RoyalNight
Nobility
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2013
- Messages
- 262
- City
- Poznan
- Country
- Poland
And on the other side of the country to make it environmentally friendly 

I see that Meghan required a four car convoy to deliver her to the theatre the other night.
Page Six has learned that Markle, 43, hired former Secret Service agents as part of her private security detail and that the unmarked vehicle, which belonged to the New York Police Department, had two intel detectives inside of it.
Weâre told the controversial royal rode in one of the SUVs and the other two were decoys â empty save for drivers â which could have been used to send awaiting photographers on wild goose chases throughout NYC.
In reply to who approved it, this might shed some light:A paparazzi source tells Page Six that the duchessâs security measures are âabsolutely abnormal, totally over-the-top and excessive.â
âTaylor [Swift] usually has two cars â her car that sheâs in and a security car with her team,â the insider says, âand if sheâs going somewhere, she has a separate car on-site with her team already there, but they donât travel together.â
The pap source notes that other A-listers like Kim Kardashian, Jay-Z, BeyoncĂ© and Rihanna all travel with one car unless they are with family, then they allot for two, but âno one gets police escorts.â
However, a second source tells Page Six that just because most stars donât utilize NYPDâs services doesnât mean they canât â as any celebâs head of security can ask for protection if necessary.
Meghan Markle hires âover-the-top,â 4-car motorcade for Broadway night out: âAbsolutely abnormalâ
âItâs something that can be made available based on the threat assessment and the circumstances of where theyâre going and what theyâre doing,â the second insider explains.
If Harry is claiming he learned new facts during this proceeding, he either didn't pay attention during the lower court proceedings or his lawyers failed to inform him properly. New evidence can't be presented during appellate proceedings, because the court is reviewing only the evidence that was before the trial court, to determine if the trial court made any errors in reaching it's decision. Appellate proceedings aren't a "second bite at the apple" or a chance to present new facts. So there's literally nothing that was said during the appellate proceedings of which Harry shouldn't have been aware. His statements otherwise to the Telegraph and People are a transparent attempt to insinuate some grand conspiracy where none exists. And he knows he'll never reveal these so-called "facts" because he can't do so legally.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 âfearsâ about the situation â a realization he described as profoundly disheartening.
An unmarked NYPD car accompanied the duchess on her 1.5-mile journey. Sources told Page Six that the vehicle had two intel detectives inside of it and that two of the cars in the royalâs motorcade were decoys.
Pagesix has more details
![]()
Meghan Markle hires âover-the-top,â 4-car motorcade for Broadway night out: âAbsolutely abnormalâ
The Duchess of Sussex was accompanied by three SUVs and an unmarked police vehicle, per photos obtained by Page Six.pagesix.com
Unless they have called them in advance.However, a second source tells Page Six that just because most stars donât utilize NYPDâs services doesnât mean they canât â as any celebâs head of security can ask for protection if necessary.âItâs something that can be made available based on the threat assessment and the circumstances of where theyâre going and what theyâre doing,â the second insider explains.
Very interesting. It sounds as if the decision is made internally within the NYPD. The "insider" isn't entirely clear on why "most stars donât utilize NYPDâs services" even though they are free to ask: Do they prefer not to use it for their own reasons (if so, why not?), or are their requests usually turned down (in which case, it would signify that the NYPD has assessed the Sussexes' threats and/or activities to be different than most celebrities')?
Weâre told the controversial royal rode in one of the SUVs and the other two were decoys â empty save for drivers â which could have been used to send awaiting photographers on wild goose chases throughout NYC.
If true, that is consistent with the couple's past press releases and arguments in court, which have portrayed paparazzi as the most immediate threat to their security.
It's all for attention. "Look at me". Same with PH and all this court business. They are both desperate for relevance IMO.After complaining about 2 hour high speed car chases through the streets of New York they then proceed to arrange wild goose chases for the paps to follow. Most inconsiderate of other road users if it causes high speed car chases again, which they insist took place!!!
If Harry is claiming he learned new facts during this proceeding, he either didn't pay attention during the lower court proceedings or his lawyers failed to inform him properly. New evidence can't be presented during appellate proceedings, because the court is reviewing only the evidence that was before the trial court, to determine if the trial court made any errors in reaching it's decision. Appellate proceedings aren't a "second bite at the apple" or a chance to present new facts. So there's literally nothing that was said during the appellate proceedings of which Harry shouldn't have been aware.
I don't know if there is a legal basis other than it is within the purview of the local authorities to decide what the appropriate level of protection a resident or visitor receives. IIRC after the "near catastrophic" car chase from a couple of years ago the NYPD decided that things should be handled differently for future visits by the Sussexes. Now maybe they came to this conclusion on their own, or perhaps some strongly worded correspondences from Harry / Harry's team influenced the decision. Also on a side note (IIRC), Harry then included the NYPD's response in the package he submitted as part of his appeal regarding the decision about what security he gets in the UK.Here is a source for your claim:
[...]
