The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 6: Aug. 2021- Oct. 2022

[Curryong]

Harry does NOT want security paid for fulltime by the British Govt. In spite of the DM trying to twist this for all it?s worth. As the published submission from him stated, the difficulty is that when the family eventually visit Britain the security officers he and Meghan employ in the US are not allowed to have the same powers in Britain (arrest if necessary, carrying arms for example, as RPOs funded by the Home Office and supplied by the Met).

These US private security people wouldn?t be much use in an emergency. Harry?s anxieties about his wife and children being protected should he bring them to the UK for the Jubilee celebrations (and he?s clearly thinking about it and it?s probably been discussed by the Sussexes and BP/Charles, and HM the Queen) have some merit.

He?s a vet from two tours of duty in the ME. Some of these groups still clearly have a grudge against anyone who worked against them in Afghanistan. As well, Meghan receives terrible threats against her on SM. It?s to be hoped that, given all the circumstances, the Met/Home Office can come to some temporary arrangements for the period the family is here.

[TLLK]

Originally Posted by yukari

From Telegraph
Prince Harry claims it is not safe to return to Britain




I can't find archive file for the article, but here's the same news report from BBC and Mirror:

Prince Harry in legal fight to pay for UK police protection

Prince Harry threatens legal action against Home Office over taxpayer funded security

So basically he knows that the Met officers have access to intelligent information which his private bodyguards don't have so he needs the Met's protection because somehow he sort of has information that he's in high risk -- information that (perhaps) the Met doesn't know since the Met doesn't think providing security for him is necessary because (maybe) they don't consider him in high risk.

As about being chased by photographers, let say, would it also be okay for Angelina Jolie or Johnny Depp (or Henry Cavill who's British citizen and if I'm not mistaken, his brother is in the Marine) to privately pay Met officers as their security details while in London if they're also hounded by photographers? If it's okay for them to do so, then maybe Harry should get his.

Thank you for sharing articles from the Daily Telegraph and the BBC.



The Sussexes' legal team have made their request and they'll just need to wait to see if the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police believe it's worth reviewing and granting.



The other option is of course if the couple believe that their family's safety will be compromised without the Metropolitan police protection then perhaps it would be best for them to decline the invitation to attend the Jubilee celebrations in person.

[MARG]

I seem to remember a very acrimonious occasion when the removal of his Met PPO's was discussed. I think it could even have been in that interview, but when it happened he demanded to know if the threat level to him and his family had lessened. Harry received death threats as a "race traitor", Meghan, because she was polluting the royal bloodline and Archie, was the fruit of that abomination (yes the crazies are bats***).

Many of those threats were deemed credible at the time and Harry had a valid question to which the Met replied, no. His threat level had not decreased but his position in relation to the British royal family had and, as a result, he no longer qualified for protection.

So, to me, it would be a no-brainer if he and his family visited HM in this Platinum Jubilee year, that the Met would need to provide appropriate security. Just as they will for the rest of the BRF with the heightened security profile resulting from the nutter with a crossbow.

[Claire]

They are looking to return for a portion of the year to the UK. And really need to drop their security costs - so this is understandable.
That been said - it should be noted that the RF are not the greatest protected person in the UK. I doubt they are even on the top 20. There are many celebrities, diplomats, dictators or sheiks in the UK. And there are various reasons why the Met doesn't give them security.
Personally I feel a lot of the security mess round the Sussex has been caused by their own actions. Also there is an element of paranoia here. Either way the Met will look at it and give their decision.

[Duke of Marmalade]

Originally Posted by yukari

So basically he knows that the Met officers have access to intelligent information which his private bodyguards don't have so he needs the Met's protection because somehow he sort of has information that he's in high risk -- information that (perhaps) the Met doesn't know since the Met doesn't think providing security for him is necessary because (maybe) they don't consider him in high risk.

As about being chased by photographers, let say, would it also be okay for Angelina Jolie or Johnny Depp (or Henry Cavill who's British citizen and if I'm not mistaken, his brother is in the Marine) to privately pay Met officers as their security details while in London if they're also hounded by photographers? If it's okay for them to do so, then maybe Harry should get his.

I even understand where he's coming from, but I don't see this working out. Where does this end, if people start paying the Met privately for protection? It's neither the Met's job nor do they have the capacity. At the same time, they cannot share intelligence with any foreign bodyguard who works for somebody who feels the need for security --- will be interesting to see how this is resolved.

