It's not about character. It's about the reputation of the United Kingdom, which would be catastrophically damaged if something happened to Harry on home soil.
Sorry Tom, I still disagree with your stand on security. This is the perfect example of caveat emptor. No perks without the work, dedication and honour that comes with being a member of the RF. Hazz willingly turned his back on it, and then proceeded to make millions by trashing them. So he can use those millions to pay for his security. As for his wife, I hope she never travels back to the UK. EVER. And quite frankly, I couldn't care less if the kids do either. I'm willing to bet if there was a referendum in the UK, asking if the government should pay for security for any of the Harkles, it would be a resounding NO. People are starving. Do you honestly think these hypocrites deserve being pampered?
That said, I thank you for the welcome opportunity to express opposing positions. You are a true gentleman. :)
I agree with Tom. High-profile public figures can face genuine threats, and I believe the state has an ongoing duty of care because Harry was born into the royal family. It would be devastating if something happened to him. The public would feel incredibly guilty for the government denying him that.
I would not. If the stretched taxpayer is forced to pay a penny for the Harry, I would consider it cause to abolish the Monarchy. Charles can pay personally to enhance Harry’s security in any way he sees fit. It is a billionaire’s job to protect themselves; not an over-burdened citizen for a being not serving them in any way.
I would not !! We will paying for their “police protection” whilst on a holiday/grifting /quasi royal visit down under simply because they felt we ripe for a shill. They weren’t even invited by ALL of us now paying the bill.!!!!
Then why don't high profile celebrities get extra security? Wouldn't they getting killed on British soil be a tragedy? Because that's all Harry really is, a celebrity now.
Others “born into the royal family” don’t have security so that’s not a good argument. Harry has no official role in the constitutional monarchy (he’s neither the Monarch nor the heir) so why should dna be the reason he gets taxpayer funded security? Why should more taxpayer-funded resources go to protecting the Sussexes than any other person in the UK?
Total agree with JLR those self entered people think they are above us, and can do what they want. They are not welcome anymore. And sorry for Invictus those two were in it for them selfs not our soldiers.
Harry chose to live in our good old crime-ridden US of A where we get a mass shooting every week. Where unhinged people walk around with AR-15s and a trip to the grocery store, to the mall, to school... can get you killed. But evidently, Harry isn't afraid in the US. His paid bodyguards are enough. The UK has stringent gun control but still Harry needs gun-totin' cops protecting his and the missus' every move? Give me a break. He wants the status and the motorcades so Meghan can pretend after a couple of decades of being a nobody in Hollywood, that she is finally Somebody.
Do you remember when The Harkles came back for the Jubilee and they insisted on and got the security they demanded and Meghan opened the car window while they were in the motorcade so the all the "little people" could see her since she wouldn't be permitted to be on the balcony?
Re: Andrew - I cannot believe that anyone tolerates his demands for "lower" when they bow to him. If everyone he demanded that of quit and he had to do things by himself, maybe he'd stop abusing others.
Sarah Ferguson keeps sinking lower and lower. I completely believe she had a relationship with Diddy. It sounds like she is a sex addict a well as a profligate spender of other peoples money. Her "jolly hockey sticks" Fergie persona really got her far in the world. Her constant bragging about what a wonderful mom she is turns out to be a sick lie. I feel so badly for her daughters. They grew up with crazy - both their parents are so morally compromised. It is amazing that they are so seemingly normal.
I would feel sorry for them when they were children. Definitely. But as adults they made their own choices to stay in with the grift of their parents. They could have chosen differently.
I totally agree with everything you said except that it's only Megan who wants his security. Don't you forget about Harry complaining because he was stuck in traffic? He loves all the pomp and splendor as much as his wife.
I would never wish any harm to befall Harry, his wife, and especially his minor children. Or Andrew and the York family. But I disagree that there would be a backlash if something happened to Harry while he remains unprotected.
British subjects find themselves the victims of car accidents, crime or terrorist attacks. There is never an uprising over the lack of police protection for these victims that we read about everyday.
Harry was never slated to receive a 24/7 wrap around security package! His Aunt Anne and Uncle Edward do not receive full police protection. Tom, you and Harry are asking for something he was never entitled to in the first place, even if he had stayed on as a full time working royal.
Harry himself has done an incredible amount of self promotion that has raised his profile while also engaging the British taxpaying public. If there is a larger target on his back now it is of his own making.
If full bells and whistles police protection is restored to Harry at taxpayer expense it will be a torpedo in the side of Charles reign. At a time when the reign is already taking hits from Andrew and Epstein. Harry's security has the potential to bring the whole show down. It is not a cause a monarchist should support.
Doesn’t Prince Harry have a bespoke security arrangement which means the officers are armed if there is even a perceived threat.
God forbid anything happens to Prince Harry, Meghan Markle and their children. But the UK is a safer place than the countries he has visited: Nigeria, Jordan etc.
Let’s say Prince Harry is given the full security his brother has, will he feel safe. I don’t think so because he has a mindset that he’s always in danger.
If I may be so blunt: if there are people out to get you, they will find a way armed security or not. The number of security officers may be inversely related to the level of safety.
Correct. And it might be different if his popularity polls put him at the top. But he's low in those ratings. That says how much the population cares about him. The population who would be funding this security.
I'm compelled to repeat a post I made a week ago here:
I agree with Tom that Harry/Sussexes should recieve robust security for Invictus. At this point, the threat profile is too specific and too public to pretend otherwise. The attack on Andrew truly underlines how quickly hatred of royals can become physical.
But the public is also entitled to ask why taxpayers should fund security for visits that are then commercialized or used to wage a running campaign against the monarchy. That is the real issue underneath all this.
Perhaps the answer is a conditional security compact - Harry receives enhanced police protection for approved UK visits - Invictus, funerals, charity events, court appearances - but only if certain objective conditions are met.
The most obvious and enforceable condition should be a strict non-commercialization rule. No video crews, no documentary footage, no monetized “behind the scenes” content, no product launches orbiting protected visits. If protected appearances later appear in commercial projects, reimbursement provisions automatically trigger. And the Sussexes should be required to place a significant amount in escrow from which the reimbursement would come. That is not punitive; it is the same principle applied to former officials and diplomats who cannot convert state privilege into private profit.
Second, eligibility should depend not on whether Harry criticizes the monarchy, but on whether he engages in conduct that actively escalates security and constitutional tensions immediately before or during protected visits - timed media offensives, disclosure of private family communications, etc., erc.
Importantly, enforcement should sit not with Buckingham Palace but with an independent panel of constitutional experts, including but not limited to a retired judge and a counterterror policing figure. This group would apply written standards transparently and the individuals tapped would not be negoitable.
As has been mentioned, there is precedent here. Edward VIII’s post-abdication arrangements were built around preventing a rival commercial court from exploiting royal status while remaining outside royal discipline. The same principle applies now.
Security should not be a reward for royal rank. Nor should it be withdrawn out of spite. But neither should Britain subsidize a freelance royal enterprise attacking the institution that justifies the protection in the first place. A conditional, rules-based arrangement could be a workable middle ground.
He gets it with 28 day notice. More than anyone else in UK is given. How many Uk citizens died this week by murder? Bet those loved ones had wished for 28 day notice protection. Harry can just stay away. If so scared.
Realistically such an agreement as the above is only setting up for more trouble & contention in an already contentious situation. An independent panel who monitors & enforces this? Who has the spare staff & funds to do that & if breaches occur what is the enforcement? Who decides what's commercial & what's not? Escrow? So RAVEC or the HO would also have to monitor a financial agreement? This would be a boondoggle nightmare in real life & set the stage for even yet more wrangling & contention. We've already seen how Harry treats agreements, even those made by QEII whom he confessed all respect & devotion for. Edward VIII's security when it was actually provided (mainly during his stint as Governor of the Bahamas) was for the major part paid for by his brother George VI.
Please forgive the length of this guys, but I wanted to address the objections of Jeanie and Jennifer - two people I’ve come to respect a great deal. I understand your practical objections, but I don’t think they defeat the idea of a conditional security compact. In fact, in my view, the objections prove why something more explicit is needed.
The present arrangement is already discretionary, bespoke, administratively burdensome, and contentious. RAVEC already assesses Harry’s visits case by case after advance notice. The Court of Appeal has treated that customized framework as lawful, even though Harry continues to contest its adequacy. So the choice isn’t between a clean, effortless status quo and a complicated compact. It’s between an opaque, endlessly disputed discretionary system and a clearer written framework with objective conditions.
The argument that “Harry won’t respect agreements” isn’t a reason to avoid conditions. It’s the strongest reason to have conditions that are written, narrow, measurable, and financially enforceable. If you think he’s likely to blur lines or commercialize royal access, then the answer can’t simply be, “therefore no rules.” The answer is rules with consequences that don’t require pulling security in the middle of a visit.
That’s my key point. Enforcement would not mean abruptly withdrawing protection while a threat remains active. That would be reckless and would defeat the whole purpose. Enforcement would mean after-the-fact financial clawback, refusal to approve discretionary future visits, tighter limits on protected itineraries, or reimbursement from a well-funded escrow. Governments and public bodies enforce conditions this way all the time. They don’t have to choose between “do nothing” and “remove the bodyguards while someone is exposed.”
It isn’t impossible to define commercialization. The law and public administration define such boundaries constantly. “No documentary crews,” “no filming inside protected venues,” “no use of protected movements or police presence in monetized content,” “no product launch or paid content tied to the protected visit,” and “no sale or licensing of behind-the-scenes footage from protected events” are not mystical concepts. They are administrable rules. There will always be grey areas, but grey areas are not a reason to abandon the entire concept. Tax law, lobbying rules, ethics rules, parliamentary standards, charitable regulations, and government procurement all operate despite grey areas.
The escrow point is also being overstated. RAVEC or the Home Office wouldn’t need to become a financial-monitoring agency. The compact could be structured much more simply: before receiving enhanced protection for certain categories of visit, Harry places a fixed sum in escrow under agreed terms. If a breach is found by the independent reviewer, reimbursement is drawn from that escrow. If there is no breach, the funds remain untouched or roll over. That is not a “boondoggle”; it’s a straightforward risk-allocation device.
The criticism is right that an independent panel shouldn’t become a sprawling bureaucracy. But it would not need to be one. It could be a small standing review mechanism used only when enhanced protection is requested or when a breach is alleged. The point is not to create a royal morality court. The point is to prevent Buckingham Palace from being seen as judge and jury, and to prevent Harry from claiming that every adverse decision is family retaliation. A retired judge, a senior constitutional/public-law figure, and a security professional would provide a more defensible structure than either palace discretion or Harry’s unilateral demands.
The “who decides what is commercial?” objection also misses the central distinction. The condition would not regulate Harry’s speech generally. He could criticize the monarchy, write memoirs, give interviews, and say what he likes in his private capacity. The condition would regulate the conversion of state-protected access into private revenue. That is a narrower and more defensible principle. The taxpayer is not underwriting his brand. The taxpayer is protecting public order, national reputation, and personal safety during defined visits.
While I agree the Edward VIII analogy isn't perfect - it is relevant. The point is not that the Duke of Windsor had precisely the same security structure. The point is that Britain has faced this problem before - a royal figure outside the working structure, still carrying royal status, capable of creating reputational and constitutional difficulty, and needing to be managed through a mixture of support, restriction, and containment. Edward’s governorship in the Bahamas was itself part of a broader effort to keep a destabilizing former king away from the center of British political and royal life during wartime.
The response to my post also contains an unresolved contradiction. On the one hand, it claims Harry already has a reasonable bespoke arrangement. On the other, they say any conditional arrangement would create endless litigation and contention. But we already have endless litigation and contention. Harry has already challenged the current arrangement through the courts. The Court of Appeal’s May 2025 judgment did not end the public argument; it merely confirmed that the government’s approach was lawful.
