Ham want to be called "Public Figures" now!!

[Tabbytiger122]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-harry-meghan-markle-king-charles-b3047022.html

Ham are now asking to be called "public figures".. wtf! They wanted to be private citizens which is why they left the RF..Is this to try & get security.
Good on King Charkes nipping their shit in the bud & reminding them of their station!

I dislike Harry intensely (don't care about Meghan) but I don't understand the security issue. Maybe someone can explain it to me. Why shouldn't the taxpayer pay for their security? It is not his fault that he is the king's son. The kidnapping risk must be insanely high. Do people really want it on their conscience if something happens to them or their children? With all the HM nutters out there it is only a matter of time.

It’s not the person , it’s the risk . Anne and Edward did not have full time security when their mother was Queen . They still don’t. Harry wants what William has . Simple .

There’s been a detailed discussion about the criteria for the level of security H wants. Only KC and W of the royals get it, not the others.

If H is worried about his family’s security he is a multi-millionaire and can afford to pay for it.

And where has that information come from?

Photo evidence isn't enough for you? You can google it yourself Samantha Cohen was everywhere wherever Meghan went. The Queen appointed her most senior assistant that had been working for her for 17 years, Samantha Cohen, to be Meghan's private secretary. If you think this gesture from The Queen was anything but her best attempt to gave Meghan the best help she could get, then that's on you. And even if BRF didn't prepared her enough to your liking, who's to blame here? Meghan and Harry met for the first time in July 2016. Meghan moved to UK summer 2017. They're engaged November 2017. Harry only notified (important note here, he notified not asking for permission) Charles that Meghan would be full time working royal October 2017. William, and I would imagine other sane people on their life, already warned him that he should gave Meghan more time to get to know what her new life would be like, but Harry ignored them. After their engagement Harry asked for the fastest date possible for the wedding. They got married less than 2 years since the first time they met. And then they left their job, moved to Canada November 2019, only 19 months since they got married! And there's pregnancy on that short 19 months. Even after all that fact you still want to blame BRF that Meghan didn't understand what it took to be a working royal, fine. But now please explain to me like I'm 5 years old, how on earth could Meghan didn't have common sense at all? Easiest example, was that makes sense how she didn't understand why public would understandably angry with a public figure that got a very fancy public baby shower in the middle of New York? Years later on her Netflix series she talked about that baby shower. She said people shouldn't be mad because she didn't use taxpayers money for her baby shower. She did, people paid for her security everywhere. But that's not the point. Royal or not, people just hate when rich public figure showing off their fancy life. Or when she wore diamond earrings from saudi prince 2 days after public knew that very prince killed a journalist. She still wanted to wear it? Fine. But questioning people's anger just show how out of touch and lack of common sense she was. And BRF had nothing to do with her character at all. All of that, how fast everything moved on their relationship, how weird they acted in that short 19 months, and everything in between, it's clear that she never had intention to stay. Which is again, fine. But she shouldn't ask to be full time working royal in the first place if she didn't have hidden motives.

For the umpteenth time (sorry if you haven’t managed to find an explanation on one of the eleventy million threads), status does not equal risk. Being the king’s son is not inherently dangerous. See also Princess Anne and Prince Edward who do not have 24/7 security. This does not mean that Harry would not receive security if there was to be discovered a current and credible threat to him. So he will be quite safe. Don’t worry
😊

parentheses fail

RAVEC is the Home Office committee, made up of professionals, who assess the current risk and allocate security based on that risk.

When Harry stepped back from being a working royal, and moved abroad, he created an unprecedented situation, so the committee had to develop a structure to provide adequate security for him.
They did so by developing a 'bespoke' plan, under which Harry received security, assessed on a case-by-case basis, if he gave 28 days notice of his return (allows for assessment and for staff to be available under employment law).
There was obviously flexibility for emergencies built in, as he received security when he flew over urgently to see his father at the time of the King's cancer diagnosis.
Harry objected to their process and took the Home Office to court; he lost in the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

Harry believes that he requires permanent 24/7 police security; he has not so far been awarded that by RAVEC.
The only people who are currently considered by RAVEC to require that level of security are the monarch and his wife, and the heir and his family.
Other working royals receive police security only when on official engagements.
We know this because Harry has publicised it during his court cases, thereby increasing the risk to all members of the family.

