The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, May 7, 2025--

[Kenya]

Agree, Harry like no other knows what it is like to loose a parent young, surely he has that in mind and considers his own safety.

You'd think. But he and Meghan were in the back of that yellow cab without seatbelts during the "near-catastrophic" car chase. I still find that appalling in light of the fact that a seat belt could've potentially saved his mother's life.

I've heard that concert is a failure, and they are practically giving the tickets away. It makes me wonder if Beyonce is calling in favors from celebrity friends, or offering future favors, to generate some positive buzz?

All her shows in LA were sold out. Half of my Instagram feed was posting pictures and videos from her show last week, which I was trying to avoid, since I don't want to be spoiled before I fly to see her in New York next week. So, no, I don't think she needs Harry and Meghan, of all people, to draw attention. Also, even though Meghan is a fan, I think Beyoncé has been careful to keep her distance from them ever since they betrayed her privacy by including her text to Meghan in the Neflix docuseries. I've noticed that they weren't invited for backstage pictures during either the Renaissance or Cowboy Carter tour like a lot of other celebrities have been.

 

[Erin9]

For me it’s primarily her behaviour, as ever

Agreed. Lol

I’m finding her latest company title lends itself to endless entertaining opportunities….

 

[Ghost]

For me it’s primarily her behaviour, as ever

Not elegant at all, her behavior, eh?

 

[Toledo]

New photo of the Duchess of Sussex with her children for Mother's Day.

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex on Instagram: "Happy Mother’s Day! Cheers to juggling it all with joy! And to these two gems - who still attempt to climb “mama mountain”, smother me with kisses, and make every day the most memorable adventure….being your

meghan on May 11, 2025: "Happy Mother’s Day! Cheers to juggling it all with joy! And to these two gems - who still attempt to climb “mama mountain”, smother me with kisses, and make every day the most memorable adventure….being your mom is the greatest privilege of my life ❤️ I, too, “love you...

www.instagram.com

First and foremost, Happy (USA) Mother's Day to Meghan and everyone in the Royal Forums that is a mom or grandmother.

Re the pictures. makes me wonder if when Archie and Lilibeth are all grown with families of their own, and they ask dad "can you show my kids pictures of me as a child?"

Just imagine if all that Harry has on digital records are pictures of their backsides, from ages one to 18 years old, but with Meghan always full frontal smiling for the camera.

 

[MissByrd]

First and foremost, Happy (USA) Mother's Day to Meghan and everyone in the Royal Forums that is a mom or grandmother.

Re the pictures. makes me wonder if when Archie and Lilibeth are all grown with families of their own, and they ask dad "can you show my kids pictures of me as a child?"

Just imagine if all that Harry has on digital records are pictures of their backsides, from ages one to 18 years old, but with Meghan always full frontal smiling for the camera.

An amusing thought.

 

[Curryong]

Actually I can’t imagine that at all. I believe, that like every other loving parent, both Harry and Meghan have hundreds of photos, digital and otherwise, of their children. Individually, together and with them, their parents.

Just like the York sisters and plenty of other people who are parents but don’t give full face photos of their children to the media or put them on their IGs. Absolutely their prerogative to do that.

We had Mothers Day yesterday in Australia and I had a fabulous time with my husband, grown children and grandchildren. Very happy Day to all Mums.

 

[kalnel]

Perhaps it was a spontaneous decision to visit old friends, even if he hadn't been in touch for a while. He had time, nothing else to do and just tried, but was unlucky. You can interpret it either way. It's also often the case that friendships cool down when you live so far away. Of course, some friendships are also over because these friends didn't approve of his behavior in recent years.
On the other hand, the photos Meghan has been posting lately make it look like they have a wonderful and happy life together. This could be for show or for real, it's really difficult to judge.

My first thought was, "Oh, he's selling Meghan's jam door to door. That makes sense."