The compact I suggested wouldn’t magically make Harry cooperative. But it could make the government’s position stronger and more publicly intelligible. It would say: Britain will protect you where there is a legitimate security, public order, or national-interest reason to do so. But that protection is not a platform, not a content opportunity, not a commercial asset, and not a substitute for being a working royal.
That is the middle ground. Not spite. Not blank-check protection. Not palace control. Not taxpayer subsidy for a freelance royal enterprise.
A rules-based compact would recognize the real threat while protecting the public interest. And if Harry refused such terms, that refusal itself would clarify the issue. The problem would not be that Britain denied him safety; it would be that he rejected a fair system because it did not give him status without discipline.
Richard the sentiment is very good & i think most everyone agrees with that, however the working part of this would be a headache for the people involved in setting it up, monitoring, enforcing, etc. Plus why try & establish something that he would probably reject anyway - that would defeat the purpose. Thanks for your comment, i didn't see the orig post until Tom endorsed it.
Your points are well thought out and well laid out. The only problem is we're dealing with humans. And people like H&M always try to get around something even when it's written strictly. And you never know how politicians will react if it came down to litigation. And litigation cost the tax payments. I know I'm being repetitive. And I truly adore and respect what you wrote. I'm just unsure that reality would interfere. Not saying it's a pie in the sky idea. It's just I don't trust H&M.
Thank you for your comments and your skepticism, JD. That is the outlook needed for the countermeasures I called for to work. The people selected to implement them have to be dead serious. I believe that conservatives, liberals and other parties would rally to prevent Sussex abuses. A tremendous spotlight would light up anything approaching commercialization. The broader public won't stand for such abuses. And the clawback of escrow funds would nullify any profits the couple in question would receive.
Also the British govt was more than willing to pay for the Duke & Duchess of Windsor’s security because the security staff were also acting as govt spies - for very good reasons.
Yes thankfully they didn't have to pay for much though. The warship that ferried him a few times prior to & during WWII & then the escort to/from the Bahamas. The tax free payments which were meant to cover several things from the King were conditional on the Duke not returning to Britain without permission.
I don’t know how you could make sure commercialization won’t happen, especially since they seem desperate for money. If they did commercialize their trip - then what? Pulling security from them? Isn’t that exactly what you said can’t happen because they’re in too much danger? I know there are no easy answers. I’m just *very* skeptical that the Sussexes would abide by any deal they make. They were banned from being half-in half-out by the Queen herself and they’ve decided to break that promise. I appreciate you being open to other perspectives. Also one of the things I love about your Substack is that people are nice & respectful even when we disagree.
Yes, a proposal like that is just asking for trouble. Especially an oversight committee (which does cost, it wouldn't be volunteers). I see complications from a mixed purpose trip too, part of it covered part not? It just isn't workable.
And there's nothing to stop a set piece where some journalists would ask Megan how much her dress cost and she would say where she got it and how much it cost. You couldn't legally say she was commercializing that. She's very good at working with magazines such as People.
Part of the problem here Tom is that everything with Harry and Meghan is commercial. If they come together there will certainly be some sort of link to that one off platform Meghan has invested in. If it's Harry alone she will be putting up some sort of veteran inspired bundle on her As Ever sales page.
Harry does not respect agreements. Any sort of security "compact" between Harry and the government would immediately become an explosive mess, with taxpayer monies constantly being wrangled and litigated over. Harry already has a reasonable, bespoke security arrangement with the government. With notice, he receives an appropriate level of protection for approved visits. Harry has been litigating for something more, a full on wrap around package anytime, so he can stay as long as he wants. Harry wont stop all this until he has what he wants, which is for his family to have the same security his brothers has.
This is the AI summary but to me this says it all:
"As of 2026, Princess Anne does not receive full-time, state-funded police protection or automatic "International Protected Person" (IPP) status while on private vacation."
The hardest working royal that we have. One constantly in the public eye and one who already had a kidnap attempt.
I think you should present this to the judge. It is the most coherent answer to this mess. You have a right, as it is your money, to suggest a workable plan !
Why is everyone calling that an attack on Andrew? The guy wasn't armed and went running yelling after him. I'm not sure you could call that an attack. And I'm tired of everyone talking about the crowbar. It was in his car. I have many tools in my car that people could think were weapons. A tire iron for example. Does that make me a raving lunatic attacking someone?
I love the idea of conditional security. But I would see the highly contentious Harry and Megan taking to court that whatever they were doing wasn't commercialism. And the taxpayers would be paying for those trials.
My feelings about monarchy have changed since last fall, before first Epstein file drop. I had a negative opinion of Harry, Meghan, Andrew and Sarah. But the last six months of revelations have changed my views of Charles and the Queen. Because of the way they handled Andrew and Harry. Which is sad.
Those candles are literally the childrens titles being boxed and sold, solely for profit. The King's reasons for letting this happen are unknown. But it doesnt matter that we don't know why he lets it slide, it is wrong. The sale of those candles has rubbished the Sussex reputation. But they also degrade the King's.
William so far remains untarnished by Harry and Andrew. Hopefully he continues to refuse to be forced into handshakes with Harry. It will all come crashing down if he does.
Well, having lived for a long time under a parliamentary system of government with a monarch as titular head, I admit my feelings have changed as well: from not caring very much if the monarchy collapsed to watching with horror as people in the republic next door elected a monster who, with colluding cronies, threatened my country and set about demolishing the world order.
In his visit to Washington, it was King Charles, cogently, eloquently, who articulated the values I cherish and that so many of us imagined we once shared. His family may not be perfect--whose is? But I find I now prefer a relatively benign monarchial system with its scuffles over titles and who deserves them to the bombast of autocrats with lethal intentions.
So, for the foreseeable, let British monarchs and their troubled offspring continue on their way.
I agree, who buys wickless, overpriced candles that are supposed to smell like someone else's kids? But the King could, with letters patent, get rid of the prince and princess branding on the candle boxes.
King Charles has ZERO Control over whatever Crass marketing scheme Harry and Meghan devise to exploit their “Royal Adjacent” status and that of their Children. To exert any influence certainly Charles could remove their Titles BUT to do so while leaving the YORK Grift Machine Intact would be to invite an ENORMOUS Firestorm of Criticism, rightfully so, which Charles is obviously loath to do by Nature and Position.
While I agree with your sentiment I don’t see Charles undertaking Wholesale Disenfranchisement of a significant number of his family, both Royal and Familial.
He took away Andrew's titles. And that's his brother. And it's not a significant amount. It's only Harry and his brood. Megan was not born to a title and the two children are too young to really understand it. It's only Harry who would be really bothered. And that doesn't cause me one minute of sadness.
Charles is and always has been weak as water. Lately I've wondered if he isn't greedy for money. Look at the money scandals at all of a sudden were dropped when he became king. I wonder how far back this goes?
No matter what agreement is made the Sussexes will never be happy. This bespoke has worked. Stop gauging the taxpayer. Be more concerned with Prince George and what Chris Ship did.
Sorry Tom. Could care less. Don't come if so worried. More concerned with Chris Ship and idiots at ITV disclosing Prince George's security. What say you on that??
I saw that clip! It is unbelievable nothing was said about Chris Ship. We don't have Chris Ship speculating on the security Harry's children receive privately during the school day in the US
We have no idea at all about the Sussex children's security or where they are schooled. I'm not aware of who Chris Ship is, but I get the impression he's a media personality who somehow found out and blabbed on air ?? about Prince George's schooling and his security there? Outrageous !
Chris Ship is a long-time royal correspondent for ITV news, he is part of the royal rota and definitely understands the rules in place regarding royal children, their schooling and their security. The media is not supposed to disclose the security arrangements for royal children, Williams or Harry's, while they are at school. During an interview this week Chris Ship disclosed that Prince George does not have a policeman in the classroom with him. I would be just as angry if Chris Ship had discussed Archie's security arrangements at school. Chris Ship holds a position similar to Rebecca English at Daily Mail. So his behavior was shocking. I suspect a blanket was put on coverage of Ships statements to avoid drawing further attention to the breach.
