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.

You'd think he would be glad if his risk goes down. Instead he seems to resent it.

@Baital That’s the impression I have too, that he doesn’t like the fact that his family’s relevance and security risk is declining- and will continue to do so as the Wales’ children grow up.

As adults, for example, his children will presumably be treated like Zara, Peter, Beatrice, etc. currently are, i.e., they won’t get security. 🤷

Yes, he's not like you or me having to be sure of the dates because Ryanair and EasyJet tickets are non refundable!

We know he travels Business or First Class. Surely they allow changes, even if there's a fee?

And it's not like he has much going on in California, so what does it matter if he spends an extra day or two in London?

The only ones who leak stories about their travel plans are the Sussexes.

They've made public announcements about his last 2 years worth of visits to the UK - prior to his travel. If that's what the issue is then they need to knock that on the head.

And the latest bit in the Telegraph about him not being able to book flights is a non issue - he just tells RAVEC the trial dates, that he will be here on approx such and such dates, to they'll work around that, especially if given 28 days notice of knowing he's coming in the 1st place.

Personally, I'd feel much more secure knowing the Security Services had more than 28 days notice of my travel - extra time to make sure I'd be safe.

But his security and safety has never really been the issue for Harry. It's all about his ego and status IMO, and the perceived drop in status. He was always going to struggle with this, I wonder if it would have been better or worse him still being in the UK. He clearly never looked at his aunt and uncle's.

Edit spelling

Yes but a particular problem for Harry is that because there are always stories about him in the papers, once he gives 28 days notice in advance and makes all the usual arrangements such as aeroplane tickets, accommodation, onward travel, security, even if it’s done under a pseudonym, the information is leaked to all and sundry. So many tabloids are willing to pay good money for tip offs like this. And that in itself makes him and his family an easier target.

Really? Let’s take Harry’s recent trip to Toronto in November 2025 as an example.

On 3 November, William arrived in Rio de Janiero to kick off the Earthshot events. Just as he arrived, the Duke of Sussex's office proactively issued a statement that announced that Harry would travel to Toronto for a series of events ahead of Remembrance Day.

People magazine were told that the event had been organised for more than a year, but “ since the Duke of Sussex no longer holds the same level of security as working members of the royal family, the window for publicizing his engagements is much narrower, and announcements are made in line with guidance from his private security advisors and the event’s security team”.

So he’s saying because he doesn’t have 24/7 UK police security, he has to announce his trip exactly the same time a his brother starts his trip to Brazil? Make that make sense. Of course, he didn’t need to announce it in advance at all….

https://people.com/prince-harry-announces-trip-canada-prince-william-brazil-earthshot-prize-11841963

Tragic though it was, his Mum was killed because she allowed herself to be driven by a drunk driver, and didn't wear her seatbelt.

Harry did nothing to help his safety by making such a big deal of announcing his 'kill' numbers in 'Spare'. Maybe he should have thought about the implications of this - as well as the code of conduct adopted by veterans generally, where this is never discussed.

Rubbish
That's just distraction by... the press

Which bit is rubbish ?

My advice…

This! Is there really that much interest in them any more from the papps? Even his supposed stalker is paid to show.

He's the son of the monarch. His children are said monarch's grandchildren. Nobody gets to choose the family or circumstances they are born into. That is simply an "accident of birth" so to speak.

Harry's mother might still be around if she hadn't dispensed with her own protection. So, on balance I think the security Harry wants (abroad) should be provided.

"Paps" don't really exist in the way that they used to. As ever, Harry and his wife are living in the past.

Besides, armed police protection is not required to deal with 'paps'. This was explicitly mentioned in one of the court rulings. Any competent celebrity security dude can swat away photographers without a bother.

Would you apply the same rules to Anne, Andrew and Edward, and have them be entitled to tax payer funded security?

Plus, if we're going to 'grandchildren of a monarch', to their children as well? They have 2 apiece, so there's altogether 9 more teams of round the clock protection?

Plus Margaret's children, of course, they are grandchildren of a monarch....

Was being chased by papps. Stop deflecting

Agreed

😴

Yes, and chose to respond to that by being driven at speed, without a seat belt, and by a driver who had been drinking. Although she may not have known he was drinking, but the speed and seat belt were her choices, and between them they were fatal choices.

Another option would have been to stay put in the privacy of the hotel, or get a car with tinted windows (so couldn't be photographed) and then drive away at a normal speed.

Just a couple of ideas off the top.of my head.

The only one I wouldn't apply them to would be Andrew.

And yet they all manage perfectly well without?

And it would cost the tax payers millions - unnecessary millions, given they are all alive and well and getting out and about as they choose.

I would guess Andrew is the most in need of security, given the (understandable) public disgust over his actions.

Andrew may be the most in need, but is the least deserving.

As he lives on the Sandringham Estate (or soon enough will) he gets a level of security there.

Personally I would rather those millions were spent on people who are struggling, rather than multi millionaires.

Support for people on low incomes struggling to make ends meet, holiday club for kids on free school meals that provided activities and a square meal, if you want to focus on security and protection then more support for people experiencing/ trying to escape domestic violence.

When did deserving become a factor?

But it isn't about 'deserving' a freebie. Lots of people are public figures because of their parents - the Beckhams for example, and the Ramseys.

I don't think any of them deserve a freebie, they have inherited millions and can afford security. If there is some extra threat that requires armed security they should get that, as private security cannot be armed.

The only people who automatically have 24/7 armed protection, from what I understand, are Charles, Camilla, and the Wales. Similar to e.g. the President and vice President of the USA, they get protection because of their role, along with their spouse and minor children.

You can keep arguing it anyway you like. You think what you think and I have my own opinion which I see no reason to change. Nothing you have said sways me at all.