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Under the treaty, an Internationally Protected Person is not entitled to free security (https://treaties.un.org/doc/db/Terrorism/english-18-7.pdf). Law enforcement must "take appropriate measures" to protect an IPP but that does not mean that the IPP receives free 24/7 security. There are many IPPs in the U.S., due to the location of the UN, and the U.S. does not provide free security for any of them - there could be some exceptions but I don't think so. If law enforcement becomes aware of a threat, they coordinate with local police and private security, as appropriate.

 

[Mbruno]

Under the treaty, an Internationally Protected Person is not entitled to free security (https://treaties.un.org/doc/db/Terrorism/english-18-7.pdf). Law enforcement must "take appropriate measures" to protect an IPP but that does not mean that the IPP receives free 24/7 security. There are many IPPs in the U.S., due to the location of the UN, and the U.S. does not provide free security for any of them - there could be some exceptions but I don't think so. If law enforcement becomes aware of a threat, they coordinate with local police and private security, as appropriate.

Harry probably is not aware of that.

In any case, it doesn't seem that he is in need of any special status as IPP in the USA given how the NYPD for example feels obligated to arrange special (public) security details for him and/ or his wife when they are in New York City.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Harry probably is not aware of that.

In any case, it doesn't seem that he is in need of any special status as IPP in the USA given how the NYPD for example feels obligated to arrange special (public) security details for him and/ or his wife when they are in New York City.

Good point. As I understand it, he wasn't suing for free 24/7 protection in the US but 24/7 protection when he and Meghan are in the UK, but even then he offered to pay for it.

 

[miss whirley]

Good point. As I understand it, he wasn't suing for free 24/7 protection in the US but 24/7 protection when he and Meghan are in the UK, but even then he offered to pay for it.

Did he though? I thought I read that the previous Judge said nowhere in Harry's legal filing was an offer to pay for security. What Harry says in public didn't match the documents he was submitting to RAVEC/the court.

The previous judge also said Harry was engaging in a "masterclass of spin".

 

[Princess Merena]

Good point. As I understand it, he wasn't suing for free 24/7 protection in the US but 24/7 protection when he and Meghan are in the UK, but even then he offered to pay for it.

It doesn't mater whether or not he offered to pay. You cannot pay for armed security and intelligence. It's the same as if I offered to pay for a ride on the Air Force One. It just is not possible and Harry should know that. Therefore the offer to pay is just a way to try to make others look petty.

 

[Hallo girl]

I find it interesting that he offered to pay, I am not sure when this would have taken place and when he had the money to do it. During the Oprah interview he claimed he only took on the Netflix deal because his father had cut him off financially ( shock horror ) . This turned out to be inaccurate, as the Duchy records show that he received money from his father the first year.
So when was the offer made to pay , which you cannot do anyway, as they knew from early 2020 that the security was not going with him in the longer term, and he then went on to claim they had been cut off financially and the security pulled without warning !!
He has lost the case and the appeal, if he informs the security service within 30 days of travelling to the UK then security will be assessed and provided. If he had not raised the profile of security and the cost, he would have had it all bells and whistles, now that he has caused so much fuss the media will be watching every time he comes to see what is provided and what it costs the tax payer. AS Ever they shoot themselves in the foot.

 

[Hallo girl]

Actually I can’t imagine that at all. I believe, that like every other loving parent, both Harry and Meghan have hundreds of photos, digital and otherwise, of their children. Individually, together and with them, their parents.

Just like the York sisters and plenty of other people who are parents but don’t give full face photos of their children to the media or put them on their IGs. Absolutely their prerogative to do that.

We had Mothers Day yesterday in Australia and I had a fabulous time with my husband, grown children and grandchildren. Very happy Day to all Mums.

I think the post was intended as a bit tongue in cheek, to bring a bit of light into the day.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

To clear up the “offering to pay for security” issue:

The Duke of Sussex told the judge who ruled on the pay-for-police issue that he (the Duke) made the offer to pay for his police security at a meeting with members of the Royal Household on 13 January 2020. The judge accepted the Duke’s statement.