[kathl29]

If Harry and his family are attending for the Jubilee won’t they be attending at the Queens request and only for the main events that more senior royals will be attending I.e. a church service and other similar published events therefore due to the Queens presence, Charles and Camilla and the Cambridges etc wouldn’t there already be high levels of security in place? All royals attending regardless of their position would be covered by that security. I would also presume they would stay on Royal property which has appropriate levels of security as well.

I have not heard mention (although to be fair to Harry and Meghan they would not want to advertise this in advance) of them doing other activities whilst in the UK. If they did would they not come under the same definition as other royals e.g. the Queens children and other grandchildren - if a Royal engagement then the security is at taxpayer expense (like when Anne and the Wessex’s do engagements) and if not then private security like the York princesses.

Unless of course the Home Office have made a determination there is an increased risk to to the Sussexes however although Harry has previously indicated this it does not appear as yet to have been supported by the Home Office if what Harry is saying is correct and they did not provide tax payer security when he was here for the statue unveiling.

However, I do acknowledge I am not an expert in British Royal Security so these are just my thoughts and other posters may understand this much better than I do.

[Muhler]

I'm not sure why Harry even needs to bring it up.

Surely the British police make an assessment of persons coming to Britain and if there is a threat to a person, that person will be protected.
That would happen as well if Harry and his family were to go to another country.
If he doesn't trust the British police to provide adequate protection, he must hire some private contractors.
I'd say it's most unusual to attempt to demand protection or for that matter attempt to hire police officers to provide protection.

[Iluvbertie]

The statue unveiling was a private event - i.e. not listed in the CC unlike Philip's funeral which was an official event.

[Lee-Z]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

The statue unveiling was a private event - i.e. not listed in the CC unlike Philip's funeral which was an official event.

I wonder if Harry makes that difference, i have a feeling he looks at it as:
- an event i attended
- another event i attended

[Duc_et_Pair]

It is really weird that the Duke of York and the Duke of Sussex lose security or have to pay for it (what we hear now in the Andrew tragedy). This because of a changed status inside the royal family.

Over here, at the other side of the North Sea, a security and intelligence assessment calculates if someone receives protection. Sadly, in these Covid years, more persons than ever, as lunatics, complot theorists and extremists threat more and more people with a public function

It varies from mayors to key witnesses in criminal cases, from divorced exes being stalked to a virus expert promiting vaccins, from a royal to a single mom who is threathened with "honour killing" by her own family, etc. etc.

Not the status but the risk assessment decides the deployment of security. In my amateuristic view both the Duke of York and the Duke of Susex remain potential targets. If not from lunatics, complot theorists, lone wolfs then certainly from paperazzi hunting them. In my amateuristic view the fact that Harry and Andrew have a changed position does not change their risk profile much.

And the sounds that they themselves have to pay: that is not even remotely possible in my country as the state, and the state only, holds "the monopoly on law enforcement" and it can not be that the one citizen has to pay for law enforcement and the other not, depending on wealth.

[Heavs]

The Met isn't anyone's rent a cop. We definitely don't want a scenario where rich people pay on duty police officers to protect them and there aren't enough police for anything else.

If Harry is mostly worried about paparazzi then he and his family don't need armed police with access to intelligence. They just need the private security they already pay for in the US. If there is a credible threat from neo Nazis or whoever then I'm sure the security services would notify them and provide protection. No one wants anything to happen to them. I get that they may be legitimately worried but this isn't the way to go about anything and smacks of paranoia.

If they are in the UK for Jubilee events then they will be in places and with people already protected by RPOs.

It seems like this might be a backdoor way to try and get themselves reinstated as Internationally Protected Persons in my opinion.

[angieuk]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...odyguards.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...s-Netflix.html

My question is how far does security extend to each and every member of the royal family? Do the Kent and Gloucester families have bodyguards, or do they just walk down the street as normal members of the public?

I ask, only because in Europe, I understand members of the royal family go out and about without any sort of police backup; unless they have bodyguards discretely walking behind? Do the Sussex family have any sort of police protection at all; or only when they visit the UK? Did the Duke and Duchess of Windsor have 24-hour security when they went into exile? Who decides who gets what security?

[muriel]

Originally Posted by angieuk

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...odyguards.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...s-Netflix.html

My question is how far does security extend to each and every member of the royal family? Do the Kent and Gloucester families have bodyguards, or do they just walk down the street as normal members of the public?

I ask, only because in Europe, I understand members of the royal family go out and about without any sort of police backup; unless they have bodyguards discretely walking behind? Do the Sussex family have any sort of police protection at all; or only when they visit the UK? Did the Duke and Duchess of Windsor have 24-hour security when they went into exile? Who decides who gets what security?

As far as I know, the Kent's and Gloucesters do not have security. Anne and the Wessex's also only have limited security, usually related to public engagements.

[Iluvbertie]

The Queen, Charles, Camilla, William, Catherine, George, Charlotte, Louis, Andrew and Edward all have 24/7 security.

The others only have security when undertaking official duties.

Remember that last year, even with 24/7 security, someone was able to actually enter Royal Lodge ... not just the grounds but the house itself (which says that the security isn't that good anyway).

[Alison H]

Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade

I even understand where he's coming from, but I don't see this working out. Where does this end, if people start paying the Met privately for protection? It's neither the Met's job nor do they have the capacity. At the same time, they cannot share intelligence with any foreign bodyguard who works for somebody who feels the need for security --- will be interesting to see how this is resolved.

Exactly. The police are not for rent. If Harry were to be allowed to hire the police for private security, then any foreign royal/diplomat, actor, pop star, sports player or anyone else could demand to be allowed to do the same. Any wealthy British resident could demand to be allowed to hire police officers to guard their home or patrol their street. I understand Harry's concerns, but it just doesn't work like that.

As I understand it, only the Queen, Charles, Camilla, William and Catherine get 24/7 security.

[Lee-Z]

Genuine question: do high profile politicians get security/protection? I mean i could imagine someone like Boris Johnson or others at that level would attract potential threats?

edited to add:
quote from the BBC link posted
"A statement said: "Prince Harry inherited a security risk at birth, for life.
"He remains sixth in line to the throne, served two tours of combat duty in Afghanistan, and in recent years his family has been subjected to well-documented neo-Nazi and extremist threats."

The first statement seems to contradict the fact that P.Anne and P.Edward don't get security when off duty, so i think that is not that strong.
The second statement is imo a stronger argument for getting security, if the threats are deemed still to exist, which Harry obviously thinks they are.

Finance is not a topic i understand as i understand he wants to pay for it himself.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Alison H

Exactly. The police are not for rent. If Harry were to be allowed to hire the police for private security, then any foreign royal/diplomat, actor, pop star, sports player or anyone else could demand to be allowed to do the same. Any wealthy British resident could demand to be allowed to hire police officers to guard their home or patrol their street. I understand Harry's concerns, but it just doesn't work like that.

This seems to be the core of the argument for not responding positively to Harry's request..

When attending royal family events are staying at royal residences he will enjoy the protection that is offered. Outside of those events and locations he will be treated as the people they chose to be: international celebrities/do-gooders.

[Claire]

Originally Posted by Lee-Z

Genuine question: do high profile politicians get security/protection? I mean i could imagine someone like Boris Johnson or others at that level would attract potential threats?

edited to add:
quote from the BBC link posted
"A statement said: "Prince Harry inherited a security risk at birth, for life.
"He remains sixth in line to the throne, served two tours of combat duty in Afghanistan, and in recent years his family has been subjected to well-documented neo-Nazi and extremist threats."

The first statement seems to contradict the fact that P.Anne and P.Edward don't get security when off duty, so i think that is not that strong.
The second statement is imo a stronger argument for getting security, if the threats are deemed still to exist, which Harry obviously thinks they are.

Finance is not a topic i understand as i understand he wants to pay for it himself.

yep - high profile politicians get round the clock security as well as premise protection. In many ways I do understand Harry debacle. He has stated that he doesnt want the public to pay for the security, but he wants MET to share confidential security information that pertains to the royals in general with him. No - they will not do that unless there is a way to cut off the information only pertaining to him and his family. There is no way they can vet his teams constantly and then of course if something goes wrong his team can blame them.
I am told that this stems from the fact that Harry was ambushed by some photographers outside the Heros award when he came last year. There appears to be a difference of what happened. The Sun seems to think it was only them and the Daily Express who took photos as he passed by in his car from the ceremony. He appears to think they chase him down the road from the venue till the gates of Windsor Great Park. His security that trailed his, seem to think that it could have been avoided if Harry was told beforehand that the paparazzi was there.
Now if I was Harry's security I would always assume that there was photographers on exiting. Regardless of the security risk. Also I do blame Harry for a lot of his own problems - He brought the nutters out of the woodwork. No - I am not saying that he needed to live with his head in the sand. The terrorist threat that he received in the army was only then - is it still credible today? There is also unfortunately a lot of regular people that will appear when Harry and Meghan appear to hold up signs and banners and possible throw tomatoes. These are not Neo - Nazi or extremists threats as they are seeing them - they are ordinary British people that they have pissed off.
Harry and Meghan want to come to the UK and have favorable crowds hand them flowers and adoring media took glossy pics of them and everyone who disagrees with them be kept at the back behind the police lines. Not only will this be showing half of picture to the world, but they cant then manipulate the scene to their narrative.

[AC21091968]

Originally Posted by Heavs

The Met isn't anyone's rent a cop. We definitely don't want a scenario where rich people pay on duty police officers to protect them and there aren't enough police for anything else.

If Harry is mostly worried about paparazzi then he and his family don't need armed police with access to intelligence. They just need the private security they already pay for in the US. If there is a credible threat from neo Nazis or whoever then I'm sure the security services would notify them and provide protection. No one wants anything to happen to them. I get that they may be legitimately worried but this isn't the way to go about anything and smacks of paranoia.

If they are in the UK for Jubilee events then they will be in places and with people already protected by RPOs.

It seems like this might be a backdoor way to try and get themselves reinstated as Internationally Protected Persons in my opinion.

I have to agree with you Heavs on the last sentence. The statement from the Sussexes's lawyers against The UK Home Office and Met Police makes Harry look "self-centred" in believing that the Sussexes are "Internationally Protected Persons". Some critics may even said that Harry is using last year's Christmas intrusion at Windsor Castle as a reason to be "internationally protected".

Even if Harry insisted that they are not burdening the taxpayer, it's not the Met Police job to privately provide security for them in short-term. The Police may potentially divert resources from other public figures living in the UK who are experiencing daily threats. Harry could have hire private security security based in the UK without putting pressure on the Met Police. If the Sussexes are staying in The Crown Estate or other private properties owned by The Royal Family (e.g. Sandringham Estate) during their visit, they are naturally protected the estate security. I'm aware of the intruder from last year's Christmas, but at least it's safer than staying in a hotel with no private security (if not hired at all). I could see why non-working (and in some cases extended) members of the Royal Family lived in Palace/Castle grounds due to reduce cost without having to hire private security firm.

Originally Posted by Lee-Z

Genuine question: do high profile politicians get security/protection? I mean i could imagine someone like Boris Johnson or others at that level would attract potential threats?

edited to add:
quote from the BBC link posted
"A statement said: "Prince Harry inherited a security risk at birth, for life.
"He remains sixth in line to the throne, served two tours of combat duty in Afghanistan, and in recent years his family has been subjected to well-documented neo-Nazi and extremist threats."

The first statement seems to contradict the fact that P.Anne and P.Edward don't get security when off duty, so i think that is not that strong.
The second statement is imo a stronger argument for getting security, if the threats are deemed still to exist, which Harry obviously thinks they are.

Finance is not a topic i understand as i understand he wants to pay for it himself.

Yes, security extends to former Prime Ministers

We all see the police officers who follow the prime minister around and provide security.

But what happens after you give up the top job?

Previous prime ministers such as Tony Blair and David Cameron continue to receive security, so it's likely it will be the same with Theresa May.

https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-49086596

There were even debates about security (provided by Met Police) for MPs in their constituencies holding surgeries after the murder of Sir David Amess.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

And the sounds that they themselves have to pay: that is not even remotely possible in my country as the state, and the state only, holds "the monopoly on law enforcement" and it can not be that the one citizen has to pay for law enforcement and the other not, depending on wealth.

But that is exactly what the Home Office said, i.e. that Harry cannot pay the Metropolitan Police to provide private security for him and his family. He can, however, hire private contractors, who are not state officers, to protect him. I am surprised to hear that private security provided by non-state agents is illegal in the Netherlands. Are you sure your infornation is correct?

Originally Posted by Heavs

The Met isn't anyone's rent a cop. We definitely don't want a scenario where rich people pay on duty police officers to protect them and there aren't enough police for anything else.

If Harry is mostly worried about paparazzi then he and his family don't need armed police with access to intelligence. They just need the private security they already pay for in the US. If there is a credible threat from neo Nazis or whoever then I'm sure the security services would notify them and provide protection. No one wants anything to happen to them. I get that they may be legitimately worried but this isn't the way to go about anything and smacks of paranoia.

Exactly. Credible threats arising from terrorism or neo-Nazis would be assessed not only by the Metropolitan Police's own specialist Counter Terrorism Command (SO15), but also by the Security Service (popularly known as MI5), which is the UK's domestic intelligence agency (while the Secret Intelligence Service, or MI6, provides foreign intelligence gathering, and GCHQ, like the NSA in the US, provides signals intelligence gathering and analysis). The Security Service, unlike the FBI in the US, is not a police force and lacks police powers, but it cooperates with the Metropolitan Police, on which it relies for example for arrests and interrogations. Both the Police and the Security Service are hierarchically under the political authority of the Home Secretary who, in turn, is accountable to the Prime Minister and to Parliament.