Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Harry's new interview

1000 replies

Viviennemary · 02/05/2025 17:49

Harry has just given an interview quite a long one. I only heard a snippet and i'm totally incensed. Harry has said he doesn't know how long Charles has left. Who says that on TV for the whole nation to hear. What is the matter with the man. He is an absolute disgrace.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
Greenartywitch · 02/05/2025 19:31

Whiny, self-centred, arrogant, attention-seeking, dim and a complete waste of space.

Helloworlditsmeagain · 02/05/2025 19:32

viques · 02/05/2025 19:21

To be fair, Charles did stick to the same mistress during his first marriage, whereas Diana had a series of lovers …….

She was stuck in a loveless marriage in the royal family all eyes were on her. If her husband showed her love she wouldn't have cheated. She was faithful to Dodi Fayed and made her feel loved. Diana was the nations favourite in the 80's and 90's. She was popular and the press wanted a piece of her until a tragic accident happened.

2024onwardsandup · 02/05/2025 19:32

Serenster · 02/05/2025 19:31

That’s not my understanding of how he’s explaining it

Yes, you see this is the problem - you are relying on Harry’s account of what is happening. The judgment will be more helpful - it’s factual. 😀

What does the judgement say about it? I have opened it but not read it

EsmaCannonball · 02/05/2025 19:32

notgettinganyyounger · 02/05/2025 19:16

Does Al queda only want to kill him while in the UK? I know spelling wrong! But surely they know where he is, living freely doing the school run and mooching around the beach, but no threat there?

Yes, Islamist terrorism is less common in the US but it still happens. In some ways, it would be easier for terrorists to target Harry in the US (access to weapons, etc.) than in the UK.

There are other celebrities who face very specific threats but they manage to fund their own security.

Also, can you imagine if a terrorist got the opportunity to kill a non-working royal, say Eugenie or Zara, they'd say, 'No, we'll wait until we can target Harry'?

It also has to be remembered that Harry has been offered royal accommodation on his visits to the UK but has opted to stay in hotels. Either he is not that concerned about his security or he is so petty he is willing to risk his life just to make some kind of spiteful point to his family.

EdithBond · 02/05/2025 19:33

EsmaCannonball · 02/05/2025 19:06

I'm really tickled by the idea of Harry needing a secure line to speak to his father. He'd probably have Oprah, Netflix and People Magazine listening in on the bedroom extension.

He really has no idea why his family are wary of private conversations with him, does he? He's soooo dim.

Ha! And Omid Scobie.

Someone’s clarified it, actually. I should have realised. KC3 can’t talk to him during the legal challenge as Harry’s case is against the Crown. I think that’s what he may have meant. So I guess it depends if he appeals the decision.

RipleyJones · 02/05/2025 19:33

BrieHugger · 02/05/2025 19:25

I’m always wary of a person who’s a common denominator in fall outs, and it’s odd that both M&H have lost touch with almost all their family along with several besties.

I quite liked both of them until all this, but I’m a big believer in “least said, soonest mended” and they’ve blown that right out of the water.

Yes. When they got married she had only one family member there. Which was weird. He had all of his family there, loads of them.

At such an event today - he’d have no family there, maybe one.

Shocking how she’s isolated him from his family. With his help. If it was a man doing this to a woman it’d be more easily called domestic abuse.

2024onwardsandup · 02/05/2025 19:34

EsmaCannonball · 02/05/2025 19:32

Yes, Islamist terrorism is less common in the US but it still happens. In some ways, it would be easier for terrorists to target Harry in the US (access to weapons, etc.) than in the UK.

There are other celebrities who face very specific threats but they manage to fund their own security.

Also, can you imagine if a terrorist got the opportunity to kill a non-working royal, say Eugenie or Zara, they'd say, 'No, we'll wait until we can target Harry'?

It also has to be remembered that Harry has been offered royal accommodation on his visits to the UK but has opted to stay in hotels. Either he is not that concerned about his security or he is so petty he is willing to risk his life just to make some kind of spiteful point to his family.

He made the point that other celebrities do get state funded security in the UK because of the risk of reputation if something does happen to them here

tjar sounds quite plausible to me

IcedPurple · 02/05/2025 19:34

2024onwardsandup · 02/05/2025 19:30

That’s not my understanding of how he’s explaining it. He’s saying that he is NOT getting ongoing risk assessments - last one done in 2019. And his security depends on whether he is invited by the royal family or he comes for another reason (at which point it’s a lot lower).

he is also saying that this is different to PMs - who get security regardless of risk assessments and other high profile figures

i have no knowledge obvs if what he is saying is correct. But that’s what he is saying is the situation.

Do you believe RAVEC were lying when they said otherwise? In a court of law?

Baital · 02/05/2025 19:34

2024onwardsandup · 02/05/2025 19:30

Hes saying he only gets security in the UK if there is a “royal obligation” for him to be here

My understanding from the court cases (not as easy to spin as a sycophantic interview) is that if he gives 30 days notice of his visit then the risk will be reviewed and security provided in line with the risk.

I assume that security is also linked to taking advice to minimise the risk e.g. stay in a royal residence where there is 24/7 security anyway, if he chooses to ignore that and stay in a hotel then security is his responsibility. That would be fair.

PigglyWigglyOhYeah · 02/05/2025 19:35

She was faithful to Dodi Fayed

She only went out with him for about ten minutes, and also used Harry and William to manipulate the press during that time. You really don’t know what you are talking about. Ask Julia Carling.

