The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 9: August 2023 -


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Famous people receive threats every day. Harry is not special.

If I remember correctly, he purposely dehumanized people calling them video game chess pieces, and the Taliban supposedly said they don’t want him because he’s already serving his life sentence. I’m paraphrasing but 🤣.
 
Few ‘famous people have counterterrorism Chiefs commenting as this man has done publicly. And people were in fact prosecuted and imprisoned for threatening the couple. Just waving it away as of no importance doesn’t answer security questions.
 
Few ‘famous people have counterterrorism Chiefs commenting as this man has done. And people were in fact prosecuted and imprisoned for it. Just waving it away as of no importance doesn’t answer security questions.
Yep, from previous research four men acting in two pairs were (rightly) sent to prison. Out of 60 million + people.

A bigger threat to PH is someone telling the world he had killed 25 Taliban fighters. Who was that someone? Asking for a friend ;)
 
Harry was in danger from terrorists threats after he came back from his tour of Afghanistan. That was years before he wrote Spare or was interviewed about it. I distinctly remember he had six RPOs on guard around him at the same time.

And the threat the Met Chief was later speaking about would have been far more than the four people prosecuted who appeared in media reports.
 
Harry was in danger from terrorists threats after he came back from his tour of Afghanistan. That was years before he wrote Spare or was interviewed about it. I distinctly remember he had six RPOs on guard around him at the same time.
And telling the world how many people he killed didn't make him more of a target? No one forced him to write his book. He chose to share that information for money, now he should live with the consequences - a concept that he struggles with admittedly - and he can pay for it.

My cat is more likely to become the next PM than you and I ever agreeing, so I will leave it at that.

Have a good evening! :)
 
Anne’s attack was the result of one man wishing to kidnap for gain. That is very different to consistent threats from terrorist groups or threats over years. Presumably that Chief knows far more about such matters than we do.
 
Not a head of state and not representative of a nation or government. Credible threats will be investigated. You want 24/7 protection then you pay for it. It’s not that hard.

Okay, that’s it for me for now. I’m off to lurk in the Duke of Westminster’s wedding thread!
 
Harry is paying for it. And did offer to pay for security for himself when in the UK.
 
Incidentally, this legal expert believes that Harry is almost certainly on an A1 visa while in the US (a visa given to members of royal families as well as to diplomats and Heads of State.) I saw this interview and she stated that it was very unlikely that Harry would in general have been questioned about any drug use, unless he had been arrested for such offences.

 
Every MP in the country receives credible threats. Unfortunately, that is the world we live in - look what's just happened in Slovakia. So do many other high profile people. They cannot all be provided with top level security. I don't know why Harry seems to think that an exception should be made for him.
 
Anne’s attack was the result of one man wishing to kidnap for gain. That is very different to consistent threats from terrorist groups or threats over years. Presumably that Chief knows far more about such matters than we do.
and that’s why RAVEC found that bespoke solution, assessing every visit individually. Threats might be temporary or resolved.

As for his visa, at the moment that they’ve moved to US (spring 2020), they were in the one year to review, so it’s only logic that he had that type of visa. It would be relevant to know it’s duration, as long as the visa is valid and unless the US revokes it nothing can be done. And the US might ask to be officially informed of his change of status. It might be quite complex.

LE Here’s a link about A1 and A2 visa. As I understand it, Harry being the son of the head of state is entitled to A1.


 
Last edited:
Few ‘famous people have counterterrorism Chiefs commenting as this man has done publicly. And people were in fact prosecuted and imprisoned for threatening the couple. Just waving it away as of no importance doesn’t answer security questions.
Could you please share sources about the people who were prosecuted and imprisoned? I must have missed that!
 
Could you please share sources about the people who were prosecuted and imprisoned? I must have missed that!
It is in the article Curryong previously posted, Prince Harry and Meghan faced 'credible threats' by far-right extremists, says Met Police's ex-counterterror chief Neil Basu.

