Please or to access all these features

The royal family

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Is Harry and his family coming to the UK or not

1000 replies

Viviennemary · 01/07/2026 17:08

Nobody seems to know for sure. Why should we care. Maybe he doesn't even know himself yet. He can't seem to do anything without attracting lots of press articles.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
11
jeffgoldblum · 05/07/2026 13:16

IcedPurple · 05/07/2026 13:10

Not to speak for someone else, but I'm assuming she means Great Great Great (?) Uncle Edward, Duke of Windsor.

Ah ! Thanks, I was confused 😕

BasiliskStare · 05/07/2026 14:38

It is my belief that Ravec , for reasons which I think, perhaps naively, are beyond bleedin' obvious 😂Do not publish their security recommendations.
Happy for those who have links to Ravec / detailed Met police security plans for individuals to say differently 😉Also the Monarch , nor his/ her heir are allowed to dictate security. It's just a feeling I have by reading the actual text ( as my university tutor would say ) rather than making stuff up based on unsubstantiated opinions.

Are we due another sticky ? I've been tidying my desk and I have found a whole sheet of sticky labels and am happy to donate a few 😊

OlympicWomen · 05/07/2026 14:39

BasiliskStare · 05/07/2026 14:38

It is my belief that Ravec , for reasons which I think, perhaps naively, are beyond bleedin' obvious 😂Do not publish their security recommendations.
Happy for those who have links to Ravec / detailed Met police security plans for individuals to say differently 😉Also the Monarch , nor his/ her heir are allowed to dictate security. It's just a feeling I have by reading the actual text ( as my university tutor would say ) rather than making stuff up based on unsubstantiated opinions.

Are we due another sticky ? I've been tidying my desk and I have found a whole sheet of sticky labels and am happy to donate a few 😊

All of the above, Basilisk. Common sense.

Rhaidimiddim · 05/07/2026 14:49

IdaGlossop · 05/07/2026 12:40

You have moved the argument in another direction. My point is about the Harry-commissioned report, whose conclusions are likely to be based on spurious data. You have introduced the case of Andrew Mounbatten-Windsor, about whom we have all shockingly been deceived for decades. Despite the evidence, his case will probably never come to court. His behaviour has been criminal. Harry's has not been.

As to Harry's security, he does get security when he's here. He was told when he left the UK that his security would be removed. I believe it includes a tracking device from the moment he arrives, live monitoring of MI5 intelligence, and a direct line to the Met. But he wants more - 24-hour security and a motorcade. He won't get that because he doesn't fall into any of the categories that qualify. Only last year, a judge ruled against Harry's questioning of the approach taken by RAVEC and the Home Office. It is a bespoke process but he wants more.

The remaining mystery is why the new review he agreed with Shabana Mahmood has been paused.

I'm not a Windsor supporter. I'd rather have the monarchy than not - just. But they need to clean up or they'll be gone.

I rather think the new review "agreed" with SM was a bit of a figment of H's PR.

Have RAVEC or the Home Office confirmed such a review?

Might it have been a case of H phoning the HO :

H: "Look, Shab, there's LOADS of credible threats against me. But the men in grey blah blah blah..."

SB: "OK..... so, can you pull together some evidence of this? Good, send it to the Met, then. Byeee!"

And here we are.

BasiliskStare · 05/07/2026 15:20

H is beyond tiresome. I wonder , as Patron , what plans or activities he has put in place to attract big spending sponsors to invest in the IG. Because at the moment it doesn't look like the 23m from the govt is going to cut it , based on recent IG spending. It also doesn't look like just H showing up at the NEC , mayhap with M , is going to do enough good. Didn't Sophie C say after the initial years , H's annual polo matches weren't raising enough money for Sentebale and indeed some potential sponsors were put off by him. If he can't attract sponsorship then I think IG have a good reason to ask him to step down for the good of the charity. But as a PP says - who has the bottle to do this?