BrieHugger · 02/05/2025 19:35

Helloworlditsmeagain · 02/05/2025 19:32

She was stuck in a loveless marriage in the royal family all eyes were on her. If her husband showed her love she wouldn't have cheated. She was faithful to Dodi Fayed and made her feel loved. Diana was the nations favourite in the 80's and 90's. She was popular and the press wanted a piece of her until a tragic accident happened.

She’s been martyred. I honestly don’t think she’d be so adored if she was still alive.

IcedPurple · 02/05/2025 19:35

2024onwardsandup · 02/05/2025 19:34

He made the point that other celebrities do get state funded security in the UK because of the risk of reputation if something does happen to them here

tjar sounds quite plausible to me

"Other celebrities" very rarely get state funded security, and will only get it if there is a credible threat to their safety.

The same is the case for Harry. He really does not have a reasonable argument at all.

2024onwardsandup · 02/05/2025 19:36

IcedPurple · 02/05/2025 19:34

Do you believe RAVEC were lying when they said otherwise? In a court of law?

Did Ravec say that the things he said here were incorrect?

I mean they’re pretty basic questions of fact - yes or no these th lings do or did not happen

JustGotToKeepOnKeepingOn · 02/05/2025 19:36

Every time he opens his mouth I just cringe for him.

RipleyJones · 02/05/2025 19:37

BrieHugger · 02/05/2025 19:35

She’s been martyred. I honestly don’t think she’d be so adored if she was still alive.

Of course not. Old and wrinkly past middle aged women hold no value to the media.

Baital · 02/05/2025 19:37

2024onwardsandup · 02/05/2025 19:34

He made the point that other celebrities do get state funded security in the UK because of the risk of reputation if something does happen to them here

tjar sounds quite plausible to me

In specific situations, I am sure it does. The recent terrorist threats to Taylor Swift, for example. She would usually manage with her own security, but given the threat was provided with additional, state funded security. That doesn't mean she will get that every visit.

Serenster · 02/05/2025 19:38

he is also saying that this is different to PMs - who get security regardless of risk assessments and other high profile figures

Yes, this is true. And also entirely logical.

Ex-prime ministers and probably other politicians (we aren’t told who, for obvious reasons) do get security, likely for life, after the leave office. They have actual political power in their roles, and will have made decisions and committed the UK to actions that will have made them domestic and international enemies. Plus we know very well that people target, and murder, politicians. They have a higher risk profile than other people in public life - but still, they don’t all get protected.

Ordinary citizens (like Salman Rushdie) exceptionally qualify for public security because they face an extraordinary level of threat. Generally though, members of the public don’t get protected even if there are credible threats against them, from ex-partners for example.

Members of the Royal Family also face a threat because of their role, but from the level of security that we can observe they are given, we can deduce that the view is that the sovereign, those in the direct line of succession, and those undertaking public royal engagements face the highest ever of threat. If they are not in those categories, they don’t get protection.

Helloworlditsmeagain · 02/05/2025 19:38

BrieHugger · 02/05/2025 19:35

She’s been martyred. I honestly don’t think she’d be so adored if she was still alive.

I cried when she died

2024onwardsandup · 02/05/2025 19:39

Baital · 02/05/2025 19:34

My understanding from the court cases (not as easy to spin as a sycophantic interview) is that if he gives 30 days notice of his visit then the risk will be reviewed and security provided in line with the risk.

I assume that security is also linked to taking advice to minimise the risk e.g. stay in a royal residence where there is 24/7 security anyway, if he chooses to ignore that and stay in a hotel then security is his responsibility. That would be fair.

Yeah I do wonder if part of the problem is that he is basically just very stupid. But he would have talked through these basic points a gazillion times with very smart people. So I’d be surprised he got these really basic questions of fact completely wrong.

but then again I’ve just watched the bit where it’s seems he’s only just found out about the royal
prerogative 😂😂

EsmaCannonball · 02/05/2025 19:39

sualipa · 02/05/2025 19:21

Harry is more human than all these stuffed suits will ever be with their protocols and made up stuff.

He's just appeared on the BBC News saying that the monarch should be able to overrule politicians on how taxes are spent. Such a man of the people.

IcedPurple · 02/05/2025 19:41

2024onwardsandup · 02/05/2025 19:36

Did Ravec say that the things he said here were incorrect?

I mean they’re pretty basic questions of fact - yes or no these th lings do or did not happen

RAVEC don't respond to interviews, but their lawyer said that Harry has a special arrangement whereby his security needs are under continual review and his needs will be assessed on a case by case basis. Provided he cooperate with them, any appropriate security will be provided.

Obviously they aren't going to discuss the details of security arrangements in public. It's extremely irresponsible of Harry to do so.

Baital · 02/05/2025 19:41

Helloworlditsmeagain · 02/05/2025 19:38

I cried when she died

Why?

Did you know her personally?

JoyousEagle · 02/05/2025 19:42

2024onwardsandup · 02/05/2025 19:26

i mean he’s a dickhead - but I agree with him. He has risks because he was born into the family - just because he leaves the royal family does not mean - in itself - that these risks disappear.

they may reduce - but there should be an ongoing assessment of risks to him. And also a consideration of costs when he may make choices to travel etc.

ie it is reasonable that he has risk assessments and gets security on the basis of those assessments

just because he is a total and utter wanker does not mean that he should be at higher risk because he was born into the royal family

Having risk assessments and getting security on the basis of those assessments is exactly the current situation that he isn’t happy with.

EsmaCannonball · 02/05/2025 19:43

What do you think he will do to try to earn a fatwa?

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.