The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 12: Jan 2026 -


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
It sounds from this article that Meghan has been successful in selling many thousands of her products in the last months. That should please everyone who believes that the more success the Sussexes have in their commercial endeavours such as Meghan’s wines, jams etc the less the BRF have to worry about. Good news all round, then.
 
Curryong said:
It sounds from this article that Meghan has been successful in selling many thousands of her products in the last months. That should please everyone who believes that the more success the Sussexes have in their commercial endeavours such as Meghan’s wines, jams etc the less the BRF have to worry about. Good news all round, then.
Click to expand...
One would assume that the more jam and dried flowers she sells, the less they will need the British state to provide them with security over and above that which is already provided to them. That said, having made plenty of money through Netflix, the book, Spotify etc, they are still out their seeking further state funded protection.
 
As the King’s son he already receives some security when he visits. Unless he’s to be left with none whatsoever at all, and let him be vulnerable to attacks by ill intentioned persons who mean harm.

And right from the beginning Harry offered to pay for such protection himself. This was ultimately refused.
 
Curryong said:
As the King’s son he already receives some security when he visits. Unless he’s to be left with none whatsoever at all, and let him be vulnerable to attacks by ill intentioned persons who mean harm.

And right from the beginning Harry offered to pay for such protection himself. This was ultimately refused.
Click to expand...

It was clearly detailed why MET protection is not for sale. Which is different from what police protection/involvement is provided for football games/concerts, etc. that Harry refered to in his court cases.
 
Curryong said:
As the King’s son he already receives some security when he visits. Unless he’s to be left with none whatsoever at all, and let him be vulnerable to attacks by ill intentioned persons who mean harm.
Click to expand...

I don't really want to go over old ground here, but I just want to say that the Home Office provides Harry with the security they believe he should be accorded. No less.

If Harry personally believes he is due more security, he can either get private security (I appreciate he can't get armed guards) or not come to the UK.

Curryong said:
And right from the beginning Harry offered to pay for such protection himself. This was ultimately refused.
Click to expand...
Government provided security can't be paid for by private individuals, they are not for hire. This has been clear for a long time.
 
Indeed, my understanding with the policing of football games, concerts etc is that the police operate as they see fit and necessary to keep public order and keep people safe. The organisers then reimburse some of that cost so it is costing the taxpayer less. However, what the concert organiser or football club can't do is say - "oh no we want 100 officers there not 50, but don't worry we'll pay for it"

This is essentially what Harry is doing - I'll pay but only if I get armed protection to the level I want" Is he, I wonder, reimbursing the costs of the protection he does receive from the police when he is the UK, as he is receiving some, or is the offer to pay only when he gets the level of protection he deems necessary?

The difference to most is clear - for football games, concerts etc the police have a duty to act and protect those attending, so they are left to work out what operation and level of support they provide and left to get on with it, the organisers then reimburse some of that cost out of their potential profits to minimise the cost to taxpayers.

What Harry is asking for is a pay for a level of protection the police and security service do not deem he needs. That is different.

If Harry wants to be treated like the football clubs are, he would allow the police to protect him at the level and in whatever way they deem necessary and then repay some of that cost.
 
Curryong said:
As the King’s son he already receives some security when he visits. Unless he’s to be left with none whatsoever at all, and let him be vulnerable to attacks by ill intentioned persons who mean harm.
Click to expand...
This has already been discussed over the previous 2 pages, so I am not sure why the argument about him being the King’s son keeps being repeated. He already receives security when he is in the UK.
Curryong said:
And right from the beginning Harry offered to pay for such protection himself. This was ultimately refused.
Click to expand...
The point about Harry offering to pay for protection was also addressed extensively in last year’s threads and in the news (court case), so I am sure you are aware of that as well.

It sounds from this article that Meghan has been successful in selling many thousands of her products in the last months. That should please everyone who believes that the more success the Sussexes have in their commercial endeavours such as Meghan’s wines, jams etc the less the BRF have to worry about. Good news all round, then.
Click to expand...
Perhaps this is the first time I agree with you. Let’s keep our fingers crossed.
 
tommy100 said:
Indeed, my understanding with the policing of football games, concerts etc is that the police operate as they see fit and necessary to keep public order and keep people safe. The organisers then reimburse some of that cost so it is costing the taxpayer less. However, what the concert organiser or football club can't do is say - "oh no we want 100 officers there not 50, but don't worry we'll pay for it"

This is essentially what Harry is doing - I'll pay but only if I get armed protection to the level I want" Is he, I wonder, reimbursing the costs of the protection he does receive from the police when he is the UK, as he is receiving some, or is the offer to pay only when he gets the level of protection he deems necessary?

