Harry’s over for a Court case but not to see his Papa. 🤔

100% agree David49 @ 08.12

The very long interview/speech was given to the BBC,
Diana gave her ‘ three in the marriage’ interview to
Martin Bashir on the BBC , why didn’t the BBC explain Diana
was lied to by Bashir their employee which caused her to
refuse protection

eazybee

I believe it is Archie's 6th birthday today and Harry is on his way to Las Vegas; something to do with a charity connected with his mother?

It’s also 2 years since Coronation Day, when Harry popped over to see his father crowned, and then dashed off so as not to miss Archie’s 4th birthday.

I think they felt the date had been set purposely to clash with the birthday

So what about today’s event? Is it another quick dash? But if it’s only to Vegas….

The date of the coronation was chosen so Harry would leave his son on his 4th birthday?

I very much doubt it. There are greater considerations than an estranged son and family when arranging coronations.

eazybee

I believe it is Archie's 6th birthday today and Harry is on his way to Las Vegas; something to do with a charity connected with his mother?

Maybe that's why they had Archie's party at the weekend. Many parents miss their children's birthdays for various reasons.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/06/prince-harry-security-royal-family?CMP=share_btn_url

I don't know if the above link will work but the title:heading of Marina Hyde's article in today's Guardian is.........

"Don’t you get it, Harry? You’re not a victim. You’re a rich man who can pay for his own sodding security"

Apropos my previous comments that this was "all about money".
It's not that often that someone as distinguished as Marina Hyde reflects my views.......
I'm not the only one that thinks this , then.

Isn’t the issue rather that his own security would not be allowed to carry guns, and that they are not privy to any threats there may be?

Yes that is the issue Casdon. However if Harry cares to 'book' his visits in advance he will be given the appropriate security paid for by the taxpayer. What he can't do is just swan in on a whim and have a security detail dispatched within seconds. I can get that he doesn't like having to preplan but people like Princess Anne, Prince Edward etc get security when they are working, not around the clock according to their whims.

Recently he stayed in London, was invited to stay at Buckingham Palae, he refused and stayed in a hotel, was he in
fear then

But even if Harry ‘books’ his visits, he’s still not here working!

Different if he comes for a state occasion, but if he wants to come to visit some old mates (assuming Meg still lets him have some), he shouldn’t qualify then.

But then if that’s why he is here, no one else needs to know about it either. Just keep it all under the radar and ‘private’, which is what they say they want.

We as taxpayers don’t need to be shelling out for security for stuff like that.

Agree Calendergirl, we shouldn’t have to pay when he wants a holiday here

I don’t think Harry has many, if any, old mates left these days. His disloyalty to his family has dismayed and angered them. Those who were brought up close to the throne are not going to abandon the values they were taught and loyalty and discretion would have been high on the list.

They also have wives who reflect their attitudes!

He is in Las Vegas, a pool party !

If he was visiting his father he would automatically have armed protection though.

What a shame Harry didn't meet someone who understood all the protocol of the Royal family and everything involved in marrying a prince. How different it all could have been.

He should have been on the balcony at BP with his family on Monday. It's sad really how he's gone from such a much loved person to now.

Millie22, I often wonder about how different it could have been. I’m not anti H or Meghan but they grew up in equally dysfunctional families and totally different cultures. It could have worked brilliantly, sadly it hasn’t.

William landed on his feet with Catherine. Her family background is interesting and whilst privileged she didn’t have a Princess Diana type family background. Her parents seem a well matched happy couple, very emotionally involved with each other and their children/grandchildren. I suspect they provide William with the grounding he and his brother need.

I doubt if Harry explained all the protocols and what marrying into his family really involved, fearing it would put Meghan off, after losing Chelsy and Cressida.

I don’t think it would have done though, as Meg thought she could sweep in and at a stroke change traditions and established practices to suit her Hollywood way of life.

Seven years after that glorious wedding that promised so much, and has left the Royals changed forever.

