A Counselor of State legally must have a UK domicile; Harry does not. In normal times nobody cares. But now, the monarch has cancer. If William suddenly becomes king, his heir is a 10 year old boy, who would need a regent if he became king as a minor. With Harry ineligible, that falls to, ummm, Andrew.
But let me real, Harry and Meghan would move into a bedsit in the East End if such a scenario occured
I feel that assumption is incorrect…but what do I know.
We’re witnessing a crucial moment in history for the monarchy. Personally I think the monarchy is in real jeopardy.
When I saw this article I immediately thought, probably like many others, why should I care what some actress thinks? But I do see some very relatable issues brought up.
From the article they quote Melissa McCarthy. “It bums me out for every woman and every person that, for no reason, people just like to attack,”.
I agree. I’m frankly quite tired of all the negativity/bullying/abuse.
“A smart, interesting woman that has her own life, for some reason, is incredibly threatening to some people.”
I think that has some truth to it.
I dislike it when people/media pit women against each other. However it’s difficult not to make comparisons between how Meghan and Kate are treated by others.
One is often criticized for doing non-earthshaking things…and that criticism often goes a step further and attributes those actions with varying degrees of sinister motivations. The other is praised for often trivial, dare I say superficial things that weirdly the other did but was criticized for. I find myself thinking, what’s up with that?
Personally I appreciate personal sacrifice for a larger ideal/goal, but as an American the strict conformity that is demanded from the institution is very unappealing to me. It’s the non-conformity that’s threatening imo.
In a nutshell, for me the “pomp and circumstance” stuff is fun and the history is compelling. The rest is fairly inconsequential.
At the end of 2022 they added Anne & Edward so now it is - William, Anne, Edward and then Harry and after Harry Andrew. So Harry and Andrew are still technically there but it’s very unlikely they’ll be needed in the next ten or more years, no matter who passes away. Hopefully Anne will live forever!
Correct
No.
And you need to include Beatrice. And the order is by where they are in the line of succession.
So it’s William, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice, Edward, Anne. Andrew is not disqualified. Even if he were, and even if Harry remains ineligible, Anne is still at the back of the pack.
I read that, but then I also read that it now prioritizes the “working royals” so adding Camilla, Anne, Edward makes Beatrice, Harry, Andrew non-issues? And it also sounds like it’s more of a pool of available bodies than a line of succession. But I’m only a casual Royal watcher.
The Counselors of State are a group that any one of whom can perform some duties of the monarch, e.g. attending Privy Council meetings, receiving new ambassadors, but not others, e.g. creating titles.
In case of a regency, the regent is the Counselor of State next in line to the throne.
Despite what you may have read, the above is based on law, not wishes and hopes of an individual or group.
It will be interesting to see the “news” coverage. There are already lots of takes on what’s happening between Harry and the royal family. Add in negative speculation concerning Meghan’s influence and weaponizing Archie/Lilibet and I’d bet the tabloids are salivating with anticipation.
With what we’re seeing concerning David Pecker and the National Enquirer the following post (#1951) from Feb 16 is a good reminder that we should be careful when choosing what we believe. Always ask yourself if a story is likely to be manufactured and embellished.
Either today or yesterday I saw a couple of articles that said Harry might not appear in person for the Invectus games because the U k government won’t provide security for him. Am I correct in thinking that when he goes to other countries, such as Germany, those countries typically don’t provide security coverage for him? If that’s correct, why is it so much more important to him to have coverage in the UK than in those other countries? Is there more of a threat to him in the UK? Or does his private security team have more restrictions on them in the UK than in other countries?
@melvin123 I don’t know the answers to your questions but I was up early and found this article.
From the article:
“Though Meghan and Harry have been funding their own security since their move to the United States in March 2020, their access to security during visits to the UK has been a matter of concern and ongoing legal wrangling. Their private security guards are prohibited from carrying weapons in Harry’s home country, and earlier this year, the High Court denied Harry the opportunity to pay for the increased costs of Metropolitan Police officers who are licensed to carry weapons in the UK.”
It’s anyone’s guess if he’s less safe in the UK. However it’s easy to see the obsession the UK tabloids have with both Harry and Meghan. I would understand if Harry feels less safe there with all the negative tabloid stories.
For goodness’ sake they left 4 years ago!
Thanks for the article! I completely understand why they feel unsafe.
I’d think they’d be unsafe in many places, and they do travel quite a bit. I wonder whether the risks really are different in the UK.
I agree! Also, even if it theoretically is no more dangerous in the UK, the point I was surprised by is that their security can’t carry weapons in the UK but can in other countries.
Even the police don’t carry weapons as a matter of course in the UK. Why should private security be any different?
I’m filing this under “you learn something new every day”!
While that is a good point, I feel Harry has a valid “credible risk” to consider.
It’s not my decision and whoever decides the matter should be respected. However I would also respect Harry’s decision to avoid the UK if he doesn’t feel adequately protected.
More news:
I’m unsure about police, but Royal security carry guns:
“Armed police are relatively rare in the UK. Just 4% of the 142,526 officers in England and Wales are armed (compared to all 708,000 in the US). In England and Wales only 6,677 officers are authorised to carry firearms.
Of these, 2,500 are in the Met, Britain’s largest police service. They are typically trained by the Met’s specialist firearms command and serve either in that unit or other special squads like counter-terrorism, or parliamentary and diplomatic protection.”
Private security guards aren’t allowed to carry weapons:
“private security, just like all other security officers, cannot carry guns or be armed in the UK. Laws and restrictions restrict security personnel from carrying such weapons as it is against the law. The same goes for bodyguards as well. It is against the law for bodyguards to carry guns or weapons such as knives.”
This is where the issue comes from. Harry wants to pay for police protection since those are the only people allowed to be armed. That is far outside regular procedure.
But from the linked elite forces article:
“SO14 Royalty Protection Group is a component of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) Protection Command. SO14 is responsible for guarding the Royal Family and associated residences and consists of a number of sections, namely Personal and Close Protection, Residential Protection and the Special Escort Group.”
*Note: I highlighted “Royal Family” because I don’t see any stipulation saying only working Royal Family members.
It also stated:
“SO14 also provides protection for members of European Royal families visiting the United Kingdom”.
I don’t understand why Harry and Meghan would be denied protection? In my opinion if protection is refused it would reflect badly on the Royal Family.
It’s not every single member of the Royal Family. They have to draw a line somewhere. He previously tried to appeal the denial of police protection and when that was unsuccessful offered to pay for it instead.
And I very much doubt protection is offered to foreign royals unless they are on an official visit. Which of course is no longer the case for Harry.