4. One of the grounds for which permission was granted was that RAVEC should have had regard to the claimant's offer, made at a meeting with members of the Royal Household on 13 January 2020, to reimburse or proactively finance the cost of the security measures.​

HRH The Duke of Sussex, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev1) [2023] EWHC 1228 (Admin) (23 May 2023)

There is an email from the then chair of RAVEC which documents that, no later than 13 January 2020, the Royal Household asked the Cabinet Secretary whether they could ask to pay for police security.

28. On 13 January, [RAVEC chair] Sir Richard Mottram emailed [redacted text] to say that he had had a discussion by telephone with the Cabinet Secretary, who was planning to put in writing with the Royal Household the line he was taking on the security arrangements:-

"In essence this was that [redacted text]. I commented that the Royal Household tended to see matters in [redacted text] – whereas we considered [redacted text]. There might be circumstances where some state support was justified in the context say of [redacted text] but this was different to [redacted text].

He said the Royal Household had also asked whether it was open to them to ask to pay for security delivered by the MPS [Metropolitan Police Service] but he had ruled this out. I agreed."​

The Duke of Sussex, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 418 (Admin) (28 February 2024)

The Cabinet Secretary’s refusal of the request to pay for security was communicated to the Duke of Sussex through his Private Secretary no later than 16 January 2020.

29. On 16 January 2020, Fiona Mcilwham [Private Secretary to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex] emailed [Cabinet Secretary] Sir Mark Sedwill. She thanked him for the helpful conversation the two of them had had on 15 January, stating that she had "faithfully relayed the details you had provided on security and finance/ tax exemptions to the Duke". […]

The Duke of Sussex, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 418 (Admin) (28 February 2024)

 

[hereditarytitles]

Maybe I'm too stupid to understand the subtleties or because of the English text, which is confusing for me even in translation. Question is, does this indicate that PH's proposal to pay for his own security was rejected and he sued as a result? The royal household, which as I understand it partly represents the side of the state as it is taxpayers' money, asked if such costs could be covered? And then I don't understand the result.
Was he perhaps even right to sue because his proposal to bear the costs himself was ignored? I am grateful for any explanation

 

[Healthy Sceptic]

Maybe I'm too stupid to understand the subtleties or because of the English text, which is confusing for me even in translation. Question is, does this indicate that PH's proposal to pay for his own security was rejected and he sued as a result? The royal household, which as I understand it partly represents the side of the state as it is taxpayers' money, asked if such costs could be covered? And then I don't understand the result.
Was he perhaps even right to sue because his proposal to bear the costs himself was ignored? I am grateful for any explanation

It is a confusing statement. Basically, when Harry was told 'no' to being provided free police protection, he asked if he could pay for it. He was told no again (people can't just buy police protection), so he appealed to another judge who upheld the ruling of the first judge, Harry can't buy the Met Police.

The Royal Household represented Harry's position, which I understand now he thinks was a mistake, so he sued. Now the latest judge has agreed with the other two judges.

The question of him paying for protection wasn't ignored, it was answered at least twice. He didn't like the answer so he sued.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

ETA: I forgot to check for new replies before posting, so I missed Healthy Sceptic's response. Apologies.

Maybe I'm too stupid to understand the subtleties or because of the English text, which is confusing for me even in translation. Question is, does this indicate that PH's proposal to pay for his own security was rejected and he sued as a result? The royal household, which as I understand it partly represents the side of the state as it is taxpayers' money, asked if such costs could be covered? And then I don't understand the result.
Was he perhaps even right to sue because his proposal to bear the costs himself was ignored? I am grateful for any explanation

Please don’t ever hesitate to ask for help with understanding English, and it certainly doesn’t make you stupid. Few English speakers could write in German as well as you write in English.

Yes, the judgments indicate that the "proposal to pay for his own security was rejected and he sued as a result".