Does anyone know what the legal basis was for the decision to grant American taxpayer-funded police protection to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex? And was that decision taken by the US federal government, the New York state government, the California state government, or some other authority in the US?
I think I am correct in saying the standard risk assessment is carried out annually unless intelligence identifies a need, the bespoke is what it says on the tin as and when required. So if he came here 10 times it would be assessed 10 times. Which is 9 times more than annually. He also wants to blame his father for some reason. He obviously knows nothing then.Well explained. That also occurred to me when reading this passage:
But it was clear, as he listened to the arguments being put forward, that he was utterly immersed in every detail and knew the case inside out.When Sir James Eadie, for the Home Office, made comments with which he disagreed â notably when he admitted that the standard risk assessment denied to Harry was usually carried out for most VIPs â he could not conceal his astonishment, raising an eyebrow, turning to his solicitor in disbelief and on one occasion, throwing his pen down on the desk in frustration.He is clearly âexhaustedâ and âoverwhelmedâ by the process.![]()
Prince Harry: Police protection was withdrawn to trap me
Duke tells The Telegraph his âworst fears have been confirmedâ by secret evidence heard in court over securitywww.telegraph.co.uk
If the claimant knew the case "inside out", why did he display "astonishment" and throw his pen down when the Home Office's barrister made the same argument (that instead of carrying out the standard risk assessment, they were carrying out bespoke risk assessments which they considered superior for his needs) that the Home Office has been repeating from the start?
Thank you for sharing, I am not very good at attaching links etc.Here is a source for your claim:
After dinner, Markle traveled up to Times Square in a four-vehicle motorcade, including an unmarked NYPD car.A group of security guards escorted the California native and her pals into the Majestic Theatre, where they watched six-time Tony winner Audra McDonald star in a revival of âGypsy.â![]()
Meghan Markle pops up in NYC to see âGypsyâ on Broadway as Prince Harry makes surprise trip to Ukraine
The Duchess of Sussex managed to go unnoticed in the crowd. âI was too busy being transfixed by Audra [McDonald],â one showgoer told Page Six.pagesix.com
Does anyone know what the legal basis was for the decision to grant American taxpayer-funded police protection to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex? And was that decision taken by the US federal government, the New York state government, the California state government, or some other authority in the US?
I think I am correct in saying the standard risk assessment is carried out annually unless intelligence identifies a need, the bespoke is what it says on the tin as and when required. So if he came here 10 times it would be assessed 10 times. Which is 9 times more than annually. He also wants to blame his father for some reason. He obviously knows nothing then.
- Under the heading "Threat Levels", Sir Richard Mottram set out that the threat level for the claimant [redacted text]. These threat levels would be reviewed as part of the risk assessment processes by the Home Office. The results would be shared "with the Executive Committee [of RAVEC] in due course. It was agreed that such assessments will need to be reviewed more frequently than annually, to ensure that security arrangements are commensurate to any threats and risks. Threat assessments may change dependant on the role and profiles of the Principals during the next 12 months".
- On 6 February 2020, Sir Edward Young wrote to Sir Mark Sedwill to describe what had been agreed between Her Majesty the Queen and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in January "about what will and will not change in the ways in which the Duke and Duchess of Sussex lead their lives". Sir Edward said that not every detail was yet known but he had endeavoured to set out as much information as he could about what had been agreed "some two weeks ago". Under the heading "Security", reference was made to the claimant's public profile by virtue of being born into the Royal Family, as well as his military service. Reference was made to the Duchess's own independent profile and well documented history of targeting. The Royal Family was also "mindful of tragic incidents of the past". The document said that "discussions to date, including with Sir Richard Mottram, have been useful in making sure that the parameters of the RAVEC process are well understood". Her Majesty and the Family recognised that these were "independent processes and decisions about the provision of publicly funded security", which were "for the UK Government, the Government of Canada, and any other host Government".
And as for those saying the RF didn't support them in trying to get the security H&M felt they needed:
41. On 6 February 2020, Sir Edward Young wrote to Sir Mark Sedwill to describe what had been agreed between Her Majesty the Queen and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in January "about what will and will not change in the ways in which the Duke and Duchess of Sussex lead their lives". Sir Edward said that not every detail was yet known but he had endeavoured to set out as much information as he could about what had been agreed "some two weeks ago". Under the heading "Security", reference was made to the claimant's public profile by virtue of being born into the Royal Family, as well as his military service. Reference was made to the Duchess's own independent profile and well documented history of targeting. The Royal Family was also "mindful of tragic incidents of the past". The document said that "discussions to date, including with Sir Richard Mottram, have been useful in making sure that the parameters of the RAVEC process are well understood". Her Majesty and the Family recognised that these were "independent processes and decisions about the provision of publicly funded security", which were "for the UK Government, the Government of Canada, and any other host Government".
