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 he shouldn’t get anything more than is being offered when he visits his family and gives 28 days notice.
He stepped down, and courts publicity and brags about killing when serving so it’s on him.

I know so many bleating on about Harry having no.security. Blah blah.
And all the time he gets security all.paid for by the good old British taxpayers at the same level as the rest of the royal.family except for Charles,Camilla and his brothers family . Which as others have said is the main problem. He is ranked lower than William and just can't bear it.

They did not step back when negotiations failed. They were kicked out. Harry complained that at the Sandringham Summit he was not given the chance to make his case and that the decision had already been made. I believe this is true.

By then the RF had got the measure of Meghan Markle and could see that Harry was doomed. There was no negotiating with Harry because he was what I will politely call "love" struck. BP and KP recognised they were a toxic element and needed removing.

Everything that followed was spiteful retaliation on the part of the Sussexes. They didn't want to give up their royal status - Markle still uses it even though they were told not to - it was taken from them, and rightly so.

You are either joking , have not actually read his book or are being deliberately goading to start arguments.

Can you explain what copilot is?
because it seems to me that it is slanted towards an American cultural bias rather than actual U.K. facts.

Harry gets state funded security when he visits, at a level that is appropriate to the current threat level, as assessed by intelligence experts. If the press is to be believed his threat level has recently been raised and so has the level of security he will receive on his next visit.

What Harry cannot be given is IPP status (Internationally Protected Person) which comes with security being provided by the government of any country he might visit or live in. IPP status is an international agreement between governments and is restricted to people who are politically significant, which Harry isn't.

The King and Queen and the Wales family are currently IPPs.

I'd rather that any extra public money in terms of security goes to the Wales Family, not Price Harry.

Why do you need to be so aggressive in your posts? Tone it down, it's a discussion, you're not here to be jumping at my throat.

Where did I say I know better? I never said it, you are manipulating.

I said that RAVEC did not follow its usual process. It did not. It admitted it, its head explained he didn't consider the usual assessment appropriate for Harry's circumstances which were unusual and the assessment was not geared up for it. If you had actually read the summary instead of jumping at my throat in every post I make on this thread then you would have known where this comment came from.

What you're talking about is an entirely separate point. Whether the court held RAVEC acted appropriately to the circumstances is a separate point to my statement that it did not follow its usual process.

The underlying point remains, the rules are not set up properly for assessing this kind of situation which is the point I made from the outset.

The rules are fine, risk assessment is a dynamic process and the rules need to be adaptable to that process. It was determined that Harry required a bespoke assessment because his circumstances were unique. The likelihood is that this worked in his favour. If the committee are unable to take his particular situation in to account that's unlikely to result in a higher level of security than he already receives.

He will never get the same level of security cover as his brother, if that's what he wants he's on a hiding to nothing.

I may be being very dense here but I don't see what's changed. The risk assessment and 28 or 30 day required notice are separate things. Even if the need for security has been established by the latest assessment, he will still need to give notice in order for that security cover to be available surely?

If Harry decided to drop into the UK tomorrow, what's to stop the Government from saying that they haven't the manpower available so he comes at his own risk? And what comeback does he have if they do?

When he's here he has security, he is met straight off his flight, no immigration queues, no baggage claim, no customs like the rest of us have to endure, there is a convoy of Range Rovers ferrying him around so I don't understand what he wants. Surely he doesn't expect the UK to fund his security in the US, when you walk out on a job, you don't get to keep the company car, phone laptop etc..

@CaraVirra Plus he really doesn’t need much security over here, does he. Assuming that you’re American, you know how little interest there is in him over here, other people are far higher profile, aren’t they?

What 'rules' are you referring to exactly?

And what do you think is inadequate about Harry's current arrangements, given that he is a private citizen resident on another continent?

The point I made earlier is that it would be more logical if automatic protection was granted because of their status to the nearest family members of the King because they are at risk, whether they perform public duties or not. The fundamental question is are sons of the King ever at lower risk e.g.: of kidnap, stalking, attack? Their risk is likely consistently high or very high. This is by virtue of their status. I can easily imagine the risk for Harry and Meghan isn't lesser than for the Waleses despite Harry being the spare because of all the media vitriol and, yes, racism. I therefore don't see the point in individual risk assessments, this in my view shouldn't be a debate. For the record, I'm not justifying some of H&M's behaviours and I'm not a big fan of them either, but objectively, I think Harry does have a point when it comes to security.

Anne and Edward didn’t ( and don’t) have 24/7 protection despite being the children/ siblings of a Monarch.
Should AMW have 24/7 security ?
Harry hasn’t been the Spare since George was born.

The sons and daughter of the monarch have managed perfectly well without automatic round the clock security for years if not decades now. So how is it more 'logical' to pay vast amounts of taxpayer money on unneeded security? Sounds to me like a massive waste of money and resources.

Also, as was pointed out in the court documents, it's not just about 'risk'. It's also about the impact a potential attack on the individual would have on national security. Since Harry plays no official role, lives on another continent and is only 5th in line, he simply is not that important to the nation. To repeat, even as a working royal he was never in the category of individuals guaranteed security due to their role.

The ANL judgement is not written in hieroglyphics or Latin. It is in plain English.

Duke of Sussex-v-ANL judgment

"The Claimant’s PR team issued a public statement on the Claimant’s behalf within minutes of news of the legal action breaking in a Mail on Sunday article, which spun the story to imply that the Claimant had brought proceedings to challenge the Home Office’s refusal of his offer to pay for police protection in the UK, when in fact no such offer to pay had been made to RAVEC before his visit in June 2021 or to the Home Office in correspondence prior to the commencement of the proceedings. This rebutted the Claimant’s initial public statement which implied that he had always been willing to pay."

H made his dramatic exit statement in January 2020. All the revisionism in the world will not change the fact that H could not be bothered to submit an offer in writing to pay for security even up to a year and a half AFTER he ran off to find his freedom.

IMHO, based on his behavior H is as concerned about security as an amoeba is about quantum physics.

As far as im concerned AMW probably needs more security than hazzer there is a lot less goodwill for andrew

No

If I understand correctly, he has protection if he gives notice that he intends visiting the U.K. That seems reasonable, so why does it need to change as he doesn’t live here?

Goodness, “mentions” is doing some incredibly heavy lifting in that sentence there.

For someone so keen on facts not opinions, here’s an extract about what Harry actually said about this “disabled woman” (Pat, a matron at his school) in Spare. He describes mocking her as a child, and yet recounts it as an adult with satisfaction because taunting Pat had made his schoolmates laugh. He also decribed her as “not hot”, but rather mousy and frazzled with greasy hair falling into her tired eyes. She’s pretty much dehumanised by adult Harry.

Intense positive bias yourself, perhaps, CaraVirra?

Copilot is Microsoft's AI product.

Unfortunately for people who rely on it to write their posts and state they are using it to fact-check, it is highly inaccurate and regularly makes answers up. And it hasn’t read Spare…or listened to Harry’ podcasts or tv interviews etc.

Mainly, they wanted to exploit their royal status to make money.

Their exact words from January 2020:
Do The Duke and Duchess of Sussex earn income?
No, under the current structure and financing arrangements, they are prohibited from earning any income in any form.
As they step back as senior members of the Royal Family and no longer receive funding through the Sovereign Grant, they will become members of the Royal Family with financial independence which is something they look forward to.
In addition, they value the ability to earn a professional income, which in the current structure they are prohibited from doing. For this reason they have made the choice to become members of the Royal Family with financial independence

By becoming financially independent, will The Duke and Duchess of Sussex be cutting ties with the monarchy?
As working members of the Royal Family, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex remain dedicated to maximising Her Majesty’s legacy both in the UK and throughout the Commonwealth. They will continue to proudly do so by supporting their patronages and carrying out works for The Monarchy within the UK or abroad, as called upon.

Thanks @Serenster and this is the basis for the op to question actual U.K. residents who are witnesses of the events and who have seen actual factual evidence!

Haven't gone through all 9 pages, but in answer to the OP - yes, of course Harry and family should get the same protection they received before. The protection was based on risk due to him being a Prince and further increased by his active participation for our Armed Services.
Neither of these two things stopped being true when he stopped being a working royal. He didn't ask/choose for his father to be the King. If we are going to continue having a high profile institution like the Royal family, then we need to protect them. Can you imagine the damage to our country's global reputation, or the sick joy that would be felt by extremists/terrorists if they managed to successfully attack him.

So should AMW receive full time security as the son of our previous Monarch ? Should Anne and Edward ( working Royals) receive f/ t security ?
Harry does receive appropriate security when he graces the U.K. with his presence , it’s just not the level he wants .