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.

I'm sure you're happy to know that Harry, despite choosing to live abroad as a private citizen, enjoys a 'bespoke' arrangement with RAVEC, whereby his security needs are kept under continual review and any protection deemed appropriate will be provided.

What more could he want, really?

I supported them leaving the country given the mess everything was in. Fault on all sides I imagine but our press are intolerable
Theyve behaved like crass idiots since
but haters are always also going to hate
I support the level of security, including less than 28 days notice

Would you be happy if your leave was cancelled without notice, or your scheduled shifts changed with no notice?

Are you saying that Harry's convenience and personal choice - he doesn't work for a living - over rides the rights of Met staff to have a personal and family life?

Because that's why he needs to give notice. To allow security staff to have a life outside their job.

We don’t pay for Princess Anne’s security when she’s at home.

Or he can have private security like a Hollywood actor, many of them come here regularly and manage fine without armed bodyguards.

Yes but he is a Prince !!

It’s not just to allow them to have a life, although obviously that is very important, it’s also that they actually have very full schedules as they don’t just look after Royals, but politicians and visiting overseas dignitaries. These schedules will have been decided well in advance. If they have to be changed due to unforeseen circumstances, it involves the paying of expensive overtime and the redeployment of finite resources. So as many pp have said many times, no one is available to spring in to action when Harry decides to rock up and there would also be considerable cost involved

Woohoo! I’m so impressed. That must make him intrinsically better than mere commoners who have achieved global fame through their own talents and hard work.

In Harry’s eyes, yes .
The man is delusional.

The taxpayer’s pocket isn’t bottomless. Of course Harry should receive appropriate security when coming to the UK out of necessity, perhaps for his charity engagements or to attend significant events. But there is no obligation for the British taxpayer to protect him on private visits or social events. He is a millionaire, he can afford security for those occasions.

Being born a prince does not of itself mean you’re at risk. Prince Edward was the son of the monarch, likewise Prince Andrew. Edward’s son is technically a prince though they don’t use that title.

Harry put himself in the firing line by his own words and actions, it’s on him now to get himself out of it.

Yes - sorry. I knew you were being ironic. My reply was probably a bit dry.

No worries ! There are posters who claim that being the son of a Monarch is sufficient to warrant 24/7 security but as soon as you ask about Anne , Edward or AMW , they clam up .

Yup! Apparently we have a magic money tree when it comes to paying for Harry. I’m not sure why people who are otherwise often like warm on monarchy in general think Harry should have global security coverage at our expense and at the inconvenience of British trained police officers whose careers and families are here. But nothing surprises me about this government. I only hope we have an election sooner rather than later and that someone gets their act together and presents a credible alternative. We desperately need economic literacy in government.

I think the current system works. He plans his visits and is given security funded by the British public. He could bring his family with him at any time.

He like the rest of us can plan his 'work' and holiday trips. He just has to be organised.

As far as I am aware he pays no tax in the UK and chooses to live overseas.
Possibly, he could renounce his titles, his place in succession and live his life free from the royal family. This may relieve some of his perceived fears as a target.

Surely, these problems exist in his new home country where guns etc are more common. It does not mean the British public should pay for his security outwith the UK.

Keep the status quo.

Working Royals get protection because, so it's claimed, their presence and official appearances benefit the UK and its people. Personally I think that's cobblers, but it is at least a tenable position. Harry decided he was not going to be a working Royal any more, so his presence in the UK is not, even in theory, conferring a benefit on anyone. If he wants to come to the UK he does so in a personal capacity and takes his chances like any other non-official visitor.

This happens all the time, for example when people have to attend events after disasters, or funerals /illnesses
Its not beyond the wit of man

It's not automatically quite the same though...

Yes, sure, if there's a major event (e.g. such as we saw with the late Queen's death and funeral) leave plans go out of the window...

But more frequently it's going to be a royal getting roped into representing the Royal family at short notice at a smaller event. In that case there's a fair chance it will a change of booked plans, for them, not new ones and the protection officers will simply looking at maybe a minor change of shift hours with a change of venues...

I don't think many in jobs requiring that sort of flexibility (HM Forces, police, etc) would see any of the above as being unreasonable.

