideration

Sean Coughlan, for example, the BBC Royal correspondent. Obviously! What we don't know is how much influence Harry had in picking the interviewer.

Pretty much all the comments I've seen on Sky, BBC, ITV news clips about the interview on TikTok have been saying pretty much what we have.

He chose to leave.
He gets security in the UK already.
He should stay in a Royal Palace as invited by his father.
He should put in his hand in his own pocket and pay for extra private security if he wants it.
He's travelled to Ukraine and Columbia.
He's paranoid

Oh yes, it's well known that the quality of the legal advice on offer in the UK is sensitively dependent on whether the leading barrister feels the appellant's or defendant's children are gorgeous enough.

Habeus status influentiae. Insta Law 101.

However by being poor or offering up any questioning it allowed harry to speak without caution. I havent seen it, just catching up here. Harry like Andrew likes the sound of his own voice and gets a bit carried away when unchecked, silence is assumed agreement. I am shocked at some of the stuff reported here he has said, laying the blame squarely at his families feet, he takes no responsibility at all. I dont see any coming back after that interview. Its sad that he just keeps compounding his errors, he digs right in expecting his family to fold. I dont know if its utter arrogance, stupidity or what.

Did the BBC pay him for the interview?

His paranoia is now exactly like Diana's when she was in the throes of leaving the royal family (by divorce).

It will feel like an establishment stitch up, because it is, and with just cause. The establishment is there to protect itself, so that it can protect society in the UK (at least that's what the establishment tells everyone it does, but that's a different conversation for another day), and not specific individuals like Diana and Harry. There's a price to pay for everything: if you're in, you get privileges for your various 'deprivations'. If you're out, you're free to do as you please but you won't be getting any more handouts. Going from in to out can't be a pleasant experience.

Diana and Harry will both have been denied access to information, both have been on the receiving end of diktats that they couldn't question or challenge, kept in the dark about various things etc, all by the men in grey suits who were working for "them", protecting the people who are still in. When TLQ said no half-in/half-out, this is why: you can't know some stuff but not all, have some protection but not all, play by some rules but not all. You compromise everything by doing that, you're rocking the boat and upsetting the priorities of a well-oiled machine. So, if you're not in, you're entirely out - and that will feel like a premeditated stitch-up to those on the receiving end. Harry and Diana will both have felt manipulated into a corner, which best suits the establishment and will be at their expense.

So I think Harry gets this part of it - his personal, selfish, teeny tiny part of it - quite well. The rest is just him digging himself deeper into his own grave (hopefully not literally!). I can't believe he thinks his two "tours" in Aghanistan puts him on the same security footing as ex-PMs who have blood on their hands for having declared war resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. I have sympathy with "I didn't choose this, I was born into it" but what nobody has time for is him not weighing that up with all the privileges which he was born to and which just aren't enough for him. As anyone on MN would tell him: our children are special to us and their grandparents, but really not at all to anyone else.

I haven't read the thread but why on earth doesn't he just pay for his own security?

I wonder if this will be a similar situation to the Oprah interview. The initial press reaction was very soft soap, believe everything they say type thing. Within a couple of days, the lies were being spelt out in the press. I think there is a long game afoot however I am still horrified that the unwashed British public understand Harry's security position better than the BBC, ITV, Sky and Harry himself.

I'm pleased that BP issued a statement. Normally I'm for the grey rock, but this is their "opinions may vary" post. It's a good factual, no emotion statement.

Dh served in Bosnia and Iraq. When do we get our cavalcade?

I would LOVE this question to be put to Harry.

Because he doesn't want to.

As I thought yesterday Twitter's Sussex supporters have gone from Charles has not got the power to remove titles to Charles is a heartless father who suddenly has got the power to overrule the government.

😂😂
Logic isn't their strong point!

We could (re)name our houses 'Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' so we can slide it seamlessly into the address line, under the AI-generated coronet.

H implied that he can only come to the uk and get security if he is invited. Is this true, would he get security if , for example, he came to visit a friend ?

Emily Maitliss doesn't need to worry...

(even if she hadn't left the BBC!)

I dont think he has many friends to visit these days. The crash and burn scorched earth of the last 2 years is not easily tolerated in his old circle of buddies, most of whom know his family.

Whenever he is in the UK, he and his dependents get taxpayer funded security. However, he has to give notice, and it is assessed on a needs basis, ie not automatically armed protection at a level similar to the King. Which is what he wants.

Late to this party and while I'm sure there are other standouts, the ones for me were that the 'other side' (lizards?) has apparently 'won' and that this unelected royal tool is daring to call for elected top level government officials (PM and Home Secretary) to intervene.

Has no-one told him royal TV interviews never end well?!

I think my favourite bit was when he said he had been serving the public for 35 years. Really?

Too arrogant.