The government did not want to continue paying for full-time police security. They wanted to pay less money - only enough money for part-time police security.

However, the Sussexes wanted to keep their full-time police security. The Duke of Sussex asked: If he paid some money, could the Sussexes continue to receive full-time police security? The Royal Household asked the government to answer his question.

The government said no, nobody is allowed to pay for police security. On 16 January 2020 (or earlier), the Royal Household told the Duke of Sussex about the government's answer.

In July 2022 the Duke of Sussex sued the government.

I hope that is helpful. If not, please feel free to ask for clarification.

 

[hereditarytitles]

Thank you both very much Healthy Sceptic and Tatiana Maria. Your answers are very helpful

 

[taogg]

The below link is a 5-page summary issued by the Judiciary.

The title said Prince Harry suing the Secretary of State for the Home Department in relation to RAVEC’s 2020 decision to withdraw his automatic police protection.

The Court of Appeal (2025) considered whether the High Court judge, Sir Peter Lane, was right to dismiss Harry’s claim. In other words, the core issue on appeal was whether RAVEC’s decision-making process—specifically, its departure from its 2017 internal policy—was lawful and reasonable.

The part about Harry’s offer to personally pay for police protection was not the main issue in this appeal. That matter was addressed in a separate judicial review in 2023, which he also lost.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Duke-of-Sussex-v-Secretary-of-State-for-the-Home-Department-summary.pdf

 

[Hallo girl]

ETA: I forgot to check for new replies before posting, so I missed Healthy Sceptic's response. Apologies.



Please don’t ever hesitate to ask for help with understanding English, and it certainly doesn’t make you stupid. Few English speakers could write in German as well as you write in English.

Yes, the judgments indicate that the "proposal to pay for his own security was rejected and he sued as a result".

The government did not want to continue paying for full-time police security. They wanted to pay less money - only enough money for part-time police security.

However, the Sussexes wanted to keep their full-time police security. The Duke of Sussex asked: If he paid some money, could the Sussexes continue to receive full-time police security? The Royal Household asked the government to answer his question.

The government said no, nobody is allowed to pay for police security. On 16 January 2020 (or earlier), the Royal Household told the Duke of Sussex about the government's answer.

In July 2022 the Duke of Sussex sued the government.

I hope that is helpful. If not, please feel free to ask for clarification.

Could I just clarify your explanation of part time security. When in the UK Harry’s situation will be assessed and security will be provided , what is required will be provided for Harry and his family. IMO The use of part time can suggest something different.

 

[taogg]

Could I just clarify your explanation of part time security. When in the UK Harry’s situation will be assessed and security will be provided , what is required will be provided for Harry and his family. IMO The use of part time can suggest something different.

Perhaps it's better to avoid the terms "part-time" or "full-time" altogether. From what I understand, Harry doesn’t have guaranteed government security anymore. Instead, in the UK, protection is assessed on a case-by-case basis depending on the circumstances, usually only for official events. As for overseas protection, that’s not covered by the UK government at all.

 

[Sunnystar]

Perhaps it's better to avoid the terms "part-time" or "full-time" altogether. From what I understand, Harry doesn’t have guaranteed government security anymore. Instead, in the UK, protection is assessed on a case-by-case basis depending on the circumstances, usually only for official events. As for overseas protection, that’s not covered by the UK government at all.

Additionally, if Harry is staying at a royal residence - Clarence House, Windsor Castle/Home Park, Buckingham Palace, Kensington Palace, etc - he will get security. His issue is, again, that it's not 24/7 guaranteed and he can't just decide to pop on over to the UK on a whim with the expectation that he'll have it provided.

I'm rather convinced, as this case has wound its way through the courts & Harry's spoken out on it & given testimony, that he never had the indulgent, inconsiderate brattiness beat out of him - both metaphorically by his elders & literally by his older brother & schoolmates. Most people grow out of the immature, rather self-centered worldview Harry seems to have. For whatever reason, Harry never learned healthy ways of dealing with adversity or how to be accountable for his own actions, even if they were born out of trauma.