- Sir Mark Sedwill wrote to Sir Edward Young on 12 March 2020, setting out the position of the RMV in relation to security provision abroad. The letter also noted that RAVEC's decision of 28 February confirmed that RAVEC would continue to monitor the security of the Sussex family within Great Britain including through periodic threat assessments. Should anything change in terms of specific threat, including [redacted text], this would be communicated to the Home Office through established channels with the police and [redacted text] and be actioned as necessary.
I don't find the idea that Meghan hired uniformed NYPD officers (with their car) to accompany her strange. Even non-celebrities hire off-duty police every day for things like traffic control at funerals.Pagesix has more details
![]()
Meghan Markle hires âover-the-top,â 4-car motorcade for Broadway night out: âAbsolutely abnormalâ
The Duchess of Sussex was accompanied by three SUVs and an unmarked police vehicle, per photos obtained by Page Six.pagesix.com
In reply to who approved it, this might shed some light:
To be honest I wondered if NYPD decided it was easier to send a car to follow them to stop any further outrageous claims of them being involved in high speed chases across New York.
The Duke and Duchess announced they were stepping back from official public duties on Jan 8 2020.
At the so-called Sandringham Summit, a crisis meeting called to thrash out the terms of their exit five days later, the Duke was told they would be able to retain security.
I get the impression that due to his arrogance and self entitlement it had not crossed his mind that the security would be withdrawn. On the other hand it maybe had but by issuing the statement then releasing the website they possibly thought they could force through what they wanted. It does appear that Harry does not understand how RAVEC works as his sources keep saying that security is a bone of contention with his father.The timeline here doesn't make sense. From the Telegraph article:
That may be Harry's recollection of events. The way I remember reading about it, they were told that it wasn't up to the Queen, but that she'd convey her position that they should keep their security. It doesn't matter either way here, because this conversation happened five days after they'd already announced their exit to the world! The wording suggests that this was the first time security was discussed, so it seems no one told them anything about security prior to their announcement. That's consistent with other accounts I've read.
The way I remember it, there had been some private back-and-forth about them taking a step back, then Harry and Meghan unilaterally announced their withdrawal and posted a set of terms on their website. They claimed they did this because they believed it was about to leak. (What was accomplished by posting it before it leaked remains unclear.) Those terms, including security and half-in half-out, had not been negotiated or agreed to by the Queen or anyone else, and it soon became clear that many of them weren't accurate.
Harry isn't even claiming that they'd discussed security, much less that he'd been promised it, before they announced their withdrawal to the world. It doesn't seem to have occurred to him that maybe he should have done that first. It would be bad enough for him to do that as an individual, but he had a family depending on him. If he thought security was so important, it was his and Meghan's responsibility to figure out a plan where they could retain it before doing anything irrevocable. That might have meant "early retirement" to an isolated family property within the UK a la Andrew. It might have meant buying a smaller house with larger acreage in a cheaper and more isolated area in the US, so that the costs would be more manageable. Or it might have meant Harry sucks it up and continues doing occasional royal events, they both behave themselves in public, and in exchange Meghan isn't required to tax her precarious mental health by ever doing anything. I wonder if the dawning realization that his own poor judgment may have put his children at risk is what's really driving his continued obsession with security arrangements. He can't unring the bell, but that isn't going to stop him from trying.
That may be Harry's recollection of events. The way I remember reading about it, they were told that it wasn't up to the Queen, but that she'd convey her position that they should keep their security.
Pheeew, good thing theyâre away from those nasty paparazzi who if they could would film private family breakfast through the window.The Duke of Sussex is now back in Montecito, California with his family after his trip to the UK and Ukraine.
The duchess shared the family reunion on Social Media.
Prince Harry reunites with Meghan Markle, Archie and Lili in California â and brings special gift
An article that summarizes some of the problems with sentebale, going back to the first problems.
How Harry's HIV charity that promises 'never to forget' has left behiâŠ
archived 14 Apr 2025 04:47:50 UTCarchive.ph
I think the comment is more on them filming themselves now.Harry might very well remember his mother having complaints about photographers with long range camera lenses attempting to try to photograph interiors of her homes.
The most natural product placement ever!And the Duchess of Sussex As Ever jam had pride of place in the centre of the breakfast feast!
No doubt this plug will assist with its sales and promotion.
Or did she try and change things back to what the purpose of the charity was. who knows!That's very sad. It's a difficult time for charities: the Charities Aid Foundation has recently published a report into the fall in donations to charity in recent years, mainly because of the pandemic and the cost of living crisis. Every day, I get adverts in my Facebook feed from charities. If you look at the comments underneath, there are always people questioning whether or not money donated actually gets to those in need, or whether it falls into the hands of corrupt regimes (especially in relation to the Myanmar earthquake appeal), or is spent on large salaries for the people running the charities, or is spent on woke/culture wars projects. I'm not saying that climate change isn't an issue, but it seems that Sophie Chandauka isn't focusing on people who urgently need help.