The difference to most is clear - for football games, concerts etc the police have a duty to act and protect those attending, so they are left to work out what operation and level of support they provide and left to get on with it, the organisers then reimburse some of that cost out of their potential profits to minimise the cost to taxpayers.

What Harry is asking for is a pay for a level of protection the police and security service do not deem he needs. That is different.

If Harry wants to be treated like the football clubs are, he would allow the police to protect him at the level and in whatever way they deem necessary and then repay some of that cost.
Click to expand...
Very well articulated. The security forces are not a pay for use service.
 
Surely this has been discussed over and over again. You cannot buy a place at the front of the queue at an NHS hospital. You cannot buy special tuition for your children at a state school. You cannot pay for the council to put double yellow lines outside your house. And you cannot buy police protection.

Also hoping that Meghan keeps focused on the jam and not on causing hassle for the Royal Family!
 
I rarely post on this thread any more as every time I do I keep being slammed for my one post multiple times by multiple posters.

So from now on I will be taking a very long break unless there is some gigantic development or huge crisis with the Sussexes.
 
One thing with the protection is that he doesn't want to have to give 30 days notice and his itinerary, which other celebrities do - usually a year or so in advance for someone like Taylor Swift. She has her own private security of course, if she wants to go somewhere on a whim, but largely her security is supplied due to the police having plenty of notice of where and when she will (or other celebrities) be at any given time.

Football matches, like other sports events, concerts etc are also known and planned in advance - well in advance of not just 30 days.
 
I think it is also worth flagging up that Harry wants ARMED SECURITY, this doesn't happen at football matches or run of the mill crowd control.
Police in the UK are not all armed as a matter of course.
 
Hallo girl said:
I think it is also worth flagging up that Harry wants ARMED SECURITY, this doesn't happen at football matches or run of the mill crowd control.
Police in the UK are not all armed as a matter of course.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the reminder. In the United States the majority of the law enforcement officers are always armed, but that isn't the case in every nation.
 
I am a wee bit confused with regards the ' stalker' who managed to get too close to Harry. A great deal has been made of this as a sign that he needs the UK Met police security, could I check if his own security was with him that day, if so, why did they not keep her back, or at least keep him away from her.
The impression I am given from this is that if he had armed police protection she would not have managed to get so close to him............not sure what is being inferred with that. Surely his Bodyguards should have been able to put a physical barrier between him and her.
 
Hallo girl said:
I am a wee bit confused with regards the ' stalker' who managed to get too close to Harry. A great deal has been made of this as a sign that he needs the UK Met police security, could I check if his own security was with him that day, if so, why did they not keep her back, or at least keep him away from her.
The impression I am given from this is that if he had armed police protection she would not have managed to get so close to him............not sure what is being inferred with that. Surely his Bodyguards should have been able to put a physical barrier between him and her.
Click to expand...
According to the article in "Reuters" news agency there was no police presence when the incidents with the woman "stalker" occurred. Intervention was left to two staffers from Harry's private office. As from other articles I have read this particular woman has been stalking Harry for years, allegedly even followed him on a trip to Nigeria.

 
hereditarytitles said:
According to the article in "Reuters" news agency there was no police presence when the incidents with the woman "stalker" occurred. Intervention was left to two staffers from Harry's private office. As from other articles I have read this particular woman has been stalking Harry for years, allegedly even followed him on a trip to Nigeria.

Click to expand...
Does that then infer that he does not bring any of his own bodyguards with him when he visits the UK< There is nothing to stop him although they cannot be armed, that is the bit that I was unsure about. I could not understand why his own team did not step in, especially if she is a known stalker,
 
Is this the same woman that was photographed with a member of the royal rota a few years ago?
 
Another paper writes "The female stalker had to be ‘body blocked’ by his private security at one point during the Duke of Sussex’s four-day solo trip"
"Two staffers from his private office" and "his private security" must mean the same . meaning that they must have been security guards hired privately by Harry. Whether he brought them with him from the US or hired them in the UK is not mentioned .
Here is yet another article reporting about the incidents of last October.

www.marieclaire.com

A Known Stalker Got Close to Prince Harry Twice During His U.K. Trip

"It is only going to take one motivated, lone individual for this to go south very quickly," a friend of Harry's said of the royal's current security situation.
www.marieclaire.com www.marieclaire.com
 
Hallo girl said:
I take it that she has not been charged with any offence.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
The woman had apparently been hiding in a hotel toilet and muttering incomprehensible words. She was driven away from there, but then reappeared at Prince Harry's car. She is probably mentally disturbed, but not dangerous, otherwise she would have been arrested.
Perhaps the whole thing has been blown out of proportion.
 
TLLK said:
Thank you for the reminder. In the United States the majority of the law enforcement officers are always armed, but that isn't the case in every nation.
Click to expand...
I work for a Dutch city and as such have discussions about safety and security with colleagues but also with police officers and none of the, are armed. They all have a handgun but these are locked away at the police station and are only used when they expect severe problems like riots etc. But on a day-to-day basis police officers don’t carry guns in The Netherlands.
 
hereditarytitles said:
Exactly.
The woman had apparently been hiding in a hotel toilet and muttering incomprehensible words. She was driven away from there, but then reappeared at Prince Harry's car. She is probably mentally disturbed, but not dangerous, otherwise she would have been arrested.
Perhaps the whole thing has been blown out of proportion.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you about the possibility of the incident having been blown out of proportion. It seems very convenient as corroboration for Harry's case that he needs police protection. The Sussexes are proven exaggerators as well - remember the New York car chase?

Over the years I have attended many royal events and I have to say that it depends what you count as a stalker. Please take my word that there have always been 'superfans' or whatever you call them who turn up at royal engagements' whose level of adoration has to be seen to be believed. Princess Diana had at least half a dozen individuals who followed her around slavishly attending her engagements - engagement after engagement. [I used to marvel how they got time off work and I presumed they did work because of the amount of expensive travelling they did and the Hotel expenses they incurred.] IMHO they were somewhat crazy but entirely safe as they adored Diana too much to even contemplate harming her.

These 'Superfans' were well known to both her teams and also to royal-watchers like myself. Some Diana used to address by name - one was called 'Colin' I remember. The late Queen Mother also had her Superfans - like Diana's, they tended to be males of a certain age and I daresay that being 'royal groupies' was how they spent their time and how they got their pleasure.
 
hereditarytitles said:
Exactly.
The woman had apparently been hiding in a hotel toilet and muttering incomprehensible words. She was driven away from there, but then reappeared at Prince Harry's car. She is probably mentally disturbed, but not dangerous, otherwise she would have been arrested.
Perhaps the whole thing has been blown out of proportion.
Click to expand...
Is this "stalker" the same woman who who yelled "I love you, Harry" or something during one of his court attendance? The woman who declared herself as member of Sussex squad and has shared her selfies with Harry during Invictus game and his recent "tour" on her social media account?
 
yukari said:
Is this "stalker" the same woman who who yelled "I love you, Harry" or something during one of his court attendance? The woman who declared herself as member of Sussex squad and has shared her selfies with Harry during Invictus game and his recent "tour" on her social media account?
Click to expand...

It seems so.
 
pieve said:
Yes, it's the same woman. That's why I don't think she posed a real danger, but her behavior was helpful in the context of Prince Harry's renewed request for protection.
Click to expand...

Of course. Anyone with an ounce of reason can see the game here. In court, such an affirmation (that it’s a game) should be proved, as it should be the affirmation that it’s a stalker. Bypassing the court, it’s all in the hands of the Home Office and then RAVEC.
 
The first appearance of the year for the Duke and Duchess, for Oprah Winfrey's bookclub:

www.dailymail.co.uk

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle appear at Oprah book launch event

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex dialled in remotely to speak with authors Jonathan Haidt and Catherine Price, who have just released The Amazing Generation.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

Two days ago the BBC reported that the Duke will not see his father when he next visits the UK:

www.bbc.com

Prince Harry not planning to meet King on next trip to the UK

The King is expected to keep his distance during Harry's court case against the publisher of the Daily Mail.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
 
pieve said:
Yes, it's the same woman. That's why I don't think she posed a real danger, but her behavior was helpful in the context of Prince Harry's renewed request for protection.
Click to expand...
Yes, very kind of her to "take one for the team" so Harry could point to "new circumstances" affecting his threat level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ista
  • Locked
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 11: 7 May - 31 Dec 2025
100 101 102
Replies
3K
Views
359K
Marengo
Marengo
Marengo
Questions about British Styles and Titles 4: Feb 2026 -
Replies
16
Views
2K
Tatiana Maria
Tatiana Maria
Marengo
  • Sticky
King Felipe's Current Events 7, January 2026 -
2
Replies
47
Views
3K
lula
lula
Marengo
Rafael, Prince Imperial, Princess Christine and Family: Feb 2026 -
Replies
1
Views
465
Blog Real
Blog Real
Marengo
Spain State Visits/Official Visits: General Discussion 2: Feb 2026 -
Replies
14
Views
1K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom