The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 10: August 2024 -


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tatiana Maria said:
But the interview also reiterates his opinion that his father has the power to make the Government reinstate his former level of taxpayer-provided security, so perhaps he sees no meaningful distinction between his family and the UK government.
Click to expand...
Even if Charles had such power, he couldn't risk using it for Harry. At this point, public opinion wouldn't allow it.
 
Lee-Z said:
It's been said many times before: why does he never acknowledge that persons who are most comparable to him wrg family and background are persons who don't get security at all when they're not working, like P.Anne.

He's fixated on his belief that he has been wronged and is blind to anything else
Click to expand...
Fixated hits the nail on the head perfectly.
 
Lee-Z said:
It's been said many times before: why does he never acknowledge that persons who are most comparable to him wrg family and background are persons who don't get security at all when they're not working, like P.Anne.

He's fixated on his belief that he has been wronged and is blind to anything else
Click to expand...
It also never seems to occur to him that Anne actually faced a nasty armed threat to her security and has managed just fine without armed protection for the rest of her life, let alone as any sort of status symbol.
tommy100 said:
As far as I can tell the only people in the UK who get armed protection without any sort of threat assessment (i.e. simply by virtue of their position / former position) are:
  • The Sovereign (and spouse)
  • The Prince of Wales and their family as direct heirs
  • The Prime Minister
  • Certain Secretaries of State in high risk roles
  • Former Prime Ministers
Click to expand...
The problem is (partly) that Harry was in that second category for his entire life up until the moment he split (so he views it as personal, not role); the other part being the traumatic distress, paranoia, and ultimately death of his mother after rejecting security. It’s not a good combination, especially for someone who doesn’t appear to be a clear thinker. I’m sorry for his distress, but he needs to take it to a therapist, not out on RAVEC or the newspapers.
 
Yes I think Harry might do well to speak to his Auntie Anne about security. She seems quite happy to accept the protection on offer and doesn't feel the need to go about screaming, shouting and taking legal action to get 24/7 armed protection and yet she is the only one of the RF to have been held at gun point. She also spoke in an interview for her 60th birthday about how it wasn't necessary for Peter and Zara to have security as they don't carry out public engagements. The difference is Anne is straight talking and speaks with her head and not her heart, Harry seems to only ever be speaking with his heart and not his head.
 
Tatiana Maria said:
On the last day of the court hearing, YouGov conducted a public opinion poll:

yougov.co.uk

Do you believe Prince Harry should or should not be entitled to police protection when in Britain? | Daily Question

Do you believe Prince Harry should or should not be entitled to police protection when in Britain?
yougov.co.uk yougov.co.uk

Do you believe Prince Harry should or should not be entitled to police protection when in Britain?​
​
22% He should be entitled to police protection funded by the state​
39% He should be entitled to police protection, but only if he pays for it himself​
24% He should not be entitled to police protection​
15% Don’t know​

From the Duke's perspective, the good news is that at least 39% of the public agrees with him that hiring police protection should be an option, while the bad news is that 63% of the public (39%+24%) thinks he should lose the state-funded police protection that he currently receives on a part-time basis while in the UK.
Click to expand...
Why did YouGov put in Option 2 into their survey when they know very well (a) that Harry did offer to pay for his own and his family’s protection but that this was (b) knocked out early in the Court case by the Met not being allowed to operate as a private protection squad?

Surely it’s inherently dishonest of a reputable polling company to put this in such a survey when they know that such an option would be unavailable to Harry (or anyone else) anyway.
 
Curryong said:
Why did YouGov put in Option 2 into their survey when they know very well (a) that Harry did offer to pay for his own and his family’s protection but that this was (b) knocked out early in the Court case by the Met not being allowed to operate as a private protection squad?

Surely it’s inherently dishonest of a reputable polling company to put this in such a survey when they know that such an option would be unavailable to Harry (or anyone else) anyway.
Click to expand...

If reputable polling companies confined themselves to asking about options the Government was willing to support, many survey questions would need to be eliminated. For example, if a Government is insistent that it will cut benefits no matter what, should YouGov refrain from asking citizens whether benefits should be cut, maintained or increased since the Government is only willing to consider the first option? I think such restrictions would severely hinder the investigation of public opinion. For those interested in the Harry-lawsuit story, it is informative to know that many people agree with the Duke of Sussex and disagree with the Government on the issue of privately hiring police.
 
people.com

Prince Harry Says His ‘Worst Fears Have Been Confirmed’ in Raw Comments After His Security Case (Exclusive)

Prince Harry confronts painful truths in a high-stakes legal battle over his security, deepening his rift with the royal family and revealing what he perceives as a calculated effort to force his return to the royal fold, in emotional remarks to PEOPLE.
people.com people.com

