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.

Wouldn't it be great if Harry's threat environment was kept under continual monitoring by the best experts in the field? Who are vastly better informed than randoms on the interwebs?

Can you ask Chat GPT when RAVEC said they received a formal offer?

He’s not asking for his security to have the intel. He’s requesting protection that has already been cleared to have it.

Why doesn’t he need it in the US? Our private security can carry fire arms, coordinate with the local police, respond with force. Here he can hire former secret service or military professionals. Things are fundamentally and legally different.

also its copilot… which Ive stated I use for fact checking and facts in general because obviously I don’t have all this information memorized. And I’m not trying to pretend like I do.

No. I don’t believe he should get a penny of taxpayers money, he can pay for it himself.

I'd have been pretty pissed off with him for that if I were in charge of his security, or were a loved one of his. So irresponsible!

@thatcalmfinch,i don't have hatred towards Harry's DC or actually of Harry or Meghan. I simply stated boasting about how many people he killed in a book to gain cash put a target on his own back and also his wife and kids backs. Strange behaviour for a person who claims to love his family. When he stays at Royal residences he gets protection. Often other royals are there too so already some police protection. Harry chooses to stay in hotels and announce to the world where he'll be at any given time. So announcing to anyone who might want to harm him his location is deliberately putting himself at greater risk. The public should not pay for that at all.

I have always believed that H’s ultimate goal is IPP status which he believed he had and should continue to have ( as per his own words).
Obviously he wants that , not just to save millions of dollars but to be on a more equal footing as William

This was what you said yesterday evening

…... Prince Harry is arguing that the lack of access to real time intelligence is what makes them not enough. He wants the intel. And is willing to come out of pocket for it.

Why doesn’t he need it in the US? Our private security can carry fire arms, coordinate with the local police, respond with force.

That's not true. American private security officers have no special rights or privileges. They have to abide by state legislation regarding the use of firearms, just like any other private citizen.

Anyway, thanks for confirming that you are not British so won't be expected to subsidise Harry's ego trips.

He’s not asking for his security to have the intel. He’s requesting protection that has already been cleared to have it.

He already gets that in Britain.

But not in California where he lives the vast majority of his time.

Strange that.

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.

Agree with this as well @MrsFinkelstein

I think the issue is in the underlying rules.

If according to them protection is only granted to working members of the RF then IMO it's illogical. This is because those people will be under threat regardless. It would make far more sense if the rules applied to the King, Queen and defined nearest family members because they will always be targets, regardless of whether they perform public duties or not.

William, Catherine and their children are equally targets when they go on holiday or their children are in school as they are during public events. Risk is not associated with performance, but with their status, by birth or marriage.

Harry may not win because of the underlying rules, but the underlying rules should be logical and if not, they need to be changed.

Those aren't the 'rules' though.

But he did do it privately, at first. Then he went silent, then he finally left the country. Wasn’t that the suffering in silence that he was expected to do? But what was the result? The media labeled him as whipped and weak. A betrayer of duty. Spoiled, entitled… a resentful spare. Unstable and mentally fragile.

If silence is treated as guilt and speech is treated as betrayal, then there is no ‘appropriate’ option left. At that point, the objection isn’t to how he spoke… it’s that he spoke at all. People will accept a lot of things they don’t like or want to when it’s just themselves. That often changes when you add immediate family into the mix.

I’m not a British citizen so I’m not going to argue where your hard earned money should go to, I don’t think I have that right.

Ok, what are the rules then? Sorry, I based this on OP's post.

If the rules allow protection associated with royal status then isn't it clear Harry and his family should have it and he shouldn't have to pay?

I never thought they were ‘fleeing for their lives.’ But rather reached a breaking point and chose to leave hoping distance would ease tension… which didn’t work obviously.

No , they didn’t want to leave , they wanted to pick and choose what they did whilst being financially supported and security provided . When the Kate Queen said no, they flounced off . It was a huge shock to Harry that his tantrum didn’t work .

I don’t suppose anyone had ever said ‘no’ to him before. He hasn’t taken it well.

He’s not asking for his security to have the intel. He’s requesting protection that has already been cleared to have it.

That's what he already gets.

Edit to add - his own private security will also have been updated by Security Services about any threats. The tax payer funded security he gets currently in the UK are in place because of intel and risk assessments, so of course they're cleared and aware of it.

From what I read they said they would step back from being senior royals. They said they would like to continue some royal duties… that correct I read it as well. I also remember them proposing to lose the sovereign grant. (Going from memory, it’s late and I’m too lazy to fact check. I’m willing to be corrected with facts.)

when negations failed they stepped back completely. I’m far more interested in why. Honestly it seems completely unrealistic the Harry would step back from lifetime of duty because he was throwing a tantrum.

I'm obviously not an expert but I don't believe there are 'rules' as such.

My knowledge is based on the publicly available court files. According to them, there are several 'tiers' of individuals. Tier One is those individuals who will always be provided with security because of their role. The names were redacted but we can guess it refers to the PM, other senior ministers and the most senior royals. Harry, even as a working royal, belonged to 'Tier Two', which meant that he was currently given security but that was not guaranteed for life.

I don't believe there are any special 'rules' related to royal status.

As for your other question, provided he cooperate with the authorities, Harry and his family do have security and do not have to pay. This has been the case ever since he left, so I'm surprised you're unaware of it.

Maybe you can be the person to tell me what exactly is wrong with current arrangements?

The Sovereign Grant accounted for only 5% of Harry’s income , the remaining millions were from the Duchy of Cornwall .
He wanted to continue receiving the Duchy money and was shocked when he was “ cut off” financially . He also thought he would retain his security ( he said that he told Meghan “ they” would never take away his security) .
They wanted to pick and choose what they did whilst using their Royal status to make money . Remember Sussex Royal ?

https://www.carruthers-law.co.uk/articles/prince-harry-judicial-review-security-ravec/

This is a very good summary.

It's a crazy idea that they assumed he'd have to apply for protection and the decisions will be made on a case by case basis after him and Meghan ceased performing public royal duties. Like I said, their risk profile is status-related, not public duty-related. Not to mention RAVEC didn't follow their own process in any event.

Successive senior judges, including those from the highest court in the land, found that RAVEC did indeed follow their procedures correctly. That's why Harry's Judicial Review failed.

Why do you think you know better than them?

I'm an American. If he gets IPP status then the US has to pay for his security. I have to pay whenever he comes to my city because we give him NYPD coverage.

There are plenty of states in the US whete Harry can get a conceal carry permit and carry his own firearms. He can buy and wear tactical gear. He's a trained soldier. He can take ownership of his own safety.

That’s what he gets now provided he gives the required 28 days notice. He doesn’t want to have to plan his visits to comply so arrogantly assumes he’s so important he can have 24/7 cover wherever he is. And the same for his family, paid for by Jo Public.
He’s offered to pay but the British police are not there to be bought by those with money.
Nothing stopping him buying his own security, as I assume he currently does, but they will not be allowed to carry arms in the UK.
I think he’s got a highly inflated ego and imagines he’s far more important than he is a bit like his sickening uncle