Should Prince Harry get state funded security ?

[CaraVirra]

Okay, why does he want State funded security. Let’s speaks with cited facts only… and not emotion.

Prince Harry has stated clearly and in writing that he will pay for the security out of pocket.

Sources:

-Reuters-

Reuters confirmed Harry’s offer and the government’s refusal:

“Prince Harry said he had offered to personally pay for police protection for himself and his family during visits to Britain, but the UK government rejected the offer.”

-BBC-

The BBC reported that Harry’s legal team argued the refusal was procedural, not security-based:

“The Duke of Sussex offered to fund the security himself, but this was rejected because police protection cannot be paid for privately.”

-The Guardian-

The Guardian adds context that this was raised during court proceedings, not after the fact:

“Prince Harry’s lawyers said he was willing to pay for protection but was blocked by policy, not assessed threat.”

Okay so if he’s willing to pay out of pocket why won’t his own security work?

Heres why:

When Prince Harry stepped back from royal duties, the UK government… via the Home Office… removed his automatic, state-funded police protection.

That decision was made by a committee called RAVEC (Royal and VIP Executive Committee), which assesses security risk.

Harry’s argument is:

“My role changed, but my threat level didn’t.”

And on that point, he’s not wrong.

Okay, so where’s what he’s actually asking for:

He has been very explicit that he is willing to pay for security.

What the UK government refuses to allow is:

Access to armed, intelligence-briefed Metropolitan Police protection
Even on a paid basis

So why does this matter?

Private security cannot legally carry firearms in the UK
Private guards do not receive intelligence briefings
They cannot coordinate with UK counterterror or local police in real time

So this is not about luxury, it’s about safety.

Okay now. Why does harry believe there’s still a risk?:

There are several concrete factors:

He is still one of the most globally recognized people alive
His mother, Princess Diana, was killed following paparazzi pursuit
He and Meghan have received documented threats, including extremist rhetoric
His military service (Afghanistan) placed him on known threat lists
His children are high-value symbolic targets, regardless of titles

None of this evaporated because he moved to California.

Okay now because you can’t have a argument without both sides of the story lets talk about why the UK government has refused:

The official stance is:

Police protection is tied to official royal duties
Allowing people to “buy” police services could set a precedent
Security decisions must remain under state control, not personal request

This is a policy argument… not a safety argument.

So why is Harry fighting this so publically?:

Harry believes removing protection discourages others from leaving. That signals “Step outside the institution, and you’re on your own.” And it indirectly pressures him to return or stay silent.

so those are the facts. How do you feel about it?

also, if there a fact I’ve stated that you wanted cited, politely asking will do just fine.

His willingness to pay is irrelevant and the government is right that security should not be "for sale" to whoever wants it but is not entitled to it for free.

Loads of other people in the same position who also can't have armed bodyguards while in the UK and just have to deal with it.

I mean
he chose to leave the UK and step down from official duties so why should the tax payer fund this?
maybe this will be turned in to another book, a film or some sort of Oprah style programme

but honestly
who knows, who cares

I don’t mind my taxpayers money paying for his security. It’s not his fault he needs it, he was born a prince. It’s not a lifestyle choice, I’m sure he’d rather live without it.

I think he should have state funded security when he is here. He is a target because he is part of the Royal Family - because of who his parents are. He cant help that.

Loads of other people in the same position? Loads of other royals? What does same position mean to you? Is it the same level of potential threat? How do you know?

I ask it this all respectfully because I believe that facts and logic should be what we use to judge a serious situation like this, and not emotion based opinion.

I agree. Though I do understand the UK government not wanting to others to take advantage of of the system, I think threat levels need to be examined carefully before decisions like this are made.

He has said he will pay for it. That documented. Why does the book bother you?

Personally I think absolutely yes. As a young boy the BBC plastered him all over our TV screens whilst he had just lost his mum. He never chose to be a member of the royal family and his mum was killed by the press hounding her. He has every reason to feel he and his kids are under threat. I don’t think he has to earn safety.

There are a small amount of people able to provide that level of security in the UK.
They are not available for hire.
They are busy and deployed for the roles assigned. Harry, when visiting his father, who is assigned this level of security, will be protected then.
Otherwise there is no plan/capacity/hire available.

Yes I genuinely think that there are a lot of people (royal or not royal) who are at a higher level of risk of assassination than Harry who either live in the UK full time or visit the UK frequently and who don't get met protection while in the UK. Given H's current profile and popularity, I don't think he is a major assassination target . If he didn't keep suing everyone, no-one would even remember him and he has zero value as a target. If he died, what would be the consequences? Literally nothing would change.

If you allow anyone to "buy" met protection you open the door to any dodgy person who can pay getting the met to protect them while they are here doing whatever they do while here, and if you're going to assess every request to prevent that, that in itself is a massive waste of resources.

Of course there is. Who do you think protects visiting foreign dignitaries - ambassadors, heads of state and so on?

The roles assigned
That would cover all you have said.

He only offered to pay for security after he had already lodged an appeal against the decision in a blatantly transparent PR spin, he clearly expected the tax payers to fund it initially.

This was all clearly brought up in one of his recent court cases, in fact I think it was when he threatened the DM and the Judge said he had no grounds to as their story was correct.

