Prince Harry has lost his bid in court

Dodi and Diana completely ignored the security advice they were given to stay within the Ritz, so hellbent were they on visiting the Windsor's former house/apartment to cause embarrassment to the royal family.
H&M must have been advised to leave discreetly without a cavalcade drawing attention to their whereabouts, but they suffer the same fatal flaw of having to draw attention to themselves at all costs.

GagaJo

Luckygirl3

It's not about "arrogance and entitlement." It's about Harry and his family being targets because of an accident of birth. He was born into a family that we support for the purpose of having a head of state. It is not his fault he is a target - it is our society that demands such a family to provide what the majority wish to have (but not me). The least we can do it to make sure he and his family are safe.... not by allowing private armed guards, but by providing it.

Saying he has now left the royal family so should not be protected is a moral cop-out, because we all know he is still a target.

Totally agree Luckygirl3.

I do wonder what the attitude will be if/when something actually happens to one of his family.

Is it really going to be, served them right for daring to leave/expose the corruption/have the temerity etc etc etc? I suspect that would be the case for some GN members, very much in a 'it serves them right' manner.

That’s a very horrible thing to say GagaJo and I don’t believe it to be true.
How far do you think the security net should be spread regarding the RF? Andrew must be at risk, do you want him to have 24/7 armed protection? At one point Harry thought we should pay for his protection when he was in Canada. He does display entitlement and thinks he’s special. He’s insisted on his children being titled prince and princess, linking them to a family he doesn’t want to engage with. Why on earth would he want to saddle them with being a part of the RF and therefore a potential target. None of Anne’s children or grandchildren have titles and they’ve been largely able to live normal lives.

What corruption have they exposed?

From what I've heard, respect for the monarchy died with the Queen's death.
People have simply lost interest.
It is not only Andrew and his behaviour, but the two on the throne at the moment.
If you want those positions you've got to do the behaviour as well.

Luckygirl3

It's not about "arrogance and entitlement." It's about Harry and his family being targets because of an accident of birth. He was born into a family that we support for the purpose of having a head of state. It is not his fault he is a target - it is our society that demands such a family to provide what the majority wish to have (but not me). The least we can do it to make sure he and his family are safe.... not by allowing private armed guards, but by providing it.

Saying he has now left the royal family so should not be protected is a moral cop-out, because we all know he is still a target.

Totally agree Luckygirl3.

I do wonder what the attitude will be if/when something actually happens to one of his family.

Is it really going to be, served them right for daring to leave/expose the corruption/have the temerity etc etc etc? I suspect that would be the case for some GN members, very much in a 'it serves them right' manner.

Luckygirl3

It's not about "arrogance and entitlement." It's about Harry and his family being targets because of an accident of birth. He was born into a family that we support for the purpose of having a head of state. It is not his fault he is a target - it is our society that demands such a family to provide what the majority wish to have (but not me). The least we can do it to make sure he and his family are safe.... not by allowing private armed guards, but by providing it.

Saying he has now left the royal family so should not be protected is a moral cop-out, because we all know he is still a target.

Any member of the royal family could be a possible target, but we don’t provide any security for them, let alone armed security. Are you suggesting that the British state provides security for every royal? Peter Phillips? Zara Tindall? Their children? Prince Andrew? Fergie? Beatrice and Eugenie? And their children?
Where does it stop? The queens fifth cousin twice removed? No, it’s ridiculous to say that state security should be provided for every private citizen who is related to the royal family and wherever they live in the world. Even if they want to pay for it themselves. It’s simply not for sale.

The accident of birth doesn't mean he should be settling himself up as a target though by talking of his time in the military the way he has done, luckygirl - probably no one would take any notice of him if he didn't keep making unforced errors.

As is Andrew

It's not about "arrogance and entitlement." It's about Harry and his family being targets because of an accident of birth. He was born into a family that we support for the purpose of having a head of state. It is not his fault he is a target - it is our society that demands such a family to provide what the majority wish to have (but not me). The least we can do it to make sure he and his family are safe.... not by allowing private armed guards, but by providing it.

Saying he has now left the royal family so should not be protected is a moral cop-out, because we all know he is still a target.

This man's capacity for self-delusion is monumental. He claims in his book "Spare" that he has killed 25 Taliban, a claim for which he is roundly criticised by Armed Forces veterans, and then tries to suggest that it is the Press who are putting his family in danger by "putting spin" on the revelation. Bizarre. Then, having in effect personally set himself and his family up as prime targets for reprisal, he argues that when visiting the UK, official security agencies should be employed to provide him with armed protection, albeit funded by him. No way. As always, this self-obsessed, arrested adolescent is the architect of his own unfortunate demise. He should restrict himself and his family to those countries where it is legal to pay for his own armed security, as he can certainly afford it from the vast sums he has made by "dishing the dirt," and by riding roughshod over the rights to privacy of most of his nearest relatives... rights which he then claims are so precious when applied to him. Me, me, me... He certainly won't be missed here.

he has chosen to opt out and be a private citizen. he is entitled to all the security every other private citizen like you or i are entitled to, but no more.

He needs to learn that you cannit have your cake and eat it, which I see as more of a generational thing than a royal thing.

Obviously official work is different.

I'm now wondering if I'm wrong about just being in danger?? 🤔

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

I suppose they are given it when the UK thinks it's required.
This is about buying it as though it was private security.

If he is in danger and visits the UK he should be given it in my opinion. If he is not in danger then no.

Do Peter and Zara Phillips get armed security? I don’t believe they do. The King’s grandchildren are being brought up in the US and are, to all intents and purposes. American. Why should they be provided protection at our expense?

As for Diana’s protection being withdrawn that’s a fallacy. She renounced it as she felt they were spying on her. It’s well documented that the British security she did have that night, Trevor Rees, urged her to stay put, but he was overruled and we know the result. I’ve heard it said many times that if she still had the recommended protection offered she would still be alive.

All the Queen’s grandchildren were not given protection why should he ?

Ah. Just spotted Calli's comment. Succinctly put 🙂

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

"odd visiting officials"

I think the clue is in "official." Harry is not longer official as he's no longer a working royal. He's not as important as he thinks he is.

I think Prince Andrew does hire his own security, but of course it won’t be armed. I also thought Harry brought his own security with him when he’s visited the UK, but again, it can’t be armed. Nor indeed would we want it to be, because it wouldn’t be trained to the high standards that our security police are trained to. In America, it seems to me, it’s often shoot first, ask questions later. It’s not like that in the UK.

Siope things like football matches, large events etc come under the public safety umbrella so the organisers foot the bill for the police. (and yes I know football clubs don't pay the full cost which I think is a disgrace) I suppose the local police decided there was some public safety interest in the case of Kate Moss's wedding although I'd tend to take issue with that personally. I wonder if those who think Harry should be able to hire armed police would also want the 'fairness' of Andrew being able to do likewise?

Sensible decision.
I believe he was given protection during his brief visit for the Coronation; official business.
Having seen the way he behaved during the 'car chase' he clearly is no good in a crisis.

Yes, thinking on it, you’re right Callistemon.
As I said, Harry and his family don’t fit the criteria for armed protection.

I don’t think that’s quite what has happened. He’s been refused permission to launch a judicial review into the government’a decision - so that would have been about process.

My understanding - although I could be wrong, I don’t follow royal family stuff - is that the permission from the High Court to appeal the decision itself still stands.

And of course we hire out police officers, including sometimes armed officers - that’s how policing at football matches, large events and even celebrity weddings works

www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/kate-moss-wedding-policed-by-35-143157.amp

The difference, I believe, is that Harry want access to specialist officers who will have access to sp codices security information.

GagaJo

Good point paddyanne.

No, it's irrelevant.

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

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.

Thanks,. I’d forgotten that.