OTOH according to some H seems to want to be able to have the option to drop into the UK at minimal notice (so in practical terms given flight times from US west coast that might be as little as 12 hours) and have on arrival a sizeable Met team available to follow him around the UK on a potentially open ended visit...

It's IMO that is a pretty outrageous demand......

In my previous post, I pointed out that Special Protection are already pretty busy and also that yes, unforeseen things do happen which have to be reacted to, but it will cost money in overtime or days in lieu to cover this. The Met and Special
Protection don’t work for free, even if you can’t buy them as your own personal security

Yes, realistically we're talking about having to increase capacity, which isn't free, in order to cover Harry's wish for greater spontaneity. This stuff will all be staffed and funded on the basis that we have an idea what the average emergency capacity is. For things like funerals where it's predictable that they'll happen but not when, there are plans that get actively maintained and rehearsed- again this takes resources. It's not about wit, but it is about money and the best use of expertise.

I am happy to cough up as much of that as necessary to cover Harry during genuinely unforeseen circumstances along with plannevisits, to whatever extent Ravec think necessary. If that becomes more expensive, so be it. It's a need. Him being able to turn up on spec for non-urgent things is not.

Is it Harry’s wish for spontaneity that is at the root of this or is it simply that he is being treated differently to William?

No idea, but either way I'm disinclined to fund and staff it.

I’ve been listening to a BBC podcast this morning called The Media Show which features Jeremy Vine who was asked to describe the on-line vitriol he has attracted because of being in the public eye and his stance on cycling and white van drivers.

Some of you may have read or heard about the recent court battle he had to fight to protect himself against someone who accused him, without any basis in fact, of being a paedophile. JV won the court case and was awarded full damages but this person is still trying to appeal. JV has also had a couple of stalkers too; one on-line and one in rl.

Now I am no particular of JV but I thought it was interesting because it demonstrates the level of effort and persistence some people will engage in when they want to attack another person whom they have never even met. It’s a scary and batshit world out there for those in the public eye.

We also know now that on-line invective can lead to rl violence eg the murder of Jo Cox MP RIP.

We see so much on-line invective aimed at M&H and many tabloids have clocked on to the fact that writing negative articles about them is quite lucrative, to the extent that it is almost a cottage industry at this point!

Ditto a myriad of royal podcasts with various tame historians and odious royal commentators.

IMHO, the comments one reads about H&M on sm are out of all proportion to what they have actually supposed to have done, both in terms of the language used, and the way people purport to know them and their motivations, and in terms of the sheer volume of posts. And sadly these often come with an unmistakable serving of racism and misogyny too.

In summary, I think after a while, this unending avalanche of bile becomes an accepted normality, people forget the actual flawed humans behind the stories, and as such this onslaught of negative comment can incite unstable people to do mad and violent things.

So yes as I do think they need more than just adequate protection. And I can’t understand why the same people who comment about them negatively day after day, at one and the same time, argue that they are irrelevant and don’t attract sufficient negative attention to justify extra protection! It doesn’t make sense!

So yes as I do think they need more than just adequate protection

That may well be the case ..and under the existing arrangement H plus family would possibly get that if they give RAVEC the 28 days notice of a visit to the UK to allow them to run an assesment.

I don't think many people are arguing against the idea H and M may need Met protection at times, it's the way H want's it done that is the problem.

Firstly, there's a huge difference between spouting 'vitriol' online and being in a position to carry out an actual attack.

RAVEC, who unlike any of us have access to high level real time intelligence, will be very well aware of what the actual threat level is. That's why, as I and others have pointed out countless times, Harry's situation is kept under continual review and provided he cooperate with the authorities, any security deemed neccessary will be offered to him during his visits to Britain.

That is way more than Jeremy Vine or any of the many other high profile people who are victims of 'vitriol' will ever have. If you can tell me quite what is wrong with Harry's current security arrangements, I'd genuinely appreciate it.

If Harry as son of a monarch & not a working royal, should automatically get security (he does just has to give notice) without giving notice, then should Andrew, son of previous monarch & not working royal also get security?

I’d say neither tbh. Representing the HoS = security. On your own = no.