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.

No.

@ CaraVirra -
You ask me what I think would have been appropriate. First, don’t wash your dirty laundry in public. If Prince Harry has a problem with his family, then he sorts it within the family. Funny how he never (publicly) had a problem before he was married. Second, he chose to leave. Her late Majesty made it crystal clear that they couldn’t be half in and half out, and they decided to flounce. Their choice - so get on with your lives and make the best of the situation you have chosen. They have made a considered decision to be “out”, and also to live in a country that has no monarchy or titles - yet they insist on clinging to the trappings of royalty. It’s all a bit desperate. I don’t understand why Harry feels the need for round the clock security - he’s just not that important. When he’s with his family, he will get security anyway. His choice if he chooses to stay in a hotel rather than a palace - I don’t see that we should be paying for it, that’s all.

Exactly and probably an appropriate time for me to ( again) post their statement of January 2020 .
Contrary what their supporters say , they didn’t flee for their lives , they flounced off .

If he gives notice for it to be arranged, he gets security provided to meet the threat level. If high risk, it could be armed officers, if low risk it might be 'someone on the end of a phone'.

He can continue to use private security, as he does in the US, and they can liaise with the police etc over intelligence. Or he can walk round without them, as he was in the doorbell photos, when he didn't seem to think there was much risk. His choice.

He can't choose to get police armed protection if the threat levels don't warrant it. That's not about whether he 'feels' there's a threat, that's about specialist risk assessment by the relevant professionals.

He does get state funded security when he’s here. The nature of that security is what varies according to assessed threat. He might have full armed escorts for a very public event or he might just need a bodyguard and a phone line for a private unannounced visit. He thinks he’s worth more than that, he isn’t.

His birth status is irrelevant and becoming more so. He is of no value to a kidnapper because no-one would pay the ransom, and his demise would not be an international incident because he doesn’t represent the nation or its people.

Harry needs to understand that people don’t see him as royal any more, his family publicly cut him off and in doing so they cut the ties that would have put him at risk.

He isn't a working royal
...he chose to step away, move to the US. The press didn't kill his mother,it was a drunk driver and the fact that she chose not to wear a seatbelt. The Bodyguard in the front seat, the side that hit the side of the tunnel survived.

This is a really important point. Someone on the end of a phone isn’t enough.

If the news coming out is true, it seems that Harry is going to get automatic armed security whenever he is in the UK and they wouldn’t give that unless it’s now been shown he needs it.

If it’s true and not just PR spin from Harry/ Liam .

It's not 'news'. It's rumours being spread by someone in the Sussex camp.

And unless you believe that you or Harry know more about security than the experts who have an excellent track record, surely they are the ones who decide what measures are 'enough'?

The government knows more about the real risks than we do, and in fact more than Prince Harry does. If there is a genuine risk they will provide security anyway.

In relation to the risks you cite, OP

He is still one of the most globally recognized people alive
There are an awful lot of highly recognised people, but they don't get to buy our police services. See. e.g Taylor Swift.

His mother, Princess Diana, was killed following paparazzi pursuit
She was killed because she got into a car with a drunk driver and didn't wear seat belts.

He and Meghan have received documented threats, including extremist rhetoric
Presumably they telll the security services about these and they can assess the risk accordingly.

His military service (Afghanistan) placed him on known threat lists
He enhanced this risk himself through what he wrote in his book. But it's still not a major risk.

His children are high-value symbolic targets, regardless of titles
Are they? Who would actually recognise them if they weren't with their parents?

Time will tell.

Of course he should not get state funded security unless he is a working royal. He chose to ditch his royal life and is now in sunny Cali.

He needs to grow up and quick. There should be a law prohibiting people with dual nationality to be in the line of succession. harry is rich and can pay for his own security. When in the UK, he can stay in secure royal accommodation.

It's a non issue.

If RAVEC decides that someone at the end of the phone is enough, it’s because their intelligence has confirmed there is little or no risk.

Can you link to the proof he's paid please, I've searched and nothing comes up.

Not necessarily, it could be PR spin from Harry trying to put the Home Office and the Palace in a difficult postition, could be what Harry claimed in his interview that the King has the power to intervene and can get him the round the clock security he wants to shut him up, could be political, we have a government who want a republic and what better way to wind up the public to give Harry tax payers money with met police on standby, Vive la Revolution.

Harry’s situation is complex by choice. As circumstances can vary, it makes sense that his security requirements have to be assessed on a case by case basis. Obviously when with his family or staying in a royal residence, security will be provided but it is unreasonable to assume that the same level of security should be provided, at public expense, if he were to land in the UK for a paid, commercial engagement.
What complicates it further is that if Harry were to be given the same unconditional level of security as his father or brother, he would join the ranks of the UK’s dignitaries with protected status thus extending the onus of security to international governments and jurisdictions. As such it has been suggested that his legal endeavours in the UK are actually a stealthy attempt to have all of his security costs covered in perpetuity regardless of whether on the UK or not.

No he should not. End of.

Shouldn't be able to buy it. Fine with the UK providing it gratis if he's assessed to need it, as with anyone else. The comparisons with former PMs are exceptionally stupid.

That's certainly a moral dilemma, I agree. (I'm tempted to say that AMW would be safer in a secure prison facility...)

I'm not sure, but if I really honestly believed my life was at risk from extremists and racists and that I needed 24/7 elite armed Police protection I wouldn't walk up and down London streets, ringing random doorbells. You know, just in case I rang a nutters doorbell.

I think that's a security risk, same as ordering a Deliveroo to come directly to me - what if it's an extremist, racist nutter who delivers it, and I've let them know.where I am?

I think that's why I struggle to believe that Harry is really concerned about security rather than status (either that, or he simply doesn't understand security).

I have friends/family who work in jobs with security risks. Things they wouldn't be doing on the list of things that Harry does (that we know of!):
-announcing trips in advance where not necessary
-knocking on strangers' doors
-ordering takeaway delivery to a friend's home
-talking about 'kill counts' in a book
-refusing to stay in the most secure accommodation he could in the UK (royal residences) and instead staying in hotels

I just want to make absolutely clear - I have zero issues with Harry and his wife and children being given taxpayer funded Police Security whenever they visit - as risk assessed as required by the Security Services.

But that's not what he wants - he wants full armed Police protection even if he is under little or no risk. That's a waste of money and resources.

The issue with him being given fully armed Police Security when is is on personal, commercial business is also very grey. Should he be giving paid speeches to estate agents if he really needs armed Police with him all the time?

I mean an intense negative bias. If he’s fact checked on one thing and found inaccurate then he found to be liar in most things. He mentions a woman is disabled in his book, and its considered making fun of the disabled woman.

Yes he said that in spare, he also said that he was hallucinating due to drug use.

and RAVEC said that they hadn’t received the offer at the time of the original 2020 decision. Harry amended and offered to pay for it himself in the hopes that would solve the issue.

No, celeb threats are usual an individual. Harry’s threat is extremists groups. The threat is completely different.