IdaGlossop · 05/07/2026 15:40

Rhaidimiddim · 05/07/2026 14:49

I rather think the new review "agreed" with SM was a bit of a figment of H's PR.

Have RAVEC or the Home Office confirmed such a review?

Might it have been a case of H phoning the HO :

H: "Look, Shab, there's LOADS of credible threats against me. But the men in grey blah blah blah..."

SB: "OK..... so, can you pull together some evidence of this? Good, send it to the Met, then. Byeee!"

And here we are.

Interesting idea. My understanding was that he'd doorstopped Shana in Ukraine. She said 'OK. We haven't done a full review since 2019. Time to do another.' So I think it really was in train. The question now is why it has been paused.

IdaGlossop · 05/07/2026 16:08

IdaGlossop · 05/07/2026 15:40

Interesting idea. My understanding was that he'd doorstopped Shana in Ukraine. She said 'OK. We haven't done a full review since 2019. Time to do another.' So I think it really was in train. The question now is why it has been paused.

Doorstepped!

Rhaidimiddim · 05/07/2026 17:24

BasiliskStare · 05/07/2026 14:38

It is my belief that Ravec , for reasons which I think, perhaps naively, are beyond bleedin' obvious 😂Do not publish their security recommendations.
Happy for those who have links to Ravec / detailed Met police security plans for individuals to say differently 😉Also the Monarch , nor his/ her heir are allowed to dictate security. It's just a feeling I have by reading the actual text ( as my university tutor would say ) rather than making stuff up based on unsubstantiated opinions.

Are we due another sticky ? I've been tidying my desk and I have found a whole sheet of sticky labels and am happy to donate a few 😊

And you have got to think that, rather than AMW's situation being the exception, it was actually the rule for him and Edward and Anne as working royals. As in, RAVEC would keep an eye on things and recommend heightened security when needed, but otherwise security as normal i.e. none except when out on a Royal engagement.

If this counts as "full security" then all three were rightly entitled to it. Or are we being told that AMW alone had fully armed Met officers 24/07/365?

TheNinkyNonkyIsATardis · 05/07/2026 17:49

Ukisgaslit · 05/07/2026 10:14

No sway you say ?

Why have 3 representatives then ?

The queen did write to RAVEC a matter of months before she died

Who knows why . I have no respect for Andrew enablers but she did know how to play the public and how to achieve good PR .

The current lot haven’t a clue .

Because RAVEC need to be briefed on planned activities so that they can advise - there are several FT royals plus various PT ones. The VIP contingent of it can be more ad hoc because, for example, Taylor Swift only visits once and briefly.

Benjithedog · 05/07/2026 17:59

Ukisgaslit · 05/07/2026 10:14

No sway you say ?

Why have 3 representatives then ?

The queen did write to RAVEC a matter of months before she died

Who knows why . I have no respect for Andrew enablers but she did know how to play the public and how to achieve good PR .

The current lot haven’t a clue .

They denied the Queen her request which perfectly evidences the fact they have no sway

Talltreesbythelake · 05/07/2026 18:02

Benjithedog · 05/07/2026 17:59

They denied the Queen her request which perfectly evidences the fact they have no sway

The Queen didn't demand motorbike outriders and a helicopter for him, though. She asked that he be protected and he has been.

Benjithedog · 05/07/2026 18:02

Ukisgaslit · 05/07/2026 10:25

@OlympicWomen

Rubbish
How childish .

The fact is Harry’s actions have exposed the institution to be corrupt , divided , dysfunctional.

Exactly as republicans have described it .

Edited

Harry has done nothing of the sort. He’s been caught out so many times telling lies that nothing can be believed if it comes from his mouth.

Benjithedog · 05/07/2026 18:06

Ukisgaslit · 05/07/2026 12:11

Ok let’s look at what is not ‘smoke and mirrors’

Andrew was forced to stand down in 2019 ( 12 years after Epstein first conviction and after at least 12 years of Windsor cover up and lies )

RAVEC reviewed Andrew’s security immediately and granted him full security.
Andrew was not a working royal. He was disgraced .
He got full security until 2022 and it was removed once the public became aware .