 

[An Ard Ri]

An article from Hello and the fall out in RF Family relations following the duke's latest interview
Royal family has 'zero trust' in Prince Harry after public interview

 

[An Ard Ri]

On the latest Podcast ,The Duchess of Sussex spoke to Heather Hasson, the founder of FIGS and spoke about food,cooking and takeaways.
Meghan Markle reveals surprising confession that affects family life
Meghan makes takeaway 'beautiful' when she doesn't 'have time to cook'

 

[Lee-Z]

On the latest Podcast ,The Duchess of Sussex spoke to Heather Hasson, the founder of FIGS and spoke about food,cooking and takeaways.
Meghan Markle reveals surprising confession that affects family life
Meghan makes takeaway 'beautiful' when she doesn't 'have time to cook'

nothing wrong with takeaway (on occasion), but i'm struggling a bit to understand what her 'niche' is in the world of 'lifestyle blogs/shows etc'
Is it 'stuff must look good and that's the main thing'?
(i'm total opposite myself, but i can understand making things look nice has it's merits)
She does seem to care a lot about what 'people' think ("but how do I still make this flattering and beautiful and present well and something that people find appetising"), maybe it would feel a bit more genuine if she related it to he own friends or family (a bit like Jamie Oliver used to do iirc)

(btw this sentence i had to read twice and still think i don't quite understand, maybe not being native english speaking doesn't help
"The whole point for me, and you'll probably speak to this too, is when you see something that is an easy solve in the everyday, that's not complicated, that's not fussy, how do you get your hands involved and change the way of thinking surrounding it so it doesn't feel daunting?")

 

[An Ard Ri]

The duchess is a busy working mum and I don't think anyone really expected that she cooks every day but perhaps it wasn't the wisest thing to mention when you are promoting your own Cookery show!

 

[Asteria12]

nothing wrong with takeaway (on occasion), but i'm struggling a bit to understand what her 'niche' is in the world of 'lifestyle blogs/shows etc'
Is it 'stuff must look good and that's the main thing'?
(i'm total opposite myself, but i can understand making things look nice has it's merits)
She does seem to care a lot about what 'people' think ("but how do I still make this flattering and beautiful and present well and something that people find appetising"), maybe it would feel a bit more genuine if she related it to he own friends or family (a bit like Jamie Oliver used to do iirc)

(btw this sentence i had to read twice and still think i don't quite understand, maybe not being native english speaking doesn't help
"The whole point for me, and you'll probably speak to this too, is when you see something that is an easy solve in the everyday, that's not complicated, that's not fussy, how do you get your hands involved and change the way of thinking surrounding it so it doesn't feel daunting?")

That sentence has me scratching my head too @Lee-Z, and I’m a native English-speaker! I’m not quite au fait with the “salad” dialect of California however!

 

[Sunnystar]

"The whole point for me, and you'll probably speak to this too, is when you see something that is an easy solve in the everyday, that's not complicated, that's not fussy, how do you get your hands involved and change the way of thinking surrounding it so it doesn't feel daunting?")

Good Lord. I'm verbose and yet, no.

Basically, she's saying she avoids doing simple, daily tasks when she's overwhelmed/stressed; furthermore, she is trying to recognize when this is happening in real time & not allow herself to get in the emotionally depressive rut of avoidance.

 

[Mbruno]

On the latest Podcast ,The Duchess of Sussex spoke to Heather Hasson, the founder of FIGS and spoke about food,cooking and takeaways.
Meghan Markle reveals surprising confession that affects family life
Meghan makes takeaway 'beautiful' when she doesn't 'have time to cook'

I didn't hear the podcast, but, from the reports, it looks like Meghan once again was making the interview about herself rather than the guest (in this case, Heather) and was taking the opportunty to advertise her Netflix show. The idea of "elevating takeway food" was already one of the themes of her show if I recall it correctly.