Some excerpts:
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex faced "credible threats" from far-right extremists, the Met Police's former head of counterterrorism has said.​
Neil Basu said teams from the force investigated and prosecuted people behind the threats, which he described as "disgusting and very real".​
[...]​
In 2019, a far-right teenager who accused Prince Harry of being a "race traitor" in an online post was jailed for four years and three months.​
Michal Szewczuk, 19, was sentenced at the Old Bailey for the "abhorrent" post, which featured an image of the duke with a gun to his head.​
The image showed the royal against a blood-spattered background and included a swastika symbol.​
 
It is in the article Curryong previously posted, Prince Harry and Meghan faced 'credible threats' by far-right extremists, says Met Police's ex-counterterror chief Neil Basu.

Some excerpts:
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex faced "credible threats" from far-right extremists, the Met Police's former head of counterterrorism has said.​
Neil Basu said teams from the force investigated and prosecuted people behind the threats, which he described as "disgusting and very real".​
[...]​
In 2019, a far-right teenager who accused Prince Harry of being a "race traitor" in an online post was jailed for four years and three months.​
Michal Szewczuk, 19, was sentenced at the Old Bailey for the "abhorrent" post, which featured an image of the duke with a gun to his head.​
The image showed the royal against a blood-spattered background and included a swastika symbol.​
Thank you very much!
 
It is in the article Curryong previously posted, Prince Harry and Meghan faced 'credible threats' by far-right extremists, says Met Police's ex-counterterror chief Neil Basu.

Some excerpts:
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex faced "credible threats" from far-right extremists, the Met Police's former head of counterterrorism has said.​
Neil Basu said teams from the force investigated and prosecuted people behind the threats, which he described as "disgusting and very real".​
[...]​
In 2019, a far-right teenager who accused Prince Harry of being a "race traitor" in an online post was jailed for four years and three months.​
Michal Szewczuk, 19, was sentenced at the Old Bailey for the "abhorrent" post, which featured an image of the duke with a gun to his head.​
The image showed the royal against a blood-spattered background and included a swastika symbol.​
You are correct about on line social media it can be vile and threatening, some of the threats against members of the wider family can be really worrying.
 
If that’s the worst, a little idiot posting online, and who was already jailed, then I understand better why RAVEC is working on a case by case basis.

Harry himself made some allegations that were from the category “truth may vary”. So I’m not going to take his demand at face value.
 
[.....]

RAVEC already gave him the decision. He sued and lost. He’s going at it again on appeal and we will see where it ends.

Harry is not under anymore threats than any other member of the royal family. Most of the radical behaviors that we are seeing today (in royal watching) is in no small parts thanks to what he’s been saying…

On that note, I’ll see myself out before I get into hot water.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[.....]And that’s RAVEC’s business to assess. It’s one thing to say that I’ve seen people affirming their dislike, it’s completely different to have the competence to discern what is threatening and what is just lip work.

As for agressiveness, there are lunatics in both camps. I have a huge respect for those who are intelligent enough, no matter their preferences, to see the humans in all this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am really becoming confused about this security issue, I thought I had read that when he intends to visit the UK his security needs would be reviewed. I read that as he will probably receive security. He was not just being written off with nothing.

What is he looking for?
Does he really expect the British taxpayer to pay for 24 hour security for the rest of his life while he stays in another country that he has claimed is now his home.
I know he is not responsible for his accident of birth but he walked away from that, his choice.
When mega celebrities like Beyonce, Taylor Swift, Madonna visit the UK, France, Italy even if it's for a shopping spree or to attend to an event, they pay for their own security. It protects them not just from paparazzi but for a more serious threat of obsessed fans turned into stalkers. Taylor Swift recently had a stalker trying to break into her NYC residence, years ago Madonna had a security guard injured by one attempting to break into her California home.

Both Harry and Meghan are in the same category of needing an escort and guards because of the negative attention they get or, the positive attention that dares fans to turn into dangerously obsessed stalkers. But the key factor is the celebrities above pay for their own team either as part of their business contract or as an expense since all of them are self-entrepreneurs.

H & M want to be independent businesspersons with a storefront, called a non-for-profit charity(ies) to produce tax deductible (in the USA) revenue, that generates a personal income for their needs. From that the fee for security can be factored in and I'm sure any Hollywood accountant can write it off in their taxes. There is no need for retired royals not even residing in the UK to have taxpayers cover their tab every time they want to stop by London for tea and crumpets.

They wanted out, and Queen Elizabeth II practically told them 'There's the exit door, just put one foot in front of the other and good luck running a business in the USA" :rolleyes: The UK doesn't have to cover their expenses solely based he is the King's son. I think all this is a way to make himself believe he is part of a job, The Firm, he already quit and moved on. These I'm-a-Royal lawsuits need to seriously stop in 2024.
 
Last edited:
[.....]You are correct we cannot and should not compare because we have absolutely no idea what the security services are aware of. As a UK taxpayer I have absolutely no problem for a small percentage of my tax to go towards the security of the RF , another small part of it going towards security for Harry and his family when they come to visit. I will not be happy if it goes towards providing 24 hour security for them when they do not live here and in no way contribute towards this country or the Commonwealth. I do not mean financial contribute but by their work and support for causes. I would question if Harry even pays income tax in this country as he has been here so little over the past few years, he wants to take but not contribute.
The comments he has made about this country and the people have not exactly allowed us to keep him close to our hearts.
I have no more to say on this matter as I am sure you will all be delighted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A number of responses have been deleted as they were either off topic for the thread, made comparisons, or otherwise violated the rules for the Sussex thread.

The moderating team have been trying to keep the thread open, but to do that members need to cooperate by following the rules, and resisting the temptation to both drag up old grievances and score points.
 

Prince Harry’s request to expedite his appeal against a High Court ruling on security was denied by a Court of Appeal judge who said he could not “jump the queue”.
Prince Harry was this week granted permission to appeal a decision made in February that backed the Government’s right to deny him automatic police protection.
He wanted the appeal to be heard by the end of July, in part due to fears that the ruling will influence the approach other countries take to his security.
With the Sussexes understood to be planning multiple overseas tours in the coming months, the Duke argued that the litigation had already dragged on for two-and-a-half years and said his legal team would be busy with other matters from October.

However, while Lord Justice Bean allowed the appeal, he refused the application to expedite proceedings.
The judge noted: “It is rightly not suggested that the claimant is entitled to jump the queue because of his status.”
 
Only 1 out of 5 ground for appeal was considered to have a chance of success; the other 4 were deemed unpersuasive (among them one about the costs - which was considered 'hopeless' as a ground for appeal).

The judge explaining to Harry that 'his status' does not have any bearing on the timing/expedition of his case is an interesting and important one - the reasoning that his attorneys will be busy with other cases, is not the problem of the court. And Harry's own delay (1 1/2 years) in bringing the case to the court also didn't work in his favor. Harry has had a judgement, in which it was determined that the RAVEC was doing a good job in general -also regarding his case-, so that should be the starting point for any security related questions.

However, his insistence that this is related to how other countries treat his security, suggests that it is more than about just the UK arrangement - which has been deemed reasonable.
 
Last edited:
I trust the analysis of the security experts. I trust an oncologist to treat cancer. I expect them to know their stuff. Nobody, least of all them, would want anyhing to happen to them on UK soil. But I don't want to pay for their security. There is no need.

Well he wants IPP staus. Free security for life. It isn't going to happen though.
 
So if he should be given IPP status which he appears to want, who for example would pay for his security when he is at home in California, who would pay for the next visit to Nigeria for example. In the UK it would be the taxpayer ultimately but would we pay for the other locations.
 
The bill is picked up by both. Or so I believe for someone like him. For diplomats it’s generally their home nation but when you are covering people like him abroad they generally have local police protection as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom