Prince Harry Current Events 24: May 2009-August 2010

[Lumutqueen]

Quite frankly I question whether this article is even true. Afterall it is the Daily Mail who are never accurate regarding the royals' travel plans. I also think the title is misleading by calling it a 5-week holiday. If he is in Africa it's simply to spend time with his girlfriend who happens to live there. He also may be checking on his charity that's located there.

I disagree, it obviously is a five week holiday, i doubt he'll do anything royal or to do with the military.
Yeah seeing his girlfriend, who lives in another country, counts as a holiday I think.

The article says he's backpacking through Botswanna and SA. Also there hiring a camping boat, to sail up the river that runs along side the Okavango Delta. Then watching a few world cup games and holidaying in Maritus before returning to Africa for the six day tour with his brother.

I can believe Harry doing all of this.

 

[CrownPrincess5]

Sounds to me like Harry wants a vacation. I believe the story. But he should probably pay for his bodyguards himself. Especially if they're only there to be his bodyguards while on holiday.

 

[Sereta]

Well, what is the alternative? Just sit around at home and not go anywhere? I don't think Harry should have to pay for his security since he has no choice in the matter.

 

[CrownPrincess5]

Well, what is the alternative? Just sit around at home and not go anywhere? I don't think Harry should have to pay for his security since he has no choice in the matter.

It's not like the British people asked him to go on vacation. This is not a duty, it's a choice.

 

[wbenson]

If he really doesn't need the bodyguards, that's not his fault, because he occupies no position of authority within the police services. If he does need them, that's still not his fault. It's not his choice to be protected.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I do think that he should be contributing to the cost of flying them out and back and their accomodation but their basic pay should be covered by the taxpayers as they would be earning this anyway.

 

[Opal]

I'm sure if Harry had it his way he wouldn't have any bodyguards at all, but unfortunatley for him he has no say in it.

 

[Iluvbertie]

He could refuse them.
He does have a say - but the family and the police believe that he is a risk and therefore needs it but in the final washup it is his decision.
Britain is a sort of free country and no one can be forced to have protection there so he does have a choice in the matter.

 

[Idriel]

^factually incorrect.
With the exception of the minor ones, Royals have little if not no say about security protocols. 'Freedom of choice' do not apply to them as they are not private citizens.

The officers who protect Harry are under the authority of the Met Police so he wouldn't be able to dismiss them if he wanted. He should be able to ask for someone to be replaced if he dislikes him, but that's the extend of it.

 

[Lumutqueen]

No he could say, No don't want to go out with police/ bodyguards, there is no law that says he has to have protection.
He has them because, as IluvBertie says, The Queen and Prince Charles think he needs it.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Any citizen can refuse police protection if they so choose. Most however take the advice of the police and have it when they are advised that it is necessary or advisable but they have the right to say no and that includes all members of the Royal Family up to and including the Queen.

 

[muriel]

Here are my two bits on this. The security services and the royal household take a decision on who should and who should not have securoty cover, individual members of the BRF do not.

Whilst security costs are high, they are what they are. Security costs are not the reason restrictions should be placed on where royals travel or how long for. IMO, Harry is perfectly within his rights to spend a few weeks in Africa between training / army duties. If security people have to accompany him, then thats what it is.

 

[Sereta]

Well said Muriel. If Harry had to start paying for his security then everyone else should have to as well, including Beatrice and Eugenie!

 

[CrownPrincess5]

I wonder if Harry really is in dire need of security. I wonder what would happen if he does something by himself one day without their protection. Would there really be a problem? Would someone try to attack him?

 

[Osipi]

On a one on one basis barring some some well plotted scheme to actually inflict harm on Harry, with his military training I'd be willing to bet he'd come out the better of the two in a match.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Well said Muriel. If Harry had to start paying for his security then everyone else should have to as well, including Beatrice and Eugenie!

I agree but I am also saying that he should be paying for the extra costs only associated with him going on holidays overseas.

If he went to Balmoral for his holidays then there are no real extra costs regarding transport and accommodation to be met.

For Beatrice and Eugenie the same thing - when galivanting all over the world for their own pleasure the costs of airfares and accommodation should be paid by them, or Andrew, but the day to day salary that has to be paid anyway would still be met by the taxpayers.