RAVEC is currently reassessing Harry's case, now that he is back resident in the UK as a non-working royal.
They are professionals and will assess the risk and recommend the security level required.
They should not be swayed either by legal bullying from Harry or by public putcry.

"But I think if we are burdened with a hereditary monarchy then it’s up to them to do the best they can to resolve this, or they risk having this soap opera continue throughout W’s reign, never mind that of KCIII’s, and that is not remotely beneficial to the UK."

I think a constitutional monarchy is a pretty good system that provides an apolitical, unifying national figure as head of state for the country, who also garners great respect abroad. Combined with a parliamentary system, I think it works well (perhaps more proportional representation would be better, but that's another issue). Which country do you think has a better system?

As for Harry, the institutional problem has been resolved from the perspective of not just the royal family but of the government too: Harry does not represent the King. What exactly do you think needs resolving? Harry and Meghan are free to get on with their own lives and raise their kids as they wish. The only issues I can see are that Harry is a clown and Meghan hasn't yet realised that she has few talents and they deliberately feed the trash media, which publishes endless slop about them, but those are their problems, not the royal family's.

Thank you for the detailed explanation @bluegreygreen .

@SoftIce they HAVENT been refused security. You need to read other threads.

Seriously still people think H&M are being refused anything...NOT the case 🤦‍♀️

Do people really want it on their conscience if something happens to them or their children?

With all the HM nutters out there it is only a matter of time.

I think that ‘all the HM nutters out there’ would not wish to harm a single hair on their heads.

They are far too busy concerning themselves with getting them back into the royal fold and fretting over the clarification letter.

Those were the nutters you meant, right?

Harry claims to be worried about his safety and that of Meghan. Yet they visit Colombia, Nigeria, Jamaica, and Ukraine, all countries that the US State Department has flagged as dangerous. Now Harry is going to skydive. Someone genuinely worried about safety would not act like that.

I’ve always maintained that the baby shower was a definite turning point in sentiment towards Meghan. Both from the public & the RF. QE2 did not like it & Meghan was told, I reckon. Which she did not like!

Is that the same as the rich old white ladies? Are we them?

Is that when Meghan, who had her passport confiscated by the MiG and was not allowed to go anywhere, flew to NYC and had a big fancy party with press and celebrities?

And that time she had a whole seating area of the Wimbledon tennis so she HRH in abbeyance Meghan Markle could sit in splendid royal isolation. Then Kate went and sat with everyone else a few days later.

I really hate the way they have never been challenged on all those blatant lies. Grrrr. How do they just get away with trashing so many other people’s reputation?

Your neighbour Ireland has a better system.

We democratically vote for a President once every seven years. Our current President is Catherine Connolly...she met Trump yesterday - she has voiced her concerns about his politics previously but yesterday she acted like the professional that she is and welcomed him to our country with grace.

We also have the Taoiseach - the leader of the government.

A hereditary system seems crazy to me...you could have had Andrew on the throne but for an accident of birth. And I think it's a massive amount of pressure to put on a child - Prince George. I also don't agree with the titles - ridiculous that Meghan was out working as a royal within a few years of meeting Harry. Unearned titles are a relic of the past.

Weren't republican angry with Charles when he professionally hosted Trump last year? So there wouldn't be any different then whether it's a king or a president? I would never understand the argument behind those people who want to change the system into another puppet head of state. If you're a real republican don't be shy to ask for a presidential system. But don't blame anyone if you get Farage the sachet Trump as your head of state and government.

I don't see any particular advantage to the Irish system for the United Kingdom. Charles's speech to Congress was widely praised and only someone from such a historical tradition could have given it. I'm not sure the British people would choose to remove the royal family and elect a retired politician instead.

