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.

This. It’s annoying to me that we have even have a Royal Family, but we are where we are and he should get the security.

Anne and Edward were children of a Monarch and didn’t receive 24/7 security . They are now siblings of a Monarch and don’t receive 24/7 security .
And they are working Royals .
This is all about Harry’s ego . He wants to be treated the same as William but William is the heir . Harry isn’t even the Spare any more .
Harry and his wife could drop their titles and live quieter lives if they are so concerned about security.

That’s for responding in detail. I love that.

I carefully went through what you’ve said then did a little research.

1. the judge didn’t rule that the Daily Mail story was correct, the judge ruled that the documents showed the offer to pay was not in the early correspondence therefore the BBC and Daily Mail were not legally defamatory for reporting that fact.
2. however I would just like to add that its pretty unethical to leave it out and only tell one half of the story.
3. Harry doesn’t have automatic taxpayer funded protection.
4. this means he has exceptional status and protection maybe granted case by case.
5. he wants it in the US too.
6. he has never asked for the UK to pay for his security in the US (Please cite it is he has)
7. UK police cannot operate in the US
8. This is a common internet myth I think… of course if you can find an internationally creditable source to counter claim this I’ll accept it.
9. Anne and the Edinburghs only get protection while working but:
10. None have Harry’s global threat profile
11. None had a parent killed in a press-driven pursuit
12. None served in a modern war with documented extremist threats
13. He wants UK tax payers to fund his security 24/7, no he’s asking for:
14. Access to armed police protection
15. On a case-by-case, threat-assessed basis
16. Even if he personally pays (which policy forbids anyway)
17. No one can pay for UK police protection:
18. correct

If he is already entitled to security, what’s the change? I am genuinely confused.

His parent also ignored security advice and got in a drunk driver's car. Yes, the press were pursuing improperly, but let's not forget that she made her choices.

Wonderful Freudian slip in the title.

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 on that basis Andrew should get his tax payer funded security reinstated then? and Anne and Edward? working members of the RF who don’t receive security unless on royal duties? What makes Harry a non working royal who lives abroad entitled to round the clock tax payer funded armed Met police officers?

Where has he said he will pay for it? In the last court go around it was shown he hadnt he told the press he had though

The police are not for sale and their services are prioritised as a limited resource.

Harry already gets appropriate security now. He just wants to have it on tap without giving notice which unless it was dire emergency such as his father’s health suddenly declining( which would doubtless be covered anyway) is both impractical and unnecessary.

Honestly I wish he would just fuck off with his whingeing.

As for the suggestion that withholding what he wants is an attempt to blackmail him into returning this is laughable.

I don’t believe anybody except perhaps his father would have him back if he arrived gift wrapped.

His mother chose to give up her security and chose not to wear a seat belt. Of course her death was a tragedy but the circumstances leading to it were a combination of factors some of which were sadly her own doing.

Harry on the other hand will always have appropriate security here as long as he gives notice of his intention to visit. Hardly too much to ask especially given the way he has behaved.

Harry does get tax payer funded security every time he visits he just has to notify them in advance its highly unlikely he will ever not get security

Thanks for your response, I appreciate you engaging. That said, this argument relies heavily on personal opinion rather than verifiable facts or threat assessments.

This isn’t about popularity or public relevance; it’s about risk. We’re also not just talking about one individual, but about the safety of his wife and children.

If the government’s position is that his protection is no longer warranted because he stepped back from duties, then the burden should be on the state to demonstrate that his threat level has materially decreased, not on the public to speculate that it has.

Without access to intelligence or formal risk evaluations, none of us can credibly assert that he is “less of a target” now than before. That’s precisely why these decisions are meant to be evidence-based rather than opinion-based.

Number 6 . He claimed to have IPP status in a statement issued in January 2020 . That statement was deleted the next day but was quoted in another thread within the last few days .
He expected to have IPP status meaning that taxpayer security would be provided in whatever country he was in .

I don't think he's much of a target at all, that's his ego speaking. He could bring his own heavies (no guns) and be fine.

I sense a disagreement here..

Gosh you managed to do your research, carefully go through @MrsFinkelstein post, draw your conclusions and type all that in 21 minutes? Blimey your quick.

Harry’s much more high profile than Anne or Edward who will both be nearing the end of their working stints once William takes the throne. Plus, there are a thousand and one anti-H&M press pieces and sm posts written about the couple every day which tend to stir up the obsessive fruit loops.

for the millionth time ...he does get state funded security. All paid for and at the level proportionate to the current risk.
He just has to inform them a few weeks ahead to get a risk assessment done.
Why can the press and general public not understand this !

And yet the only one who was the victim of an attempted kidnapping is ………Anne .

Yes but it’s not the same as William < stamps foot>

He does have automatic security - he just needs to give 28 days notice. It may not be the level HE wants, but it will be what he needs after a threat assessment has been done.

He wants IPP status - he assumed he would have it still (he only had it briefly when doing Royal tours). He had to change the initial statement they released when they announced they were stepping down which said they would continue to be IPPs. IPPs have the host country provide security - he wants US taxpayers to fund it.

He gets taxpayer funded security in the UK as assessed by his current threat level, if deemed necessary, that will be armed.

Andrew 🤮 served in the frontline in the Falklands. William repatriated Allied soldiers from Kabul. Neither of them chose to public antagonise the Taliban by publishing their kill counts.

Diana died in 1997 because she got into a car driven by a driver who was over the legal limit and not trained in defensive driving who was speeding, she also didn't wear a seatbelt. Harry has never been in that position - despite him forcing his security team to speed through the Alma tunnel and the "near catastrophic" snail chase in NYC. Or the footage of them getting "chased" by a pizza delivery guy in their NF reality show.

And to reiterate. He currently has access to tax payer funded armed Police security when he visits the UK if he gives 28 days notice and his threat level assessment seems it necessary.

It's not what William gets, and William got an extra sausage and the bigger bedroom in the castle <stamps foot> s'not fair!!!

Tip of the chapeau to you 😉

And I'd argue 🤮🤮🤮🤮 Andrew's 🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮 current threat level is considerably higher than Harry's at the moment.

🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮

Procedurally you are very correct. Here’s the problem, RAVEC can approve some of the protections, some of the time. Harry’s case is specifically about not being allowed to access to the intelligence integrated armed protection even if it’s privately funded. So yes protection exist just not the type he’s arguing is necessary.

yes staying with his father would get him higher protection but it doesn’t address movement outside the property. This includes traveling with his children or events, funerals, court appearances.

It also stably implies coercion though dependence meaning…

”you’re safer is you stay inside the institution.”

also for the doorbell thing, I found no cited reports to support this.