Prince Harry’s speech

Glorianny would you extend that availability to anyone prepared to pay for their personal security, or would you have 'entitlement rules'? Should our police protection squad be advertised as 'for hire'?
Sometimes principles cost.

Good post maddyone I think you’ve hit the nail in the head.

It’s got nothing at all to do with security, it’s about control…Meghan knew exactly what she was doing and the annoyance on Harry’s face as she did it was very telling! She’d just undermined his argument!

Glorianny

I find it very odd that someone has offered to pay for their personal security which would mean there would be no cost to the taxpayer and has been refused the right to do so, but the government is prepared to instead spend thousands of pounds on a legal challenge, which they may or may not be able to recover if they win. I'd far rather they'd just let him cough up.

I think paying the police force for personal security might set a precedent and we could find every Tom , Dick or Harry (sorry!) with money to splurge would be demanding the same privilege.

Rosie51

Glorianny would you extend that availability to anyone prepared to pay for their personal security, or would you have 'entitlement rules'? Should our police protection squad be advertised as 'for hire'?
Sometimes principles cost.

That's a bit ridiculous. Unless you mean should every member of the British public be entitled to the same degree of protection the RF have. In which case why not? Harry was just asking that he be given the same degree of protection others in his family have, only he didn't expect us to pay for it. They do.

But he's rejected his position and everything that went with it.

If the government wins costs will most likely be awarded - to Harry.
However Harry is a private individual, not a senior, working member of the royal family. None of the other members of the royal family get tax payer funded security, nor do they pay the police to protect them because the police are not for sale. Only working, senior royals (the Queen, Prince Charles and Camilla, Prince William and family) get full time, tax payer funded security. Edward and his wife and Princess Anne get security only when engaged in royal engagements. No other royals get tax payer funded protection. Should he be able to buy it? No! The police are not for sale. Large gatherings such as football matches pay a reasonable share towards the costs of policing matches/events, but otherwise no one pays for police security. Harry can pay for his own security in the country, absolutely no problem, but it cannot be the tax payer funded police. They are not for sale!

Harry was just asking that he be given the same degree of protection others in his family have
The only ones who receive protection funded by the taxpayer are working royals and their small children.

Glorianny

Rosie51

Glorianny would you extend that availability to anyone prepared to pay for their personal security, or would you have 'entitlement rules'? Should our police protection squad be advertised as 'for hire'?
Sometimes principles cost.

That's a bit ridiculous. Unless you mean should every member of the British public be entitled to the same degree of protection the RF have. In which case why not? Harry was just asking that he be given the same degree of protection others in his family have, only he didn't expect us to pay for it. They do.

Others in his family only have that degree of protection while performing Royal duties. He decided he wasn't going to perform Royal duties anymore, so he lost his 'Royal duties' protection. He wants to be unique in being able to buy protection as and when. Should his cousins who do not get royal protection also be able to purchase it when they want?

Glorianny you are simply wrong! The only royals who get full time police protection are as follows:

The Queen
Prince Charles and Camilla
Prince William and his family

That’s it! No one else! It’s not difficult to understand.

Edward and his wife, and Princess Anne get police security when they are engaged in royal duties and so do one or two others, but only when engaged in royal duties . It’s not difficult to understand.

Additionally, our tax funded police are not for sale. To any individual, ever! This means Harry cannot have, or buy, police funded security. Not difficult to understand.

It’s not difficult to understand. apparently it is if you have an agenda.

Wasn't he over here for a public appearance at a Royal function? This wasn't a private visit was it?
Simple then he was here as a member of the RF on official business. Appearance at such events requires protection. As you say "official business" requires police protection, only apparently not for some.

Actually the police could have been for sale. It might have been agreed but for the interference of one royal secretary who had a history of disputes with Harry.

It's still costing more than it would have done if they'd just been permitted to pay. I doubt if absconding members of the RF are going to be a regular thing so no precedent.

The police are not for sale! How many times does it need to be said. I have no idea how you think you know it was prevented by a royal secretary, but you don’t know that. It’s untrue because the police are not for sale.

Anyway the Queen recently sent her own personal car for the Sussexes when they arrived in the UK for the jubilee. It’s a bullet proof car with blacked out windows to protect the privacy of the occupants. So what did Meghan do? She was photographed having wound down the window. Pointless having security if you break the rules. The occupants are not meant to be seen in order to keep them safe, that’s why the windows are darkened. Meghan put herself into possible danger by smiling through the window at the crowds.

You are just wrong on so many counts Glorianny.

Change the law so any wealthy person can hire police protection .

A Church Service is not an official business unless a coronation

Wasn't he over here for a public appearance at a Royal function? This wasn't a private visit was it?

He wasn't working!!
He isn't a working member of the Royal Family.

He was loaned a bullet proof car by his Granny and the rest of the time he was ever seen was with working members of the Royal Family who would have had security who would have been alert to any danger.

Mind you, my opinion only, I really don’t think Harry and Meghan are in any more danger here in the UK than any of these royals who don’t have police security:

Princess Anne
Prince Andrew (I think he might buy his own security though, an option available to Harry)
Prince Edward and Sophie and their children
Princess Beatrice and family
Princess Eugenie and family
Peter and Zara, children of Princess Anne, and their families
Princess Alexandra
The Dukes of Kent and Gloucester (they are princes, the children of a king)

There are probably more, but those are the ones I can think of straight away.

Being picky maddyone, but the present Dukes of Kent and Gloucester are not the sons of kings, but their own fathers were.

Thanks for correction Calendargirl. I like to have the facts straight, so that’s important to me.

They are first cousins to the Queen as I understand it.

The Duke of Kent and the Duke of Gloucester are grandsons of KingGeorge V.

We saw the Duke of Kent a while ago just before Covid, he was frail but very upright and doing his duty as the representative of his cousin.

X post

I doubt if absconding members of the RF are going to be a regular thing so no precedent.

Oh it would only be absconding members who'd be allowed to use this service? Bit hard on the others who might also like to buy some top notch security.

You are just wrong on so many counts Glorianny

I think you just like being Devil's Advocate, Glorianny ! ?

Rosie51

^I doubt if absconding members of the RF are going to be a regular thing so no precedent.^

Oh it would only be absconding members who'd be allowed to use this service? Bit hard on the others who might also like to buy some top notch security.

Well why not Rosie51 if we have an RF why not make them pay for security. More money in the police and less expense for the taxpayer. It's a win-win situation. Oh but of course that might mean all the RF paying their security costs and we cant have that can we? After all the cost of heating all those castles etc has rocketed, the poor things must be suffering.

We pay for the security of the Head of State and his/her representatives.
We pay for security for certain members of the Government.

It would be exactly the same whatever kind of system we have.

Glorianny

Rosie51

I doubt if absconding members of the RF are going to be a regular thing so no precedent.

Oh it would only be absconding members who'd be allowed to use this service? Bit hard on the others who might also like to buy some top notch security.

Well why not Rosie51 if we have an RF why not make them pay for security. More money in the police and less expense for the taxpayer. It's a win-win situation. Oh but of course that might mean all the RF paying their security costs and we cant have that can we? After all the cost of heating all those castles etc has rocketed, the poor things must be suffering.

You keep changing the goalposts! Perhaps decide on a response and stick to it. You start with it's only Harry, not setting a precedent and quickly progress to make them all pay. Make your mind up.