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.

In other words, your opinion isn't based on any sort of reason or basic principles, but you'll hold it anyway.

No problem!

Yes. And I gave my reasons in my first post. I see no need to revise them.

This ⬆️

It sounds like this rule change proposition may not have been thought through 🤷‍♀️

She wasn't wearing a seatbelt her injury might have been survivable had she done that one small action
And the fact is she usually did her choice not too despite the night events and how fast the car was going

I used 'reason' in the sense of rationality, logic.

Not in the sense of 'why i have these views'.

My reason for wearing a tin foil hat is because I believe we are being monitored by aliens.

'Reason' in the sense of rational thinking and logic explores that idea, looking at evidence and how ideas connect - if A and B are true, then X, Y and Z follow. What evidence is there that A and B are true?

It's a way of thinking about the world that tries to base views on some sort of evidence and 'reasoning'. As opposed to feelz.

Just to clarify!

Since Harry's stalker appears to be the reason for the increased threat level he faces, hence the possible deployment of armed Police protection funded by tax payers. Can I ask when her court case is? I assume.shes been charged with stalking, causing fear/violence, serious alarm/distress. Has the restraining order been put in place? Anyone know?

Edit spelling

May I thank my learned friend for her perspicacious comment 😂

Agree

I know it suits the narrative of certain people on the throne currently, and their supporters, to constantly blame Diana for her own death at thirty-six years of age, but let’s not forget the influence that Martin Bashir’s fraudulent actions had on Diana’s decision to dispense with her police protection.

Remember she was shown forged bank statements designed to persuade her that her aides and security personnel were being paid to report on her movements. From that point on she distrusted all forms of protection and oversight.

Yes, wearing a seat belt was not a good decision at all, but she wouldn’t have been in that car in the first place if she had had proper protection. Her decision to dispense with police protection wasn’t good either but it was based on completely false information.

I think what Martin Bashir did was horrendous. I am sorry the Metropolitan Police, having conferred with the CPS, did not find it possible to bring criminal charges against him.

I think the BBC's behaviour in covering up Bashir's fraud was egregious. I'm glad Tim Davie has now gone, as he did not take responsibility at the time of the Dyson enquiry, though it was Tony Hall who was responsible at the time of the original cover-up.

I also think that as an adult woman, Diana was responsible for getting into a car with a drunk driver and not wearing a seatbelt. If she were another woman, and this a thread on any other board on MN, the overwhelming consensus would be that she was responsible for her own actions.

She was responsible for not wearing a seat belt unless she had been advised not to do so for some reason by her bodyguard. I doubt that she would have been advised this in a high speed chase situation. Funnily enough though, although the initial reports in the press suggested that Rees-Jones had survived because he was wearing a seat belt, later investigations confirmed that none of the car's occupants were belted. I find that quite strange tbh.

How can Diana possibly be blamed for getting in to a car with a drunk driver though when she had no idea at all that he was drunk? She has no idea that Henri-Paul was on anti-depressants either.

Also, videos on You Tube show Henri-Paul waiting in a foyer of the Ritz, Paris, for Diana and Dodi to emerge. In the video, you can clearly see Henri-Paul bending down in a very sprightly fashion to tie his shoelaces and straighten up again in a very agile manner with no sign of intoxication. He didn’t look even remotely like someone who was three or four times over the legal limit.

Oh for goodness sake!!
No one regurgitates these paranoid scenarios now.
Are you stuck in the past with the notion
that she was an innocent victim of a larger conspiracy?
No wonder Harold lives the life of a perpetual victim because people like you feed him.

He’s a very damaged middle aged man who needs to take accountability for his actions. He Can’t live a life in which he blames his upbringing for choices he makes now.

it’s absolutely pitiful that he is spending the best years of his life looking backwards.

What a waste!