Casdon

Isn’t the issue rather that his own security would not be allowed to carry guns, and that they are not privy to any threats there may be?

Thanks for that Casdon( and others). Your comments have made me( try to) get myself better informed about this and , as well, think more clearly about it. You are correct that private security firms cannot be armed in the UK.
It seems that Harry originally appealed against the RAVEC decision to strip him of round the clock taxpayer funded security . If the Judge had not confirmed Ravec's decision then 24hour T/p funded security would presumably have been available to Harry and his wife and children for his new life in the USA as well as any visits to the UK.
The "second leg" of the Ravec decision was that UK security would be available to Harry and , I think to his wife and kids , timing-wise only on prior notice and quality-wise on a risk-assessed basis.
There also seems to be an element of the default Harry UK protection being a lower level ? than 24Hour police protection, that lower level ( whatever it is) being cheaper. It is not clear to me whether that lower quality level would rise in proportion to any raised risk.I would hope so !!
In any event H clearly hadn't bargained for paying for his security at all.
Quote from the original Oprah Winfrey interview
“That " (signing lucrative Netflix deals)was suggested by somebody else by the point of where my family literally cut me off financially, and I had to afford security for us”
Clearly originally Harry expected either the UK taxpayer ( through the original Ravec arrangement) or his father ( its probably taxpayer moneyindirectly through the civil list) to fund the annual security costs which are , literally , millions of squids.

lendargirl Wed 07-May-25 13:27:12
I doubt if Harry explained all the protocols and what marrying into his family really involved, fearing it would put Meghan off, after losing Chelsy and Cressida.

I don’t think it would have done though, as Meg thought she could sweep in and at a stroke change traditions and established practices to suit her Hollywood way of life.

Seven years after that glorious wedding that promised so much, and has left the Royals changed forever.

Megan was the first engaged not married to spend Christmas
with the royal family. I believe she would have had much advice on what was involved. I wasn’t surprised by her love of cameras and interviews, her engagement interviews and wedding were more than enough.

Iam64

Millie22, I often wonder about how different it could have been. I’m not anti H or Meghan but they grew up in equally dysfunctional families and totally different cultures. It could have worked brilliantly, sadly it hasn’t.

William landed on his feet with Catherine. Her family background is interesting and whilst privileged she didn’t have a Princess Diana type family background. Her parents seem a well matched happy couple, very emotionally involved with each other and their children/grandchildren. I suspect they provide William with the grounding he and his brother need.

I agree.
I just want Harry to stop all the constant litigation and stay in California.He may have been happier in Canada but it was obvious that Meghan just regarded it as a stepping stone to get back to the place she preferred.He doesn’t ever look happy even with a huge home and garden, and two children.
It’s a King and Wallis Simpson all over again.

I am not convinced that Wallis wanted the marriage to Edward,
he abdicated to marry her

No its not like the Windsors! You're right Annie Wallis never wanted to marry Edward, but found herself dragged into a position that.she apparently couldn't get out of. He was, like Harry, completely.obsessed by Wallis, threatening suicide, and heaven knows what if she left him. What started for Wallis as a bit of harmless fun, turned into anything but! Certainly Wallis did not intend to trash the RF, and neither did she, and neither did he. These two are far in a way worse

Anniebach

I am not convinced that Wallis wanted the marriage to Edward,
he abdicated to marry her

Me neither , Anniebach.
Abdicating an Empire ( is that correct ?) to marry her. A lifetime of qualified estrangement from some members of his family .What a massive burden Wallis had to carry on her shoulders , and for the rest of her life. I imagine the thought of separation or divorce from Edward would have been unthinkable.

I believe Wallis Simpson wanted the life of a socialite in cafe society, which is what she got; I don't think the Duke of Windsor ever wanted to be King; too much like hard work.

I think they were relatively happy, except that Edward expected all the deference due to him as Prince of Wales, then King, to continue and was shocked and extremely petulant when the trappings of royalty were removed.
Just like Harry.
But unlike Harry and Meghan, they did not air their grievances in public, nor extort money from them.