Ireland is the only example people can ever give as an alternative system, however, and perhaps that's because Ireland itself emerged from the British system with a greater focus on an apolitical head of state. I doubt many people around the world could name the Irish president, however.

Aside from Ireland, which other example would people who don't like the British system propose? France? Italy? Canada? (haha) The US?

An Andrew-like character would never end up on the throne. He would have been removed way earlier. If such a character did end up on the throne, he would be removed very quickly. People elect complete fools as their political leaders all the time.

I don't think you have thought this through.

If Harry, and his children, have the level of security he wants, ie the same as the King and Prince of Wales, then there are other people who are just as entitled to it.

Anne, Zara and Peter
Andrew, Beatrice and Eugenie
Edward, Louise and James...
What about Princess Margaret's children, they've been grandchildren of a monarch too...

They've all been in the same position as Harry or his children.

So we're not talking about an extra officer or two, are we? We're talking about more than 10 separate armed 24/7 guards in addition. Not really the pocket money you find down the back of the sofa realm.

And is the kidnap risk really that great? Other than the famous time when there was an attempt on Anne, have there really been other attempts that have got that close? I don't think so in the last 50+ years.
Now you're probably going to say there were other plots to kidnap them, but here's the rub... they were all stopped before they got anywhere near any of the HRHes. AND if MI5 or whoever gets wind of one, then they will up the security for the time it's needed.

"I think it was assumed that Prince Andrew and Harry would be available."

When was it "assumed that Prince Andrew and Harry would be available" and what would they be available for? When Charles and Diana only had two children? When Edward and Sophie agreed that Louise and James wouldn't be HRH and princess/prince?

Strictly speaking, only 2-4 people are required as working royals: the Sovereign and spouse and the heir and spouse. Handfuls of cousins and uncles and great-aunts aren't really necessary. It's good if there are a few more to help out and to add weight, but they're not really essential.

In any case, Beatrice (who lives in the UK) and Eugenie (who lives part of the time in Portugal and could easily move back) are HRH and princesses and Louise and James could have their HRHs and princely titles activated if needs be. But it's not necessary.

I'm not sure quite what royal duties you imagine aren't being performed and need someone to fill in for them. What's really funny is that you imagine Harry and Meghan could actually do any of these things.

"Prince Harry was fantastic at getting attention to causes" - Which causes was Harry ever "fantastic" about getting attention for? Young people and smartphone use? Conservation in Africa? Archewell? The only thing he could be credited with is work for veterans, but the truth is all the Invictus stuff was set up for him and he himself undermined his work in that direction by withdrawing from being a working royal and hence loosening the Invictus ties with the military services of various countries.

By the way, the point of the royal family is not to bring attention to causes. It's great that they can and it's part of their appeal, but it's not the fundamental purpose.

@BunnyBunbunbun

I'm not sure quite what royal duties you imagine aren't being performed and need someone to fill in for them.

Well, one thing was a charity ball:

We hoped to use a NAS ball However it was a nightmare getting prizes for the auction and selling tickets

Apparently, it was just down the road from Princess Anne's gaff, but she didn't have time to make it.
Tbh, I can't see Meghan and/or Harry turning up for that sort of thing either, HRH or not.

I love the idea that the royals are like party acts you can hire on demand for your events (even if they're not actually being paid).

Perhaps Anne was busy. Besides, she doesn't work with the NAS anymore and Sophie, Duchess of Edinburgh, is their royal patron now. A quick online search shows that she attends plenty of NAS events. But she's not going to be able to attend every one. In any case, being a royal patron never meant turning up to events.

The idea that Meghan or Harry would diligently and consistently support a charity, especially one that isn't glamorous or media-friendly, sounds quite ambitious to me.

H & M are takers, not givers. They wouldn’t be any help to the RF in terms of lightening the load - they’d want to cherry- pick the most glamorous and high-profile events and they wouldn’t give value for money even at those. OK, H has been house-trained, yes, to do the right thing but M is utterly bored by any meet and greet and chat to mere mortals - she’d get the frock, do the red carpet shots, bask in the applause and then be desperate to leave if her past record is anything to go by.