In addition if the overseas trip is official then the taxpayers pay the lot so with William's trip to New Zealand and Australia - the taxpayers should have paid for the return airfares to New Zealand and accomodation in New Zealand but the extra cost to make the private visit to Australia (only the New Zealand leg was official even though both were public) the costs should have been paid for by the family. So the costs here in Australia and getting from NZ to here shouldn't have been borne by the British taxpayers (or the Australian taxpayers for that matter).

 

[MARG]

On a one on one basis barring some some well plotted scheme to actually inflict harm on Harry, with his military training I'd be willing to bet he'd come out the better of the two in a match.

A didicated suicide bomber has the edge.

Just a thought folks, but the Powers that Be pulled Harry out of Afghanistan where, incidentally, he was surrounded by armed men with very big guns, because a womens magazine in Australia broke the news of where he was.

We are now aware that terrorists are not illiterate, starved, brainwashed crazies but just as likely to be the guy (or girl) standing next to you on the subway. That being the case, Harry and William out of country and not with the military is really a no brainer!

Dead heirs, live heirs, take your pick.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Australian magazine broke the story in the first week in January and he wasn't pulled out for another two months - it was when the Drudge report put it on the internet that he was pulled out.

 

[Idriel]

The security services and the royal household take a decision on who should and who should not have securoty cover, individual members of the BRF do not.

Yes exactly.
Harry does not dictate security protocol; those decisions are taken at an higher echelon. His dearest wishes are utterly irrelevant in that matter.
Don't you think himself and William have not tried to get rid of their minders, especially as teenagers?
The security of minor Royals is elective but there is absolutely not way that Charles, William or Harry would be allowed to frolic around without security, regardless of what their opinion on the matter is.

If people have a problem with him having security, they should take it to the Met Police, the relevant government officials and, possibly, the Queen.

As for who should pay the security cost, my personal position is that minors Royal should pay full price (i.e. Andrew should pay for his daughters' security detail), and senior Royal should pay the extra cost incurred by holidaying unless they are full time Royals.
So I agree with you Iluvbertie that Charles should pay for the accommodation and flights of his son's minders, but only up until he becomes a full-time Royal, at which point all his security expenses should be paid for by the tax-payer.

 

[Sereta]

A didicated suicide bomber has the edge.

And as soon as something would happen to Harry everyone would be saying "what the heck were they thinking? Why didn't they provide security to the third in line to the throne?!"
Better safe than sorry.

BTW that story about him renting the river houseboat is a rehashed one.

 

[Iluvbertie]

His protection won't stop a determined suicide bomber or a sniper or a whole lot of others with a determination to kill him. He walks around with one bodyguard who doesn't cover him from anyone who really wants to kill him. True protection is in the form of five to ten bodyguards, bullet proof vests, bullet proof cars and limited moves outside the safety of the home.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Prince Harry named 'king of cool' by GQ, beating R-Patz, Dizzee Rascal and Usain Bolt | Mail Online

Prince Harry has been crowned king of cool in a list compiled by GQ magazine.
The sandy-haired royal beat the likes of Dizzee Rascal, Horrors singer Faris Badwan and Twilight heartthrob Robert Pattinson to take the title.

 

[karla64]

Prince Harry pokes fun at his father as African tour begins - Telegraph

 

[Lumutqueen]

So he did attend one royal event on his trip, sometimes the way he talks about his brother and his father is a bit childish and he is 25.

 

[Elenath]

So he did attend one royal event on his trip, sometimes the way he talks about his brother and his father is a bit childish and he is 25.

Really??? I just read that as a joke... I don't think he was trying to be mean or childish. I found it to be quite funny actually...

 

[Lumutqueen]

I just think little digs like

“My brother William arrives here tomorrow – unfortunately!

seem childish to me for someone who is suppose to be grown up at the age of 25. I know you can allow for a certain amount of fun but.. JMO.

Another hint in the article about him preferring Africa to England.

“Botswana is a country very close to my heart. The fact that I spend more time here than at home worries my father a lot!”

 

[Melibea]

I think he was just trying to break the ice, and we already know how the journalists exaggerate things.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I don't think it is an exageration, he's said things like this before.

 

[Elenath]

True, he said silly things before. The problem however is when you read what someone has said it's not by far the same as hearing someone say it. You can't see the expression on someones face or feel the atmosphere in the room. Funny things may seem stupid and stupid things may seem funny. But this is just my opinion.

 

[Russophile]

I don't think it is an exageration, he's said things like this before.

Maybe he feels rather free from papp's there. I wouldn't blame him if it were the case.