Gransnet forums

Chat

Harry and Meghan. UK Visit.

(533 Posts)
Calendargirl Sat 20-Jun-26 07:56:13

Just been reading about H&M’s forthcoming proposed visit to the UK with their children, pertaining to the Invictus Games which are due to take place next year.

Apparently, it’s a private visit, and accommodation has been offered to them on a ‘Royal estate’, but no mention of where or if it’s been accepted.

Security issues not revealed, plus whether or not it involves meeting up with the King.

We shall wait and see how it all evolves.

Lathyrus3 Sat 11-Jul-26 18:07:24

In this country we don’t allow private individuals to have armed protection. Armed protection is provided for those carrying out roles required by the state that might place them under threat.

We don’t allow armed protection on the basis of unpopularity, service in the armed forces or relationship to others for anyone. That is the law.

Do you wish for a change in the law to allow private armed protection?
Or do you believe Harry and his family should be an exception that is above the law?

That does seem to be what you are saying. That he is a so very special that the kaw should not apply to him.

butterandjam Sat 11-Jul-26 18:17:16

Aldom

Why do people refer to the king as Charles?
I doubt anyone would have referred to the late queen as Elizabeth.

Probably because we called him Charles for the 70 + years before he was a King?

Whereas Elizabeth was Queen for 70 years.

Luckygirl3 Sat 11-Jul-26 18:41:40

I think that there is really only one thing going on here and that is the Sussexes continually trying to do what the Royals originally forbade them to do. That was to be Global Celebrities
The royal family cannot forbid them to do anything at all.
In any event they simply ARE celebrities .... that is just a fact.

Luckygirl3 Sat 11-Jul-26 18:48:18

In this country we don’t allow private individuals to have armed protection.

This is the legal situation:

It is not illegal for the UK to provide protection for Prince Harry, but he does not have a legal entitlement to automatic, taxpayer-funded security. Instead, protection is decided on a case-by-case basis by RAVEC (the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures).

Lathyrus3 Sat 11-Jul-26 18:52:26

Luckygirl3

*I think that there is really only one thing going on here and that is the Sussexes continually trying to do what the Royals originally forbade them to do. That was to be Global Celebrities*
The royal family cannot forbid them to do anything at all.
In any event they simply ARE celebrities .... that is just a fact.

Exactly.

A change in the law to provide armed protection for celebrities?

Or are they Royals that need protection?

Or people who are sujest to vitriol because of their unpopular actions?

Or a firmer member of the Armed Forces that needs protection?

Or a man whose boyhood was very sad so he needs to be protected?

I may have missed one or two others.

There can’t be many more excuses surely, even from his most ardent fans.

How about a grown man who needs to take responsibility for his own choices and should expect others to protect him any longer.

butterandjam Sat 11-Jul-26 18:57:31

Luckygirl3

*If they just quietly visited privately there would be no problem.*

I don't think it is possible for them to do that, especially on this occasion when there is a high profile Invictus Games occasion at which he is speaking.

Harry knows from his experiences from birth that doing anything quietly and privately gets scuppered by the media scramble.

Harry pops in and out of the UK without being noticed by Joe Public let alone assassinated.

No doubt he travels from USA on a private jet to some discreet small airport like Farnborough, walks down the steps to a discreet car with darkened windows waiting on the tarmac.

Labradora Sat 11-Jul-26 19:01:12

Luckygirl3

*I think that there is really only one thing going on here and that is the Sussexes continually trying to do what the Royals originally forbade them to do. That was to be Global Celebrities*
The royal family cannot forbid them to do anything at all.
In any event they simply ARE celebrities .... that is just a fact.

The forbidding is monetising Royalty AND doing it on the UK taxpayer dollar.
I agree that they can't be prevented from being celebrities.

Luckygirl3 Sat 11-Jul-26 21:27:35

RAVEC (the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures) can decide who is or is not a public figure. They are allowed to provide protection for Harry, but as wee know have chosen not to, which they are entitled to do.

My point is that Harry is vulnerable and he is entitled to ask.

Calendargirl Sun 12-Jul-26 06:51:32

My point is that Harry is vulnerable and he is entitled to ask

As they are entitled to refuse.

MarieElla Sun 12-Jul-26 07:33:43

Harry is indeed vulnerable due to his own self promotion and the stupid things he said in his book e the Taliban.but as he is no longer a working Royal he has no right to the level of security he wants.....or thinks he's worthy of.
He is definitely vulnerable due to his mental health too and needs a very good therapist, one that will be very honest with him to help him see his role in how things have panned out since he left the UK.
He needs to be encouraged to take responsibility for himself and only when he does, will things improve for him and his family.

Iam64 Sun 12-Jul-26 08:28:34

You’re not Harry’s therapist MarieElla, that’s for sure 🌞

MarieElla Sun 12-Jul-26 09:03:00

Obviously not Iam64
What a petty comment!

Smileless2012 Sun 12-Jul-26 10:07:07

I think MarieElla's right Iam.

He needs to take responsibility for his own actions. Unfortunately his propensity to blame his childhood for everything he sees as having gone wrong in his life, merely feeds his victim hood.

He may not be entirely to blame for how his life has panned out, but he's not entirely blameless either.

eazybee Sun 12-Jul-26 10:10:01

Harry is of royal birth, which brings with it privileges as well as prohibitions, but so too were his cousins, Zara & Peter, Beatrice &Eugenie, Louise and James. At one time they were in the line of succession and received some protection which I believe ended when they became adult and were not working royals, this being one of Andrew's many gripes. The cousins all seem to have found comfortable private lives with occasional publicity. This was what Harry appeared to want when he chose to leave the inner circle of his family.