How Prince Harry tried to keep his legal fight over bodyguards a secret https://share.google/rKGfv1pWaokuQBR3B

He gets tax payer funded security now, the level of which is assessed by the Security Services, he just wants it for free in the US too.

Yes he's a Prince, but Princess Anne and the Edinburgh's were also the children of a Monarch and currently sibling of a Monarch and they only get it when they are performing Royal Duties on behalf of KC3, they don't get them for their personal life.

He lives in the USA, he's not a Working Royal anymore, he just still wants the UK taxpayer to fund his security 24/7.

No one can pay for UK Police Close Personal Security - it is supplied on a basis as assessed by Security Services. Many other, far richer, much more important VIPs than Harry make do without it when they visit the UK.

I fully agree he should get Security if he requires it when he visits the UK. That what he gets - fully risk assessed and appropriate for his needs.

What he wants is to feel as important as his brother - and only therapy is going to help him with that.

That’s a much clearer explanation than most I’ve seen, thank you.

If the issue is genuinely capacity rather than punishment or entitlement, then I think the key question becomes whether threat assessment and prioritization are being handled independently of institutional status.

Harry’s argument, as I understand it, isn’t “I deserve this because I’m special,” but “my threat profile didn’t disappear when my role changed.”

If protection is tied solely to function rather than risk, that’s a policy choice, not a safety assessment, and that distinction seems worth examining.

Take for example the fact the former PM’s retain protection for example:

Prince Andrew stopped working in 2019… later it reduced but not taken away fully.

Princess Anne is still working but relevant because she doesn’t receive it 24/7 only when working and I believe Prince harry only wants it when visiting the UK and especially for his children.

how about this..

Boris Johnson is a private citizen. He receives publicly funded protection.

There is a clear double standard here.

I begrudge paying for any of them, but yes, I think Harry should get state funded security. Whatever I think of him, he faces risks because he is a member of the Royal Family and it’s not his fault he was born into it.

To be fair, I imagine he offered to pay to remove the whole ‘use of taxpayers money’ argument.

I agree

Yes he should. He’s the son of the monarch and he will be brother of the monarch. He can’t help either of those things.

Besides, once he can come and go freely, it won’t be such a big thing anymore for the press or the public so It will defuse the situation.

It’s RAVEC’s decision but if William has any influence at all over whether Harry is welcome in the UK or not, however he feels about it personally, he would be wise imho to be seen to extend an olive branch, because otherwise the press will be forever emphasising the rivalry between them.

His threat level is higher because he bragged about his kill total in Afghanistan, that's on him.

I'd settle for him having it for one week per year. Not whenever he fancies it.

Boris Johnson was Prime Minister - he was privy to State Secrets and security matters and state business, that still today could threaten the security of the country. That's why exPMs are protected - for the Country's security.

Harry served no such role.

And once more - he was, and still is, entitled to and given RAVEC assessed Security whenever he visits the UK - he just needs to give 28 days notice (UK employment law in case leave needs cancelled to cover) in order for it to be put in place and risk assessments fully carried out. He would get even higher level security if he took up his father's invitations and stayed with him. He refuses and chooses to stay in a public hotel. And walk down London streets ringing random doorbells and ordering Deliveroo's (a security risk).

I understand he can have security as long as he gives one month's notice.

His kids are at school, he has a diary, he jolly well knows what he's doing weeks in advance. He just has to inform the UK when he's coming over. He can stay safely at Buckingham Palace. (Family probably too pissed off with him to have him at Windsor or Clarence House with them).

He certainly shouldn't get it for trips for financial grifting purposes. Which I suspect most of them would be. A trip to see his relatives and out again, once a year, sure.

Boris Johnson is a private citizen. He receives publicly funded protection.
There is a clear double standard here.

There are no double standards, comparing an ex ribbon cutting Prince to Boris Johnson and every PM before or after him is frankly ridiculous, PM’s literally run the country, they are involved at the highest level of state secrets, if any of them were kidnapped and tortured they could reveal a huge amount that could be hugely detrimental and damaging to our country and it’s people, there is no comparison.

Yes he should. He’s the son of the monarch and he will be brother of the monarch. He can’t help either of those things.

So is/was Princess Anne and the Edinburgh's - they don't get security other than when on Royal duties. And Anne was a victim of an attempted kidnapping.

Besides, once he can come and go freely, it won’t be such a big thing anymore for the press or the public so It will defuse the situation.

So elite, highly trained CPP officers have to hang about just waiting for Harry to pitch up unannounced at Heathrow? And that is a security nightmare - no one would offer that. For security to be effective it needs to be fully risk assessed, routes planned, alternative routes planned, security sweeps done, exit and entry points assessed, security checks done. How do you do that with no planning? He's an adult man with young children and no job. He can give 28 days notice. If he doesn't want security done properly, then he doesn't actually need security, he just wants his ego massaged. And I ain't happy to pay for that!

Yes, the knocking on random doors thing showed him up to be even more of an idiot than I'd thought. Which is saying something. When he learns to risk assess his own behaviour a bit more, people might be more tolerant. Tax payers shouldn't have to pay for a shit faced arrogant fool to be followed round by security.