Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
The royal family
Original poster

What Does Harry Verdict Mean?

82 replies

OtherS · 02/05/2025 22:46

Sorry if this is a bit dim, but I've not been following the security hoo-ha terribly closely so not sure I have it right... My understanding is that Harry (and his US family) will remain eligible for security if it is deemed necessary. And as he is so very unpopular in the UK, I would guess it would be considered necessary if he ever chooses to grace us with his presence. I don't really see that Charles, or anyone else, wants him to be mobbed or attacked - imagine the headlines if he were!

So how are things different for him now? He just has to tell us he's coming and we'll have a set of scary bodyguards waiting to protect his life and limb as soon as he touches down. Is all this because he begrudges having to announce his plans in advance and instead expects the (taxpayer-funded) bodyguards to be sitting around 24/7 twiddling their thumbs, just in case he wants to pop over on a whim?

OP posts:
MayaKovskaya · 04/05/2025 08:54

Three judges looked at it and there was a ruling. It was a judicial review on points of law. Harry lost, not because they're picking on him, not because they want him to die, but because his "grievance" wasn't grounds to challenge.
It's not to do with personality and emotion, the Home Office and security services have a job to do, it doesn't matter how petulant an appellant gets.

smilesy · 04/05/2025 09:01

JonHammsHam · 04/05/2025 08:49

The committee's then-chair Sir Richard Mottram made that decision without carrying out a full review into threats Prince Harry faced at the time - but the Court of Appeal concluded he had done so for "sensible" reasons, and that a review would not have changed the outcome.
Prince Harry said his "jaw hit the floor" when he learned a representative of the Royal Household sits on the Ravec committee, and claimed that allowed it to exercise influence over what security members of the Royal Family get.
Prince Harry claimed Sir Richard "abandoned" a full review of his security arrangements after speaking to the Royal Household.

I totally agree with the court decision but I’d be interested to know if others think he had a point here? They say a review wouldn’t have affected the outcome but if Sir RM had planned on doing one but the Royal Household persuaded him not to, I don’t think that reflects well on either of them. I know Harry’s not exactly reliable on facts but he does know the palace staff and what goes on.

Harry “claims” lots of things though, but as pp have said, the judge, although sympathetic to his feelings, found that RAVEC’s actions were within the law. Feelings are not a basis for legality.

The basic issue is that what Harry wants doesn’t make sense, unless he is trying to prove that he should have IPP status 🤷‍♀️

Rummly · 04/05/2025 09:33

JonHammsHam · 04/05/2025 08:49

The committee's then-chair Sir Richard Mottram made that decision without carrying out a full review into threats Prince Harry faced at the time - but the Court of Appeal concluded he had done so for "sensible" reasons, and that a review would not have changed the outcome.
Prince Harry said his "jaw hit the floor" when he learned a representative of the Royal Household sits on the Ravec committee, and claimed that allowed it to exercise influence over what security members of the Royal Family get.
Prince Harry claimed Sir Richard "abandoned" a full review of his security arrangements after speaking to the Royal Household.

I totally agree with the court decision but I’d be interested to know if others think he had a point here? They say a review wouldn’t have affected the outcome but if Sir RM had planned on doing one but the Royal Household persuaded him not to, I don’t think that reflects well on either of them. I know Harry’s not exactly reliable on facts but he does know the palace staff and what goes on.

I don’t understand Harry’s logic here.

If a representative of the RF has input, that’s in the RF’s - and his - interests, isn’t it? He’d positively want that wouldn’t he?

Unless he’s saying that the RF despise him, don’t care about his safety and would argue against him having security. That could be true, I suppose, but it’s a weird argument to make.

Any family would find a self-indulgent whining bore a pain in the arse. But they wouldn’t wish harm on them.

Calliopespa · 04/05/2025 09:37

Enough4me · 03/05/2025 00:52

Things dont add up. If they want privacy and peace, and stopped at 2DCs due to climate concerns, they won't feel the need to travel to the UK?
They can Zoom/FaceTime the family & friends who are still talking to them.
All the money wasted on the court cases could have gone to the many charities they support.

That’s being a bit disingenuous to be fair.
There is a big difference in travelling to a country and zooming someone there.

But provided they are protected when here, I can’t see the problem anyway.

Theunamedcat · 04/05/2025 09:42

merrymelody · 03/05/2025 20:43

What makes him believe he’s such a target? Has he been threatened? Or is he just incredibly self-important?

He claims in 2020 he was the most at risk royal more of a target than the actual Queen

I would really like to see the proof on that one

MayaKovskaya · 04/05/2025 09:43

Theunamedcat · 04/05/2025 09:42

He claims in 2020 he was the most at risk royal more of a target than the actual Queen

I would really like to see the proof on that one

Show quote history

He has no idea. As if everyone's risk assessment would be shared with someone like Harry! (Or anyone, these people are professionals)

MargaretThursday · 04/05/2025 09:49

MayaKovskaya · 04/05/2025 09:43

He has no idea. As if everyone's risk assessment would be shared with someone like Harry! (Or anyone, these people are professionals)

Edited
Show quote history

It said in the notes that they don't share the risk level generally with anyone, even the target.
So even if for some reason they had shared with him, then they certainly wouldn't have shared the Queen's with him so it's clearly made up.