Harry did not have his supposed review at all and his security was promptly removed in 2020 .
And by promptly I mean he left with his family in Jan 2020 and his security was removed in Feb 2020

The Windsors protected Andrew . Windsor supporters continually repeat the tabloid line trying to link Andrew and Harry .

I have no time for any of them but I see a man who left and who didn’t nothing wrong.

I see another man with decades of links to pedophiles and sex traffickers - he was protected until the public found out .

Edited

You bringing up Andrew does nothing to support your viewpoint at all.

IcedPurple · 05/07/2026 18:23

TheNinkyNonkyIsATardis · 05/07/2026 17:49

Because RAVEC need to be briefed on planned activities so that they can advise - there are several FT royals plus various PT ones. The VIP contingent of it can be more ad hoc because, for example, Taylor Swift only visits once and briefly.

I honestly don't get why people are acting as if having royal staff on the RAVEC committee is somehow 'off'. How else are RAVEC to plan for events? RPO's don't just go around toting guns. A lot of their work involves the 'boring' stuff of checking out venues, working out routes and so on. That's why Harry is expected to give notice. If they're expected to protect him, they can't just swing into action at a moment's notice. But he's such a fool that he doesn't understand this. And much else besides.

Theunamedcat · 05/07/2026 18:29

AMW retaining security is a bit captain obvious he is an alleged rapist and all round wrong un they protect those types in prison all the time

Corryvreckan · 05/07/2026 19:00

Never wrestle with a pig.
You both get dirty and the pig enjoys it.

CathyorClaire · 05/07/2026 20:30

Because at the moment it doesn't look like the 23m from the govt is going to cut it , based on recent IG spending

I'm behind the times.

Has the government now committed another £23m on top of the £26m committed to lure the circus to Brum originally?

I'd assumed the £26m was already spent (as always I'd like to know how) on said luring.

alliumursinum · 05/07/2026 20:47

The contemporaneous reports in 2019 when AMW stood down all say security was removed - could you point us in the direction of a RAVEC announcement that said differently @Ukisgaslit . Again, am not sure RAVEC broadcast announcements but something may have been alluded to.

That said, as others have posted RAVEC have to consider reality of threat level and whilst there is understandable disgust as to AMW's behaviour, it doesn't mean that RAVEC won't sanction security support. I think it was in one of Harry's cases against the govt that the 'decision tree' about security was referenced.

Rhaidimiddim · 05/07/2026 22:38

CathyorClaire · 05/07/2026 20:30

Because at the moment it doesn't look like the 23m from the govt is going to cut it , based on recent IG spending

I'm behind the times.

Has the government now committed another £23m on top of the £26m committed to lure the circus to Brum originally?

I'd assumed the £26m was already spent (as always I'd like to know how) on said luring.

You and me and almost everybody on this thread would like to know this.

How much has been spent, and what on.

How much more is needed, and where is it coming from. Is it coming?

How much cash does the Patron - who is supposed to facilitate sponsorship - raise, and how much does he expect in personal funding tomattend.

BasiliskStare · 05/07/2026 22:58

@CathyorClaire My fault when I typed "Because at the moment it doesn't look like the 23m from the govt is going to cut it , based on recent IG spending".

What I was referring to is the original £26m but mistakenly said £23m. So as you were , I am not privy to further government commitment - I got the amount wrong , but was definitely meaning the £26m commitment . Sorry for the confusion. 😊

PotolKimchi · 06/07/2026 10:37

Well, there's a new addition to the drama, and I think this a bit of a PR fumble from Buckingham Palace. Saying: ah you didn't reply in time, so now this offer has been 'withdrawn' is petty. If you don't see him as just another guest but as the son of the man who is supposed to live there and who had invited him, then you don't 'withdraw' that invitation. This will add to his sense of grievance and will make people think that this is all part of the vendetta of the men in grey suits.
This will now spiral: if he can't stay at Buckingham Palace with the kids he's not guaranteed security within it. So then Meghan and the kids can't come (if they were ever coming at all).