Prince Harry Says His ‘Worst Fears Have Been Confirmed’ in Raw Comments After His Security Case (Exclusive)​

Harry believes the removal of his security was a calculated effort to force him and Meghan back — a realization he tells PEOPLE "was difficult to swallow"
By Simon Perry
Updated on April 11, 2025 03:07PM EDT

[...]
In the years since, Harry has immersed himself in the process, including learning about RAVEC, the body responsible for the decision-making. One of his core beliefs, PEOPLE understands, is that the removal of security for him and his family when they stepped back from the working royal family was a deliberate tactic of control — a way to force them back into the fold. Rather than bringing the Sussexes back, the removal of security instead revealed to Harry the lengths to which they were willing to go, and it became the final straw. The prince admits that this realization “was difficult to swallow.”
[...]
Harry believes his father could intervene to ensure that such protection is extended to him. (Buckingham Palace does not comment on security matters, but a palace source previously told PEOPLE that the suggestion Harry's security is under Charles's control is "wholly incorrect.")

Much of the hearing on April 9 at the Royal Courts of Justice in the heart of London was held in secret. Some of the revelations unearthed during the proceedings have deeply unsettled Harry, confirming many of his “fears” about the situation — a realization he described as profoundly disheartening.
[...]
Above all, Harry says he is "driven by exposing injustice," a relentless pursuit that fuels everything he does. He has long said he can't simply let things lie — he needs to “get under the bonnet and fix it.”
 
Curryong said:
Why did YouGov put in Option 2 into their survey when they know very well (a) that Harry did offer to pay for his own and his family’s protection but that this was (b) knocked out early in the Court case by the Met not being allowed to operate as a private protection squad?

Surely it’s inherently dishonest of a reputable polling company to put this in such a survey when they know that such an option would be unavailable to Harry (or anyone else) anyway.
Click to expand...
I think it does demonstrate that the British public are not prepared to pay for it.
 
Hallo girl said:
I think it does demonstrate that the British public are not prepared to pay for it.
Click to expand...
I believe that if YouGov or other polling companies were to ask the British public what they are prepared to pay for annually to keep the British monarchy and members of the RF afloat then there might well be a great number of negative responses. It’s not just Harry’s possible security expenses many object to.
 
Curryong said:
I believe that if YouGov or other polling companies were to ask the British public what they are prepared to pay for annually to keep the British monarchy and members of the RF afloat then there might well be a great number of negative responses. It’s not just Harry’s possible security expenses many object to.
Click to expand...
I think that’s very true. It’s just that no other member of the royal family is currently suing the government for increased protection.

Harry’s protection would likely have eventually looked like his aunts and uncles anyway, even if he’d stayed in the UK as a full working royal.
 
He really is completely deluded. There was a plot to force him to leave. But there was also a plot to force him to stay. He's trying to "expose justice". And RAVEC don't understand the threat from terrorists, but he does.
 
RoyalNight said:
She surely has a lot of insight for someone who has been a business owner for a whole 3 minutes.

Edit to add:
After reading the article and M’s thoughts about packing it seems she was not involved in the process. Any other business owner launching their business would know exactly where the sticker goes and how big is the box, because they were there during the design process.

Is Meghan just a famous face and the business is run by Netflix people? I wonder how many other „Meghans” they will have if they plan to branch out to selling goods.
Click to expand...
I did read somewhere a few month's back that there was talk that Netflix had taken on ARO to run it in conjunction with the program and that the name change and other details came from them and not Meghan. Who knows? The state America is in at the moment I don't think even Netflix will risk throwing too much money into new ventures. I don't even recognise the country anymore, which makes me quite sad tbh.
 
Alison H said:
He really is completely deluded. There was a plot to force him to leave. But there was also a plot to force him to stay. He's trying to "expose justice". And RAVEC don't understand the threat from terrorists, but he does.
Click to expand...
also i think in his mind
"terrorists" = "The Media" = "social media"
i don't think he makes a distinction between these things

Someone should really sit him down and explain "The Media didn't kill your mother, not wearing a seatbelt did"
If he really understood that he could be a worldwide advocate for car-safety-rules and be globally admired for it
 
Curryong said:
I believe that if YouGov or other polling companies were to ask the British public what they are prepared to pay for annually to keep the British monarchy and members of the RF afloat then there might well be a great number of negative responses. It’s not just Harry’s possible security expenses many object to.
Click to expand...
You are possibly correct, all the more reason to limit who actually has the full time security.
The thing is, he has been told he will receive security when he visits, the risks will be assessed at the time, that is why the request is for 28 days notice.
If he should lose I am not sure where he is going to take it, he says in the interview he will fight on,,, where ?
 
Lee-Z said:
also i think in his mind
"terrorists" = "The Media" = "social media"
i don't think he makes a distinction between these things

Someone should really sit him down and explain "The Media didn't kill your mother, not wearing a seatbelt did"
If he really understood that he could be a worldwide advocate for car-safety-rules and be globally admired for it
Click to expand...
These are excellent points, considering he courts certain news outlets and Social Media. Boasts about his kills.
 
Like his mother. He is her son. Harry doesn’t see any of it and for someone who has been in therapy for years it is quite shocking. No self reflection. Should be everyone’s first consideration. Why am I behaving like this. What am I feeling and hat is a more appropriate why to channel it.
 
FigTree said:
Like his mother. He is her son. Harry doesn’t see any of it and for someone who has been in therapy for years it is quite shocking. No self reflection. Should be everyone’s first consideration. Why am I behaving like this. What am I feeling and hat is a more appropriate why to channel it.
Click to expand...
You are so correct, he is his mothers son, in more ways than one.
 
FigTree said:
Dodgy, dodgy ground. I mean, they live in America.
Click to expand...
Saying they were not aware is not really an acceptable response, they should have been aware. Any charity awarding money to organisations should be aware of all the back ground and the personnel involved before they make the decision to donate.
 
One thing that perplexes me is why is Harry targeting his father and not his grandmother, the agreements and efforts happened on her watch.

I suspect that it was suggested to Harry that he return to the UK, not because "they" were trying to control him or bring him back into the fold, rather that all this was happening when the planet was headed towards lockdown. If I am piecing things together correctly, the UK removed security and Canada also refused to provide security to the Sussexes at / around the same time many countries were implementing Covid safety measures. It looks like the Sussexes chose to take Tyler Perry up on his offer to house them in California.

Unless it suits his agenda, Harry refuses to acknowledge that the Sandringham Summit was put together hastily in response to the Sussexes releasing their intent to step back via the website. Yeah the statement was that they were forced to release it because information about their intent was reported in the media, I don't agree that they were forced. Anyhoo, the Sandringham Summit ended with loose strings, with security arrangements being the biggest.

The information that was released as part of the appeal proceedings,* indicate to me that a valiant effort was made by the late Queen herself and those working on her behalf to convince the decision makers to keep the Sussexes security in place. Again, I don't know what Charles was expected to do as Prince of Wales and later monarch that had not already been unsuccessfully attempted..oh wait, I can think of something, Charles could pay out of his own pocket, Harry's security costs, I can't remember the term used but it implied that the costs were prohibitive.

Another thing that pops up that is part of this stew is that in Spare (IIRC), Meghan asked Harry about security and his reply was that there was no way they were going to lose their security as Prince Andrew's had not been removed. That was a huge miscalculation by Harry.

* Big thanks to @Tatiana Maria for all the information provided.
 
Queen Claude said:
One thing that perplexes me is why is Harry targeting his father and not his grandmother, the agreements and efforts happened on her watch.

I suspect that it was suggested to Harry that he return to the UK, not because "they" were trying to control him or bring him back into the fold, rather that all this was happening when the planet was headed towards lockdown. If I am piecing things together correctly, the UK removed security and Canada also refused to provide security to the Sussexes at / around the same time many countries were implementing Covid safety measures. It looks like the Sussexes chose to take Tyler Perry up on his offer to house them in California.

Unless it suits his agenda, Harry refuses to acknowledge that the Sandringham Summit was put together hastily in response to the Sussexes releasing their intent to step back via the website. Yeah the statement was that they were forced to release it because information about their intent was reported in the media, I don't agree that they were forced. Anyhoo, the Sandringham Summit ended with loose strings, with security arrangements being the biggest.

The information that was released as part of the appeal proceedings,* indicate to me that a valiant effort was made by the late Queen herself and those working on her behalf to convince the decision makers to keep the Sussexes security in place. Again, I don't know what Charles was expected to do as Prince of Wales and later monarch that had not already been unsuccessfully attempted..oh wait, I can think of something, Charles could pay out of his own pocket, Harry's security costs, I can't remember the term used but it implied that the costs were prohibitive.

Another thing that pops up that is part of this stew is that in Spare (IIRC), Meghan asked Harry about security and his reply was that there was no way they were going to lose their security as Prince Andrew's had not been removed. That was a huge miscalculation by Harry.

