Harry is a Royal because of British culture, tradition, and institutions. The royal family is part of the national identity of the UK. He was born into it without choice. If his life is in danger because of it, he should get the government protection that is warranted to keep him safe even if it’s outside of regular procedure, don’t you think?
5 Likes
As it says, they “faced threats…while living in the UK”. The decision to withdraw protection was taken after they decided not to live in the UK.
Charles/Camilla/William/Kate receive 24/7 protection. Other adult members of the RF receive protection only when performing royal duties.
2 Likes
That may very well be the case. However, if there are credible safety concerns, Charles looks like a pathetic father imo.
4 Likes
Read the case linked above. It was agreed the Royal Family would support Harry’s request for protection when he went abroad. But the King doesn’t control the police. It’s a decision for the government (more specifically a government committee). That’s what a constitutional monarchy means. The government decides these things not the King.
Sorry, I’m not going to read a 51 page ruling.
But from the Washington Post article it says, “Publicly funded security protection is still available to him, his wife and his children when they visit Britain, but the Home Office said his level of security would be decided on a case-by-case basis.”
*Note: I highlighted what I thought was important.
“This was one of two legal battles that Harry has launched over his security arrangements. He lost a separate legal challenge last year, denying him the ability to pay for British police protection for himself and his family when visiting. Lawyers for the British government said that wealthy people should not be allowed to “buy” police protection.”
*Note: again I highlighted the part I feel is important.
Harry isn’t just a wealthy person. He is a member of the Royal family. That said I have no issue with the government deciding the level of security, but I believe Charles as King could and should facilitate Harry’s requested security level. Why? Safety first!
This is how I see it.
-
If Charles is truly powerless in the matter, I see it as an example of a weak monarchy.
-
If Charles is using security in the UK to try to force Harry to comply to whatever demands he has, I completely understand why Harry has been avoiding going home.
Regardless the security situation is a reflection of the monarchy.
Lastly, one would think with Kate (and William to a certain extent) not doing public engagements, the man-power would be available.
3 Likes
The English fought a civil war in the 1640s to ensure that they had a “weak” (ie constitutional) monarchy. Many other countries had a revolution to ensure that they had no monarchy at all. I suspect you are taking the Hamilton musical too literally if you believe that King George III was running Britain back then…
3 Likes
Funny. But since you mentioned Hamilton I get the distinct impression a good number of Brits were under the impression that Harry would return to the UK once he lost the protection and lifestyle that being a Royal afforded him. The longer he stays away and the happier he looks, the angrier some seem to become.
Who knows what will happen, but I do wish Harry well.
I liked Diana. I think Harry is a lot like his mum.
3 Likes
I understand that H is now too far removed from the line of succession to receive taxpayer funded security unless he is working an event for the crown (which of course he won’t be as he is no longer a working royal). But, I really don’t understand why he isn’t being allowed to pay for the security. I agree with you that due to his birth, he has been in the public eye as a royal and would be a much bigger target than, say, Edward/Sophie. Add to that the known vitriol, well, it just leaves me scratching my head why he isn’t allowed to pay for the security.
6 Likes
He is. He isn’t being allowed to pay for his own armed security
2 Likes
I know. That’s why I said “the” security… to be clear, the security that he’s fighting for. It’s probably a very American thing for me to say, but I think there is a world of difference between armed security and unarmed security.
1 Like
Right. But it’s not the norm in the UK
2 Likes
I think we’re entering the “dog chasing its tail” territory.
I think we’re wondering why the elite UK forces (SO14 Royalty Protection Group) can’t provide security and Harry reimburse them for the expense. Looking at the mission statement which @csfmap provided, it certainly seems to meet their criteria.
Saying “it’s not the norm” when it comes to Prince Harry seems like a cop out. That’s the point of contention imo.
But yes, the UK govt gets to decide how to utilize its resources. I’m just commenting on its appearance and possible ramifications when it comes to monarchy.
What do others who normally have security do in England or when visiting? I believe whoever is president gets to bring secret service (with guns) and assume other heads of state get the same deal. I’m not sure what king of details were there with Biden for the funeral Of QEII or for Mrs Biden when she travels alone (but since she is representing the US at funerals probably her regular detail).
But what about musicians and movie stars and Kardashians? When they travel around the US they get to have armed security, but do they when they go to London? Are they allowed to hire private security with guns? Does Paul McCartney get a detail, or Elton John? I think Harry should be in that category if he’s not there on the King’s business. If the king invites him, King should provide security.
I think you’re making the UK government’s argument for it……armed UK security is finite, and if you allow H to buy it, then why can’t Elton John buy it? For me, I think there’s all the difference between allowing the King’s son to buy armed royal security verses allowing a random famous rich person to buy it. I know, Sir Elton John is a national treasure and not an ordinary rich person, but he’s still not the King’s son.
No they are not. It is illegal for private security guards to carry weapons in the UK.
In particular, you would then be buying the police, since private security guards cannot carry weapons. It is an entirely reasonable policy to say you can’t buy yourself a on-duty police officer (with powers of arrest etc) for private use, even in the US that wouldn’t fly. So once the decision had been made not to provide armed police guards, there was zero chance Harry could change that decision simply by offering to pay the costs.
2 Likes
Thousands of wealthy people visit London every year, and they manage to do so with their own privately funded bodyguards if they so desire; he can too.
And I doubt all of those thousands of wealthy people have British far right groups directing same level of threats against them.
4 Likes
Oh, I bet there are plenty of threats against rich sheiks or Bill Gates, or whomever. Both kidnap and death threats. By no means would Harry be unique in that regard. He can take his bodyguards along, like everyone else similarly situated. Or choose not to go.
1 Like