Prince Harry has lost his bid in court

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.

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.

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.

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

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I am reminded by this that Prince Harry's mother had her protection withdrawn after her divorce from his father........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

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I am reminded by this that Prince Harry's mother had her protection withdrawn after her divorce from his father........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

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

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.

I am reminded by this that Prince Harry's mother had her protection withdrawn after her divorce from his father........

Good point paddyanne.

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.

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

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.

This is one of his problems - arrogance and entitlement.

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?

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

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.

Good. It would have set a precedent.

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

In the UK even