Harry and Meghan. UK Visit.

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

*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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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 fuelled by the cachet of the glamour of( marketable and marketed by Mrs Sussex's content-maxxing) Royalty. Except they want to be only part-time Royals cherry-picking only those Royal Duties that suit, while drawing a full-time salary via King Charles and/or the UK taxpayer.
I don't know why they don't return and live in the UK. That would save Harry £5 million approx in annual security costs and he would have a proper job. I originally applauded their move away from being Royals. They said they didn't want it and they would pay for themselves and had they done that I wouldn't understand everybody's beef. But they haven't, have they?? annual £5 million security costs is not "small change" in anybody's books, is it ? No reason Harry Sussex shouldn't pay for his own security . Mind you , perhaps he might be sweeter to the King now that he owes his lawyers £7 million squids.

They realised children are missing out on their royal connection which he didn't want.

Just as anyone might wish in a family rift. This is not a royal connection it is their grandfather and if some fences can be mended that is all to the good for everyone. I think your interpretation is a cynical one. And it demonstrates the reasons why protection is needed.
I am sure that if a gransnetter on the estrangement board here had the chance of a visit from family we would be delighted for them. We all share the same humanity.

If it were true that being a member of the immediate Royal family automatically opens you to threat requiring armed protection in Britain then it would be true for Anne and her children, Andrew and his children and Edward and his children

But, as I said, none of them have been the subject of the sort of vitriol that has been heaped on Harry. One could debate long over why this is but it is the fact of this that makes him vulnerable.

I can't believe Meghan and children got as far as High Grove without any kind of image taken by a camera, somewhere. You may dodge the paps but what above security cameras and the every ready mobile phone camera that we all carry? How they manage to constantly hide the faces of their children, in this intrusive age, beats me.

If one of H and and M ventures had succeeded and people in USA still wanted them they wouldn't be here. They realised children are missing out on their royal connection which he didn't want. Dare say Megans dad wont be visited as he has no cash or contacts. You cant trust a liar and theres two of them, hope they were frisked thoroughly before the meeting. Hope William and Kate keep away from them

Luckygirl3

MarieElla

Everyone knows Diana courted the press and that she died due to a change of plans, a drunk driver and not wearing a seat belt.

She died because she was pursued by the paparazzi. She did not court the press at the beginning .. the images of that naive woman being doorstepped are disgraceful. She used them latterly because she needed a voice to give her side of the story when faced by the might and media power of the royal family. She was a lamb to the slaughter.

If she had worn a seatbelt on that fatal journey, she might have had a chance of survival. It is compulsory for ordinary inhabitants to take that step for their own protection, but for some reason neither of them did so.

Luckygirl3

He is always a royal whether he likes it or not and the press and fringe loonies will always be interested in him and he and his family will always be vulnerable.

He did not choose to be a royal - he was born into a family which as a nation we choose to use and fund as part of our political system - whether one agrees with that or not, it is currently a fact, so there is nothing that someone who was born into the royal family can do about the interest that is shown in them by the sane and the mad, the benign and the dangerous.

I think we can all agree that Harry has good reason to feel concerned when we look at what happened to his mother and what he has experienced in the past.

So - he needs protection for sure. The issue is who pays for it. Personally I think the state should pay for at least some of it since he is only in this situation because of the majority political choice of this country. I am no royalist but value fairness.

I think the family rift is a personal matter and should not come into the equation at all.

I also agree with Lucky that 19 year old Diana was a lamb to the slaughter. The press treated her in a similar way as they have with Harry.
I’m not a royalist , though I’m not a republican. I dislike the way some of the press whip up negative stories.

Harry served in Afghanistan. That increases his risks

Well, it seems they have managed to get into the country without anyone knowing, and are meeting with the King without anyone taking a pot shot at them. Why wasn't this possible right from the start, without all the melodrama and shouting from the rooftops? I'm sure "the meeja" were aware and instructed not to publish anything. It worked.

Luckygirl3

I am not a Harry, nor indeed a royal, supporter but I believe in fairness. Harry is vilified which makes him vulnerable.... he would not be in this position if he had not been born into the royal family.

I don’t think that’s so.

If it were true that being a member of the immediate Royal family automatically opens you to threat requiring armed protection in Britain then it would be true for Anne and her children, Andrew and his children and Edward and his children. Yet they have lived with armed protection only when appropriate for the duties they have carried out, not because f who they are.

Harry is not seeking out protection for Royal duties as it applies to others. He is seeking it purely personally in whatever activities he is doing for himself or his family chose to do.

A new and totally unique obligation to the taxpayer , given to nobody else, for his personal safety.

I am not a Harry, nor indeed a royal, supporter but I believe in fairness. Harry is vilified which makes him vulnerable.... he would not be in this position if he had not been born into the royal family.

MarieElla

Everyone knows Diana courted the press and that she died due to a change of plans, a drunk driver and not wearing a seat belt.

She died because she was pursued by the paparazzi. She did not court the press at the beginning .. the images of that naive woman being doorstepped are disgraceful. She used them latterly because she needed a voice to give her side of the story when faced by the might and media power of the royal family. She was a lamb to the slaughter.

We don’t fund the family We fund those individuals who carry out duties in association with the role of Head of State and we provide protection for them when they are carrying out those duties.

There is no financial provision for anything other than that.

That’s just the way it’s funded. It’s not done on a personal basis.

Obviously Harry and his supporters believe he is very special and it should be different just for him.

Everyone knows Diana courted the press and that she died due to a change of plans, a drunk driver and not wearing a seat belt.

I think the issue of why he needs that protection over and above being a member of the royal family is not relevant.

MarieElla

Because he is not in any more danger than other minor royals.
Happy for him to make his own arrangements but not happy to have my taxes spent on them.

Oh I think he is - which other minor royals have vitriol heaped on them on SM and the media in general? None as far as I am aware.

He is always a royal whether he likes it or not and the press and fringe loonies will always be interested in him and he and his family will always be vulnerable.

He did not choose to be a royal - he was born into a family which as a nation we choose to use and fund as part of our political system - whether one agrees with that or not, it is currently a fact, so there is nothing that someone who was born into the royal family can do about the interest that is shown in them by the sane and the mad, the benign and the dangerous.

I think we can all agree that Harry has good reason to feel concerned when we look at what happened to his mother and what he has experienced in the past.

So - he needs protection for sure. The issue is who pays for it. Personally I think the state should pay for at least some of it since he is only in this situation because of the majority political choice of this country. I am no royalist but value fairness.

I think the family rift is a personal matter and should not come into the equation at all.

Because he is not in any more danger than other minor royals.
Happy for him to make his own arrangements but not happy to have my taxes spent on them.

^ The reality is that he does not need tax payers funded (armed) security.^

Why not, MarieElla?

[I agree that if he is not a working Royal, then he needs to make his own arrangements as he sees fit].