He's doing his usual thing of throwing out things that look like facts, knowing that due to other people sticking to protocol and their integrity, they won't be contradicted.

MayaKovskaya · 04/05/2025 09:51

MargaretThursday · 04/05/2025 09:49

It said in the notes that they don't share the risk level generally with anyone, even the target.
So even if for some reason they had shared with him, then they certainly wouldn't have shared the Queen's with him so it's clearly made up.

He's doing his usual thing of throwing out things that look like facts, knowing that due to other people sticking to protocol and their integrity, they won't be contradicted.

Show quote history

He's shameless.

Original poster
OtherS · 04/05/2025 10:01

Serenster · 04/05/2025 08:22

I can't believe he's seriously requesting we fund his security overseas, how could that even work? Even if we were happy to send a load of cops away when we're suffering quite the shortage, we can hardly demand the US allows our police to operate over there - I don't imagine we let other countries' armed guards come here and start shooting at our citizens, so why would the US let us do that there? Or is he expecting us to demand that Trump organises some security for him?! Or does he want us pay to fund his private bodyguards over there, in the country he's chose to live, a long way from the protection we already fund for the RF...? Make it make sense!!

Harry isn’t I don’t think suggesting the British taxpayer funds his security overseas. What he wants is the status back of having police protection 24/7 deemed necessary for him in the UK due to his being the King’s son. That would be akin to him being regarded by the UK State as an “Internationally Protected Person” or IPP. IPPs - heads of state, senior diplomats - are recognised by international treaties and all states have to provide them with security at the state’s expense if an IPP is in their country.

When Harry and Meghan first announced they were leaving, they said on their website that as they were IPPs, the current arrangements (the host state pays for security) would remain in place. They were swiftly told that this would be no longer be the case, however, and the website was changed. Meghan and Harry have since then had to pay for private security unless the country they are visiting (like Nigeria and Colombia) decide to provide it on their visit. So this is all about money - presumably the security bill is becoming unaffordable, and Harry wants the court to give him his IPP status back.

(And so the British government haven’t told the rest of the world not to protect Harry - that is ridiculous. What he is saying is that by not giving him the 24/7 protection that goes along with IPP status they are sending a signal that he shouldn’t be treated as an IPP by anyone else. That’s what he’s angry about.)

Edited

Oh wow, so he really is basically asking that we make Trump give him free security?! That's crazy - I thought he was just asking for fulltime security to be on tap here in the UK, which already seemed pretty unreasonable. He really does live in his own weird little world, doesn't he!

OP posts:
Enough4me · 04/05/2025 20:07

Calliopespa · 04/05/2025 09:37

That’s being a bit disingenuous to be fair.
There is a big difference in travelling to a country and zooming someone there.

But provided they are protected when here, I can’t see the problem anyway.

Show quote history

Is it genuine to ask for peace and say you will stop at one DC for the sake of the environment and then constantly publicly trash your family and jump on planes?
His family aren't inviting him over...wonder why?

IcedPurple · 24/05/2025 13:48

TheAutumnCrow · 24/05/2025 13:42

Doesn't look like Harry is attempting to appeal.

Interesting piece from the BBC.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyn7wykqq4o

David Sherborne must have told him that even he wouldn't be prepared to attempt a Supreme Court appeal. Also, Harry's legal costs must be astronomical as not only will he be on the hook for Sherborne's hair gel, but for the Home Office costs as well. We're talking hundreds of thousands, even if he gets to wiggle out of paying some of it.

His attempts to get the government involved are pathetic. As if Yvette Cooper didn't have better things to worry about than the failed hissy fit of the exiled 5th in line.

smilesy · 24/05/2025 13:51

TheAutumnCrow · 24/05/2025 13:42

Doesn't look like Harry is attempting to appeal.

Interesting piece from the BBC.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyn7wykqq4o

Yes, I was just reading this. It gives a very good breakdown of all the issues and the legal arguments and also explains quite clearly how and why RAVEC comes to its decisions.
I’m also a bit curious as to why this article has appeared today. Slow news or is something afoot 🤷‍♀️

eta. Meant to say that it makes a clear distinction between what is assessed to be an actual threat and Harry’s complaints about paps. RAVEC are quite obviously not on the business of providing security to deter photographers that Harry finds not to his liking

IdaGlossop · 24/05/2025 14:03

smilesy · 24/05/2025 13:51

Yes, I was just reading this. It gives a very good breakdown of all the issues and the legal arguments and also explains quite clearly how and why RAVEC comes to its decisions.
I’m also a bit curious as to why this article has appeared today. Slow news or is something afoot 🤷‍♀️

eta. Meant to say that it makes a clear distinction between what is assessed to be an actual threat and Harry’s complaints about paps. RAVEC are quite obviously not on the business of providing security to deter photographers that Harry finds not to his liking

Edited
Show quote history

I detect conversations between the BBC, Home Office and Buckkingham Palace to support the BBC in writing a sober, factual article in reparation for its lack of balance in allowing H to rant after the Appeal Court verdict. Behind the sober sentences is an unflattering portrait of H as reckless and dim, providing yet more evidence that institution always comes before family when the going gets tough. On this reading, H is a rogue operator thrown overboard to save the rest of the passengers.

Edited for typo

IdaGlossop · 24/05/2025 14:15

smilesy · 04/05/2025 09:01

Harry “claims” lots of things though, but as pp have said, the judge, although sympathetic to his feelings, found that RAVEC’s actions were within the law. Feelings are not a basis for legality.

The basic issue is that what Harry wants doesn’t make sense, unless he is trying to prove that he should have IPP status 🤷‍♀️

Show quote history

My understanding is that Harry argued that RAVEC had treated him unfairly because it hadn't conducted the same risk assessment for him as it had done for other VIPs. However, the RAVEC chair, Sir Richard Mottram, commissioned three separate, bespoke risk assessments for Harry because his case was completely different to any other the committee had considered. Only Harry could argue that 'bespoke' means 'inferior'.

smilesy · 24/05/2025 14:21

IdaGlossop · 24/05/2025 14:03

I detect conversations between the BBC, Home Office and Buckkingham Palace to support the BBC in writing a sober, factual article in reparation for its lack of balance in allowing H to rant after the Appeal Court verdict. Behind the sober sentences is an unflattering portrait of H as reckless and dim, providing yet more evidence that institution always comes before family when the going gets tough. On this reading, H is a rogue operator thrown overboard to save the rest of the passengers.

Edited for typo

Edited
Show quote history

When the going gets tough for who? Why would the palace want to support the BBC on getting out of a hole?

IdaGlossop · 24/05/2025 14:29

smilesy · 24/05/2025 14:21

When the going gets tough for who? Why would the palace want to support the BBC on getting out of a hole?

Show quote history

When the going gets tough for the Royals and the institution, in this case suggesting there are people who wish him and his family harm. I'm not saying the Royal family want to support the BBC to get out of a hole. I'm saying that they have negotiated with the BBC for theirs and RAVEC's side of the story to be published to provide the balance lacking when Harry was interviewed by an American journalist whose approach was not balanced.

smilesy · 24/05/2025 14:46

IdaGlossop · 24/05/2025 14:29

When the going gets tough for the Royals and the institution, in this case suggesting there are people who wish him and his family harm. I'm not saying the Royal family want to support the BBC to get out of a hole. I'm saying that they have negotiated with the BBC for theirs and RAVEC's side of the story to be published to provide the balance lacking when Harry was interviewed by an American journalist whose approach was not balanced.

Show quote history

Oh I see. That wasn’t what I had understood. Yes. I suppose it is mutually beneficial to the palace and the BBC to allow the BBC to rectify its rather one sided portrayal of the situation and also to allow the palace to show why they are exasperated with Harry’s version of events. It also makes it clear that the security decision lies with the home office and not the palace, and that there are budgetary considerations. Harry really doesn’t seem to have any concept that resources are finite 😆

IdaGlossop · 24/05/2025 14:50

smilesy · 24/05/2025 14:46

Oh I see. That wasn’t what I had understood. Yes. I suppose it is mutually beneficial to the palace and the BBC to allow the BBC to rectify its rather one sided portrayal of the situation and also to allow the palace to show why they are exasperated with Harry’s version of events. It also makes it clear that the security decision lies with the home office and not the palace, and that there are budgetary considerations. Harry really doesn’t seem to have any concept that resources are finite 😆

Show quote history

My original post should have been clearer 😀 Today's article puts the record straight for the palace without quoting any palace spokespeople. A win for them, and timed two weeks after the Harry interview so it doesn't look like a knee-jerk reaction.

MrsLeonFarrell · 24/05/2025 17:01

From that article it appears that Harry's argument is basically

Don't you know who I am?

TheAutumnCrow · 24/05/2025 17:08

IdaGlossop · 24/05/2025 14:50

My original post should have been clearer 😀 Today's article puts the record straight for the palace without quoting any palace spokespeople. A win for them, and timed two weeks after the Harry interview so it doesn't look like a knee-jerk reaction.

Show quote history

I'm glad you observed that.

I read the article twice and was struck by how different the tone was. In this narrative, Harry is no longer the controlling hero of his own story, setting the pace and in charge of the Dobly knob marked 'sound and histrionics'

In this piece he is, like all of us would presumably be, reported on and portrayed as the subject of a piece of news, in an analytical manner.

About time.

TheAutumnCrow · 24/05/2025 18:46

Oh wowser. Who does this remind me of?

'As much as it is painful for both sides, my wife Kelsey and I remain open to reconciliation with my parents. Privately we have made this clear to Lord and Lady Hertford.'

Very rich titled couple fall out with the uber rich, more titled parents, lose court case, and are ‘open to reconciliation’ to pay the school fees. Meanwhile they’re reduced to picking blossoms. The Mail Online cannot be immune to the parallel …
__
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14745569/Countess-Yarmouth-reveals-worried-childrens-school-fees-disinherited.html

bluegreygreen · 24/05/2025 19:21

Hmmm if you've fallen out with parents, siblings and aunt the problem may not lie with them