Diana’s tragic death was down to many decisions that could have saved her.
1 the original itinerary and plan was to return home to spend a few days with her children before they went to school, this was changed and the trip extended.
2 instead of leaving by the back exit and getting in the actual car with driver , it was decided that they would leave by a different way and use a new car and off duty driver who had been drinking.
3 for whatever reason Diana and dodi decided not to wear seatbelts, the driver decided to speed to escape the French press .
if we are going to blame anyone rather than a tragic turn of events, then Mohamed Al-Fayed, is the one responsible, his obsession with marrying his son to Diana ( despite him having a fiancé) for his own glory, is the root of all these decisions and changes to plans.

Was she stalking him in the US or the UK? Or both? Does anyone know?

Based on recent events, the average American citizen is at more risk from ICE while going about their daily routine.

I agree about Fayed’s overall responsibility but there’s no need to sneak in the inference that Diana she was a bad mother. It’s just another way for those who support Charles and Camilla to put the boot in. I’ve noticed how the rhetoric about Diana has changed since Charles took the throne.

The facts are that Diana had holidayed with the boys in July and was going to see them the next day after the crash.

And William and Harry said themselves on film in an interview that when she made that last phone call to them while they were at Balmoral to say she would see them the next day, it was a source of continuing regret to them that they hadn’t spoken to her longer but they were anxious to get outside and they didn’t know of course that they would never speak to her again.

Diana was busy that final summer. She had visited a performance of the English national ballet, visited Mother Theresa in the Bronx, auctioned off her dresses for aids charity at Christie’s, attended a 100 year celebration of the Tate, holidayed with the boys in St Tropez and was about to do so again, attended Versace’s funeral in Milan, and then went to Bosnia to do her charity work on land mines. In many accounts I have read her schedule had to be reworked for the funeral in Milan which had a knock on effect on the other engagements.

Also, it has been widely reported that after her split from Charles, she had limited summer access to the boys, only getting about two weeks, a situation which she was extremely unhappy about.

According to some on-line reports his stalker, who is believed to have mh issues, approached Harry twice in London:

Once when Harry attended the WellChild Awards at the Royal Lancaster Hotel in London in September 2025, when the stalker was able to enter a "secure zone" to get close to Harry. And the next day she was photographed near Harry as he visited the Centre for Blast Injury Studies in West London.

It’s reported that this same person also previously followed Meghan and Harry to Nigeria.

Yes he should, that’s the cost of having a monarchy 🤷🏽‍♀️

As gun crime is mainly an issue in organised crime in the UK and those criminals are unlikely to target Harry, is he expecting the armed police protection to shoot older lady fans and journalists.

He isn't a working member of the monarchy. If being a member of the monarchy is the only qualification for security then the bill is about to get very very large.

Is she dangerous? Please link to a report of any action taken against this member of the public that proves that she is acting in a criminal or threatening manner. Otherwise, she is just a fan.

That’s a lot of royals then, we have to pay for, on that analogy…

I think if you speak to any celebrity, member of the royal family, or anyone in the public eye, they will tell you that the people that they often need to be most wary of, are so-called fans.

You could see it this Christmas just gone, in a minor way, when members of the crowd at Sandringham asked Charlotte for a hug and to take selfies, and were sticking phone cameras in her face! Totally inappropriate behaviour around a child, but people get carried away in the moment.

The fact that this woman was prepared to follow H&M in Nigeria and UK would suggest this isn’t an ordinary fan, that this isn’t a question of just getting carried away in the moment as obviously more planning was involved, and there is likely to be on-line evidence too that won’t be in the public domain. Added to that is her known mh issues which, not always by any means, but potentially could add to the risk factor.

However, if RAVEC deem him needing security, on less than 28 days notice, then I have no issue. A blanket IPP status when he isn’t a working royal, or living in the U.K., then I do have an issue.

You are right “nobody gets to choose the family or circumstances they are born into”. There are huge numbers of children in the UK born in gang areas, or to parents who are addicts they are all vulnerable to crime and abuse but the only state protection they get is possibly a frazzled social worker who has too many cases and too little time.
A labour government giving unlimited security to a middle aged man who’s family can afford perfectly adequate protection, would be a very bad look indeed.

I am pointing out that there is a different story here. I don't believe for one minute that the woman has any bad intentions towards H.