His desire to be 'half-in, half-out,' of the working royal family was refused by the late Queen, and endorsed by the King. Harry's refusal to accept his loss of status and accompanying privileges forms the basis of his grudge against his father. His vulnerability is compounded by his foolish behaviour in publishing a book detailing his activities in Afghanistan, against Armed Forces protocol, while ensuring he receives maximum publicity for his (and Meghan's) activities here and abroad. Unless of course, they suddenly demand privacy; the recent will-they won't they visit to London just highlighted their rudeness.

His obsession with the Press stems from his mother's death, avoidable had she followed the bodyguard's advice.
Harry's mental health issues stem more from his limited understanding of the fact that royal birth does not carry immunity from normal standards of behaviour (as Andrew discovered), that actions have consequences, and an inability to accept that he is the author of his own misfortunes.

MissAdventure Sun 12-Jul-26 10:24:11

So what exactly is the problem?
He asked for security and didn't get it.
He came over anyway, without making a big song and dance of it.

Whats the issue??

Smileless2012 Sun 12-Jul-26 10:26:50

An excellent summary eazybee.

MarieElla Sun 12-Jul-26 10:33:05

But he did make a song and dance about it!

MissAdventure Sun 12-Jul-26 10:36:31

Did he?
I posted a video of him talking about the invictus games just a short time after being told he wouldn't get security.
He seemed fine.

MawsRosie Sun 12-Jul-26 11:03:23

I don’t know if I am reading too much into it but the happy Harry, reminding us of how he used to be - relaxed, empathetic, approachable, smiling, larking around tactile and free with his hugs- made me think how different he is when Meghan is around, clutching his arm, somehow deflecting the attention on herself and reducing him to her shadow.
My imagination? Maybe, but what a different memory he has left us with.

Luckygirl3 Sun 12-Jul-26 11:08:40

The forbidding is monetising Royalty - whatever he does, his royal birth will be a fact; and that fact means that people will pay him money just to be ...... there will be no source of income that he can employ that is not influenced by who he is and the family into which he was born.

I do not think there is any "half in, half out." He is not pursuing royal commitments at all, but he did start the Invictus Games which have been a great success and helped many. His support for this has been nothing but positive. But it is not a royal engagement - it is a chosen piece of charitable work.

Whatever he does will contain an element of celebrity because that is what he is, like it or not.

What we have is a broken family whose problems have inevitably been played out in the public arena. These things go on all the the time in life with ordinary families. Could he have made better decisions when the fall-out happened? - probably, but he was hurt and feeling defensive, something that happens to many of us. Could Charles and the rest of the royal family have treated him and Megan better? - probably, but they are all the product of a very odd upbringing, and we are all influenced by our childhood experiences.

The bitterness and venom that is levelled at this young couple is a poor representation of who we all are as Brits. This is a young family for whom wider family relations have gone awry with rights and wrongs on both sides, as is nearly always the case. I find it distressing that natural kindness has gone out of the window for many.

Calendargirl Sun 12-Jul-26 11:18:43

MawsRosie

I don’t know if I am reading too much into it but the happy Harry, reminding us of how he used to be - relaxed, empathetic, approachable, smiling, larking around tactile and free with his hugs- made me think how different he is when Meghan is around, clutching his arm, somehow deflecting the attention on herself and reducing him to her shadow.
My imagination? Maybe, but what a different memory he has left us with.

No. It’s not your imagination Maws.

He only seems to be ‘himself’ when not with Meg, clinging to him like a limpet, subtly directing his every move with a hand, arm, interjection….

Luckygirl3 Sun 12-Jul-26 11:24:14

Calendargirl

MawsRosie

I don’t know if I am reading too much into it but the happy Harry, reminding us of how he used to be - relaxed, empathetic, approachable, smiling, larking around tactile and free with his hugs- made me think how different he is when Meghan is around, clutching his arm, somehow deflecting the attention on herself and reducing him to her shadow.
My imagination? Maybe, but what a different memory he has left us with.

No. It’s not your imagination Maws.

He only seems to be ‘himself’ when not with Meg, clinging to him like a limpet, subtly directing his every move with a hand, arm, interjection….

And there it is again - analysing their relationship and criticising and reading negative things into his/her every move, when it is truly absolutely none of our business.

Why do people feel the need to do this? What does it achieve? Who does it help? Is it kind?

It is this sort of relentless insidious negativity and unpleasantness that makes him feel the need to ask for protection.

Let's just leave them be. They are doing us no harm.

Aveline Sun 12-Jul-26 11:28:14

People are as entitled to their opinions as you are Luckygirl13. No point in trying to preach about it.

MawsRosie Sun 12-Jul-26 11:33:28

And there it is again - analysing their relationship and criticising and reading negative things into his/her every move, when it is truly absolutely none of our business.

Why do people feel the need to do this? What does it achieve? Who does it help? Is it kind?
OK.
What exactly is unkind about commenting on the happy and relaxed Harry we have seen over the last few days?
What exactly is wrong with an expressing an opinion based on personal observation?
I think it is just as out of order, prurient and virtue signalling to take part in a thread and castigate others just because their opinion doesn’t chime with your own.

MawsRosie Sun 12-Jul-26 11:39:25

I would add that your post of 11.08 Luckygirl is many times more intrusive
What we have is a broken family whose problems have inevitably been played out in the public arena. These things go on all the the time in life with ordinary families. Could he have made better decisions when the fall-out happened? - probably, but he was hurt and feeling defensive, something that happens to many of us. Could Charles and the rest of the royal family have treated him and Megan better? - probably, but they are all the product of a very odd upbringing, and we are all influenced by our childhood experiences
Your comment about odd upbringings implies special —insider— knowledge
BT W it’s Meghan and * the King*.