So Harry and family are coming back!

The risk in school is much less than the journey to school, are they really at more risk than the children of any other wealthy family.

The kind of school they attend will be like any school in the land, the kind of school that sees child safety as being of paramount importance. It's number one priority.
Of course, some schools are more set up for this than others, and have invested more money than others in security measures.
Members of staff will not be telling anyone about these contingencies, and on the whole other parents are also very discreet.

Will the children have to wear masks at school for privacy reason? Serious question!

The Sussex kids will be going to the kind of school where other children may be at risk from kidnap or other harm, most parents keep a low profile to reduce the risk. H&M would do well to follow suit it's their publicity seeking that is increasing any risk.
They will most likely get some kind of security presence but we probably won't hear about it, unless H&M actually tell us.

Smileless2012

If Harry believes the children need armed security on the school run in the UK, why didn't they stay in America?

The gun culture in the US is such that it would appear schools themselves sometimes need armed security... or maybe he wants them to have a 'traditional British' education - who knows... he/her/they obviously have their reasons which we may never know or, if we do, disapprove or otherwise.

I think most parents make decisions based on what they believe is best for their children at various stages of their lives and, regardless of Harry's seemingly immature self-absorption, I suspect his/hers decision is based on that principle.

And with all due respect to the millions of ordinary decent American citizens, there are crackpots among them. Donald Trump, Charlie Kirk, Ronald Reagan, John Kennedy, Brian Thompson and, indeed, Salman Rushdie during a US lecture-tour - can all attest to that.

If Trump loses the mid-terms and he and his devout followers believe it's another "steal", who knows whether there will be civil unrest (bearing in mind what happened the last time). H&M may not be 'up there' among those other high-profile figures, but they are known well enough by some to become targets to a febrile mind.

Pure speculation on my part, but that's what we're all doing on this thread, just speculating, because we don't know why he's made the decision to return. I'm simply basing my speculative observations on the fact that his decision has been made at this particular junction in his children's lives.

MissAdventure

I reckon Harry and Meghan's risk assessment would go up a couple of points if gransnet was taken into account.

👏👏👏👏🌞🌞

Good point Smileless
Most of us wouldn't choose to live somewhere where we truly believed our children would be in danger!

If Harry believes the children need armed security on the school run in the UK, why didn't they stay in America?

ferry23, I suspect that he has told the right people. The public don't need to know his movements and it would be rather stupid to tell the world. Complaining generally is a rather different matter and bound to be publicised as court action was taken. If he was considered to be at risk of threats when he was taking a Royal role, particularly for his role in the services, I can't see why it would be so much reduced. Still it's an opinion and life is too short to enter into protracted discussions about this.

icanhandthemback

fancythat

Salmon Rushdie was given extensive round the clock security protection after a Fatwa was issued against him. Prince Harry has been subjected to several terrorist threats. Where is the difference?

I read somewhere that there are 7 levels of security risk.
A 40 page risk assessment was done at some point[not sure how recent].

The trouble is, none of this security business is transparent so we don't know whether Harry's level of threat is high or not.

But we do know he hasn't had a Fatwa issued against him.

It would be interesting if Harry issued a statement explaining why his need for security is higher than say any other of his cousins.

He's not backward in coming forward in telling the world what many would consider his private business. He's been vocal about his displeasure in not receiving it, but reticent on why he should receive it.

fancythat

^Salmon Rushdie was given extensive round the clock security protection after a Fatwa was issued against him. Prince Harry has been subjected to several terrorist threats. Where is the difference?^

I read somewhere that there are 7 levels of security risk.
A 40 page risk assessment was done at some point[not sure how recent].

The trouble is, none of this security business is transparent so we don't know whether Harry's level of threat is high or not.

I reckon Harry and Meghan's risk assessment would go up a couple of points if gransnet was taken into account.

Salmon Rushdie was given extensive round the clock security protection after a Fatwa was issued against him. Prince Harry has been subjected to several terrorist threats. Where is the difference?

I read somewhere that there are 7 levels of security risk.
A 40 page risk assessment was done at some point[not sure how recent].

I understood that the protection reflects the perceived risk.

This is by British security forces.
Not by the individual. Apparently if Harry wants it he needs to give them details of his diary and will be given protection on a case by case basis.
Salman Rushdie was under direct threat. I think he did this (from memory).
Harry doesn't want to.

I do not want a situation where people who consider themselves to be at risk being allowed to pay for armed guards. We have very strict gun laws here; other countries not so much.

Harry is desperately attempting to regain his royal status but as he is not a working member of the royal family he is not entitled to armed protection; neither is his family. Using young children in a battle about status is disgraceful.

Usedtobeblonde

They apparently want armed security for the children on the school run, this presupposes that the Wales children have armed officers on duty when they go to school.
What a way to live.

Oh I don’t know….It’s not that bad! 😂 😂

This is how I went to school in Aden in the late fifties. I’m not in this photo - same school, different bus route. It also doesn’t show the anti grenade mesh at the windows!

Apparently, according to an interview on TV last weekend, the royal children have very discreet protection at the school gate and until all the Hoo-ha with Harry’s court case, nobody was really aware of it.
H&M are inviting trouble with their public security demands. That’s no way to keep children safe!

winterwhite

Going back to security, I still fail to understand what the real risk is and why it is apparently worse here than in the US.

H himself was in Afghanistan, and I believe made some rather boasting claims about it in his book for which he has only himself to blame. Is this what’s at the bottom of it? Let him make what arrangements he likes and at his own expense in that case.

The point is that in America, Harry and Meghan are allowed to employ security who are able to carry guns to protect them. In England, they are not allowed to do that. However, security provided by the State are allowed to carry guns and have been known to leave them in the street! This could easily be resolved by either allowing people at the most risk to employ trained, armed security officers or allow them to pay for State Provision.
Salmon Rushdie was given extensive round the clock security protection after a Fatwa was issued against him. Prince Harry has been subjected to several terrorist threats. Where is the difference?

Going back to security, I still fail to understand what the real risk is and why it is apparently worse here than in the US.

H himself was in Afghanistan, and I believe made some rather boasting claims about it in his book for which he has only himself to blame. Is this what’s at the bottom of it? Let him make what arrangements he likes and at his own expense in that case.

Chestnut

I think the difference here is whether the mistress is taken before or after the marriage. Those that come after the marriage are more scandalous surely. Did Edward VIII have a mistress after his marriage?

"No he didn't."

He wouldn't have dared. He always seemed to look cowed and unhappy.

Norah

JenniRen

Jaberwok

Most Princes of Wales have had a mistress since Edward 11nd. The exception being Edward Vth, Edward of Middleham, Edward V1th, all too young. Apparently Charles 1st didn't have a mistress either before marriage or afterwards. George Vth was the same.

Edward V1th provided endowments to establish free Grammar Schools in his short reign, much more worthy.

How is this about Harry?

😂
Well observed!

Jaberwok

I know this and more besides, but the conversation was about royal mistresses not endowments.

I was merely agreeing that King Edward VI was too young to have mistresses (and in fact was not married anyway) but made the observation that what he did do, ie endow Grammar Schools, was much more worthy anyway.

Usedtobeblonde

They apparently want armed security for the children on the school run, this presupposes that the Wales children have armed officers on duty when they go to school.
What a way to live.

When they go to school - yes, when travelling

In school itself - a different matter,
though of course security will be readily available.

I think Harry is becoming mentally unstable, mainly because he has nothing to do, therefore focuses on his perception of the ill-treatment of him, his family and his mother.

He can't let go and Charles Spencer won't be a great influence.

They apparently want armed security for the children on the school run, this presupposes that the Wales children have armed officers on duty when they go to school.
What a way to live.

If that's the case he really is very desperate, deluded possibly mentally ill.
She's up to something, I'm sure and gets some satisfaction with keeping people guessing!