* Big thanks to @Tatiana Maria for all the information provided.
Click to expand...
Excellent summary of the situation, always with regards Andrew , the most he moved about was horse riding at Windsor. Of course it has changed there as well. As you say a huge miscalculation by Harry,
 
The huge difference was Andrew was still living in the UK, Harry and his family had moved 15+ hour flight away.
TBH I think Andrew' security was always up to review, everyone was just a bit too taken up by Harry' demands - which he was making in public thus had to be dealt with in real time - to focus on Andrew.
The two cases are also quite different - Harry had firmly and irrevocably walked out on his family and his role, Andrew was forced to "take a step back" while legal proceedings went on. I suspect, no matter how unlikely, everyone was leaving the possibility open that Andrew would be 100% cleared and exonerated and take back up public duties. Weren't Harry and Meghan given a transitional year to decide whether or not to return? If they had then would be facing any of this?
 
Curryong said:
I believe that if YouGov or other polling companies were to ask the British public what they are prepared to pay for annually to keep the British monarchy and members of the RF afloat then there might well be a great number of negative responses. It’s not just Harry’s possible security expenses many object to.
Click to expand...

Not exactly what they are prepared to pay but there have been polls asking which royals should receive public funds. Such polls are taken fairly regularly about the royals. It's not new or limited to Harry. See one from Daily Mail below.

www.dailymail.co.uk

MailOnline poll: Half of Brits want King to hand duties to William

Charles III appears to be viewed as a caretaker monarch - but the institution still enjoys the backing of the majority of Britons who believe he has had a good first year on the throne.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

The principle of who should receive public funds is a better issue to poll than what people are prepared to pay, I think. The cost of maintaining the royals per person in Britain is roughly around £1.43 per annum (I think that's what I've seen quoted by BP in one of their annual reports). That's negligible for most people and lots of people spend more than that to catch sight of the royals in a day, going by the crowds we see lining the mall at Trooping and how quickly tickets to the stands sell out.

Once the British public accept the principle of a public servant receiving public funds, they don't gripe too much about the cost except it's shown to be unreasonable/not proportionate or they don't think they are getting value for money. This is partly why polling often focuses on who should get public funds as opposed to how much an individual is prepared to pay.

Most people object to Harry receiving any public money, for security or otherwise, with good reason. He's no longer a public servant in the UK but chose to become a private citizen. The UK taxpayers do not run an open security tab for just anyone.

Having said that, while polls can be useful for taking the temperature of the public, neither the govt or the King makes decisions based on polls, rather what is the right thing to do either by law, policy or by precedent. Going by polls, the public would rather Harry be removed from the line of succession. Of course no one is going to dignify that with a response or action, despite the strength of public feeling. In the case of his security, public feeling aligns with government policy but it is not the driver of the policy. Harry is not being targeted by selective polling.
 
I don't usually post DM articles but this has some interesting comments from "those close to Priti Patel" who was the Home Secretary back in 2020 and from former head of Scotland Yard's Royal Protection, Dai Davies. I dont usually go in for "a source close to..." either but in politics it is more usual than royal reporting and in politics its often true the politicians don't want to be publicly caught talking about the RF.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Former Scotland Yard chief slams Prince Harry's 'nonsense' claims

A source close to Priti Patel , who was Home Secretary in 2020, said that the decision to scale back his security 'was a professional one' taken by the Royal and VIP Executive Committee.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

A source close to Priti Patel, who was Home Secretary in 2020, said that the decision to scale back his security 'was a professional one' taken by the Royal and VIP Executive Committee, known as Ravec, after the couple quit as working royals.

'It would be beneath [the Queen] not to allow Ravec to do their job professionally, or make leanings against them,' the source told The Mail on Sunday.
Click to expand...

Dai Davies, former head of Scotland Yard's Royal Protection said the Duke of Sussex was 'talking complete nonsense'. He said Harry and Meghan's 'security arrangements in the UK are considered on a case-by-case basis.

'He is given a liaison officer who has access to the most up to date intelligence reports. This person will deal with Harry's own security people who are extremely capable. The idea that he needs 24/7 armed protection is ridiculous - so too is the idea that Britain is unsafe for him. This new argument that he is advancing is frankly bizarre. It was a Ravec decision, pure and simple - nothing to do with the Royal Family'
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ista
  • Sticky
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, May 7, 2025--
3 4 5
Replies
145
Views
15K
Curryong
C
Marengo
Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh and Family News and Events 12: March 2025 -
Replies
23
Views
2K
EllieCat
EllieCat
Marengo
The Duke and Duchess of Bragança and Family 3: March 2025 -
Replies
17
Views
2K
Blog Real
Blog Real
Marengo
Earl and Countess of St Andrews and Family News and Events 2, Dec 2024-
Replies
2
Views
1K
iceflower
iceflower
Marengo
Nicholas & Alina Maria de Roumanie Medforth Mills and Family, News & Events 3: March 2025 -
2
Replies
48
Views
4K
Toledo
Toledo

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom