Prince Harry has lost his bid in court

In the UK even

"Course he has! We don't hire out our armed police.

Good. It would have set a precedent.

Good or anybody with a few ££ will be hiring armed security.

What will he do now because it is rare anybody has said no to him throughout his pampered life.

It will probably be an entire chapter in his new book.

Baggs

"Course he has! We don't hire out our armed police.

I agree Baggs. But why did he have the arrogance to think he could hire our armed police?

This is one of his problems - arrogance and entitlement.

I think this is the right decision, our police cannot be available for hire to individuals. I expect Harry will still challenge the decision to remove his royal security when in the UK, even though other royals only get it when performing royal duties. In my opinion he only offered to pay because he sensed the growing public disquiet at him thinking we should fund security for him when he opted out of royal duties.

I don’t want to fund a toasted tea cake for him, never mind armed security. I think this is the correct judgment.

dont "we" give armed security to all sorts of odd visiting officials ...eveb ones "we" disagree with their policies on things like human rights?
If its OK for dodgy politicians surely its OK for your kings grandchildren to be protected ?
I'm not a fan of any of them but I like fairness for all

One twisted insecure man who thinks the World and its mother owe him something, with a wife who feeds his insecurities and delusions.
The mayor of New York summed them up at last week's incident when he had nothing to say about it.

Good point paddyanne.

I am reminded by this that Prince Harry's mother had her protection withdrawn after her divorce from his father........

paddyann54

dont "we" give armed security to all sorts of odd visiting officials ...eveb ones "we" disagree with their policies on things like human rights?
If its OK for dodgy politicians surely its OK for your kings grandchildren to be protected ?
I'm not a fan of any of them but I like fairness for all

Visiting officials are given armed security because they are here on official business. Harry deciding he wants to spend a few days enjoying himself in the 'old country' doesn't equate. Remember not all the queen's grandchildren were given security, only when on official engagements. That was fairness for all. Harry is nothing special, despite his own self delusion.

excellent decision. I hope he has to pay all legal costs

seadragon

I am reminded by this that Prince Harry's mother had her protection withdrawn after her divorce from his father........

Diana refused any protection because she thought that would be a way of keeping tabs on her, it wasn't the crown that withdrew it.

seadragon

I am reminded by this that Prince Harry's mother had her protection withdrawn after her divorce from his father........

Well, yes, she was no longer carrying out royal duties once she was divorced.

I expect on the occasions she accompanied Charles and the boys on anything connected as ‘royal’ afterwards, she was given security, the same as the rest of them.

Going to the gym or on private holidays wouldn’t come under that, I assume.

If and it’s a big if Prince Harry was to be in the U.K. on an official royal duty he would be offered full protection.

If he is in the U.K. on private business there surely is no need, he is only fifth in line, Zara, Beatrice, Eugenie (I could go on) do not get routine armed police protection

Actually, since he can afford to pay for it, why not go with private security. It’s big money in the US and there are probably firms over here that do it.

paddyann54

dont "we" give armed security to all sorts of odd visiting officials ...eveb ones "we" disagree with their policies on things like human rights?
If its OK for dodgy politicians surely its OK for your kings grandchildren to be protected ?
I'm not a fan of any of them but I like fairness for all

Officials are on official business.

The word officials gives the clue.

The Monarch's grandchildren? When Elizabeth was our Monarch, her other children/grandchildren/great grandchildren didn't get security as a right.
Other working Royals get security when they are working.

President Biden brought his own security when he came to the Queen's funeral.
Other officials went together on a bus with security officers. They didn't get personal armed security.

Mollygo

Actually, since he can afford to pay for it, why not go with private security. It’s big money in the US and there are probably firms over here that do it.

They're not allowed to be armed here.
That was the problem for Harry.

Thanks,. I’d forgotten that.

GagaJo

Good point paddyanne.

I agree actually. paddyann has made a good point. However only royals who are in direct line to the throne get paid for armed security, or those engaged in royal duties, when they are actually performing those duties, not at any other time.

The actual point isn’t about his security though, it’s about his ability to buy armed security from our police. And the answer is that it’s simply not available to buy. End of, no argument. It can’t be bought. The correct judgement was made. The argument about whether or not security should be provided to Harry is different to this. Although he still doesn’t fit the criteria.

GagaJo

Good point paddyanne.

No, it's irrelevant.

Official. Business. Working.
That's the point.