I think they thought they had found a loophole to try and limit the psychodrama (he hasn't replied in time so we've rescinded the offer) but I think they've inflamed it in a way where the public will feel a bit sorry for Harry.

What they should have done is say: come any time, we'll make up a couple of bedrooms for you and the family. You'll be safe here. But can you get a photo op with your dad at short notice? NOPE. Can you bring cameras in? Bigger nope. There was a way to 'win' this for Buckingham Palace and I think they've fumbled slightly.

jeffgoldblum · 06/07/2026 10:40

PotolKimchi · 06/07/2026 10:37

Well, there's a new addition to the drama, and I think this a bit of a PR fumble from Buckingham Palace. Saying: ah you didn't reply in time, so now this offer has been 'withdrawn' is petty. If you don't see him as just another guest but as the son of the man who is supposed to live there and who had invited him, then you don't 'withdraw' that invitation. This will add to his sense of grievance and will make people think that this is all part of the vendetta of the men in grey suits.
This will now spiral: if he can't stay at Buckingham Palace with the kids he's not guaranteed security within it. So then Meghan and the kids can't come (if they were ever coming at all).

I think they thought they had found a loophole to try and limit the psychodrama (he hasn't replied in time so we've rescinded the offer) but I think they've inflamed it in a way where the public will feel a bit sorry for Harry.

What they should have done is say: come any time, we'll make up a couple of bedrooms for you and the family. You'll be safe here. But can you get a photo op with your dad at short notice? NOPE. Can you bring cameras in? Bigger nope. There was a way to 'win' this for Buckingham Palace and I think they've fumbled slightly.

Nope .

BigWillyLittleTodger · 06/07/2026 10:46

I think the Palace have played a blinder, no one with half a brain will feel sorry for Harry, we have seen his attempts of manipulation play out in real time, no one is fooled. The Palace is not a family home that can “leave a couple of bedrooms” made up for Harry to rock up when he feels like it. Staff have to be rostered on, security deployed. It’s not there for the convenience of Prince Harry when he feels he needs his ego stroked. I think public sympathy will be with the King, Harry’s manipulations have been exposed and it isn’t looking good on him at all.

TheRealMagic · 06/07/2026 10:48

PotolKimchi · 06/07/2026 10:37

Well, there's a new addition to the drama, and I think this a bit of a PR fumble from Buckingham Palace. Saying: ah you didn't reply in time, so now this offer has been 'withdrawn' is petty. If you don't see him as just another guest but as the son of the man who is supposed to live there and who had invited him, then you don't 'withdraw' that invitation. This will add to his sense of grievance and will make people think that this is all part of the vendetta of the men in grey suits.
This will now spiral: if he can't stay at Buckingham Palace with the kids he's not guaranteed security within it. So then Meghan and the kids can't come (if they were ever coming at all).

I think they thought they had found a loophole to try and limit the psychodrama (he hasn't replied in time so we've rescinded the offer) but I think they've inflamed it in a way where the public will feel a bit sorry for Harry.

What they should have done is say: come any time, we'll make up a couple of bedrooms for you and the family. You'll be safe here. But can you get a photo op with your dad at short notice? NOPE. Can you bring cameras in? Bigger nope. There was a way to 'win' this for Buckingham Palace and I think they've fumbled slightly.

But his dad doesn't live at Buckingham Palace. There aren't permanent members of the royal family there, and so presumably there isn't permanent security and household staff of the level needed. Harry very much did not just want a bed! Also, he seems to have been expecting to be there tomorrow? My mum and dad do not have to arrange security and staff for me to stay, just buy in some extra milk, but they'd still be a bit pissed off if I hadn't made my mind up whether I was coming a few days before when I'd been thinking about it for ages!

Poppinpoppinpopcorn · 06/07/2026 12:08

I hope Harry finally realises he's not the centre of everything

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.