It was and I was shocked to see Chris Ship make the statements. I would never have believed Chris Ship would do such a thing if I had not seen the interview.
I think the Harry security issue is a rock and a hard place. Without it yes, there is a risk of harm befalling him and his family, but with it the outrage of British tax payers will be inflamed especially if every time the Sussexes visit the Uk they are actively seeking opportunities to make money- imagine seeing a taxpayer funded policeman in the background of a OneOff post. The optics will not be good. Beefed up security under the 28 day arrangement seems like a more palatable option.
And I don’t think Prince William is the only one not shedding tears over Meghan not gracing the shores of Britain this summer.
I was also listening to a separate podcast that mentioned how Taylor Swift had taxpayer funded security during her eras tour dates in the UK. I think the main point of difference here is that the eras tour brought millions into the British economy. Whether you attended or not, it was very lucrative for the Uk. I don’t think the same can be said for a Sussex tour.
They didn't exactly draw big crowds when they went to Australia. Which is part of the Commonwealth. So I don't see them drawing crowds in the UK itself.
I picture Harry and Megan leaning out the windows and waving at the crowds as they zip through traffic. The traffic that Harry complained about. Taxpayer money funding that is a disgusting thought.
There are limited police resources irrespective of funding. We should not prioritize a non working Royal who has deliberately courted danger for his own ego and commercial value. Would suggest removing all titles to minimize any reputational damage to the monarchy. One side effect of dwindling relevance is that it actually might make Harry safer.
You’re exactly right about limitations on the police. One possible problem could be the number of trained officers. Idk about Britain, but one big problem the Secret Service has in America is they don’t have as many agents as the govt needs. The ones we do have are incredibly overworked & that can be dangerous.
If the number of protection officers guarding the king and working royals on the job was diluted in order to pander to Harry and Meghan's ego or commercial interests, that should not be allowed to happen. I was acquainted with a SServ officer, a friend of my brother, when both lived in Miami for a spell. While the officer didn't go into any improper details, he was able to tell us generally what's involved when they prepare for a high profile visit. Best stated, A LOT, including deep background checks for all locations, persons, vendors, offices... you name it, each and every location and event should be researched prior to the high profile visit. Failure to do that means things can happen, as they did at that recent hotel appearance by Trump and his cabinet and the misguided armed soul who was tackled in the hallway before he could get into the ballroom. That was a serious breach of security protocol. I read that the attached hotel, where the man had a room, was not searched because there weren't enough SServ personnel on site. Frivolous appearances cost as much money as serious ones and take as much work and agents.
Good point about checking out each location and the police manpower involved to do so. That would surely detract from police services to other royals and the community at large. For OZ that would be 14 venues between Meghan and Harry.
Britain too - The Metropolitan Police Service's Royalty and Specialist Protection Command (RaSP/SO14) has faced challenges in managing personnel, with reports indicating pressures on staffing levels for specialized protection duties because of the lack of experienced & trained officers (City Security Magazine).
Apparently, there are under 200 specialist RaSP/RAVEC personnel, while there are over 4,000 secret service personnel. The UK just doesn't have the manpower.
Damn! I can’t believe you have so few security personnel. Who are they able to protect outside the royal family, the PM, & the ex-PMs? I can’t imagine there would be many other people getting protection.
How can the UK Taxpayer justify elevating Harry and family to the same security package as the King/Queen and the Wales? The other working Royals only have security when undertaking Royal duties. Harry and wife are self appointed part time Royals without any constitutional constraints including self serving commercial enterprise. The problem in giving in to their security demands is that a precedence is set where anyone adjacent to Royalty can demand the same perks- you only have to self sabotage and place yourself in danger. Harry is not as important to Britain or the monarchy as before. His relevance will only diminish over time as the Wales children grow up and have families of their own, Perhaps it would be a kindness to remove any delusions of grandeur by removing the titles from any non working Royals.
I respect your opinions and generally agree with your perspectives…. (and here it comes); however, in the case of security, I must respectfully disagree.
As Harry’s annuities and stock accounts are quietly printing money, he cosplays an impoverished prince huddled in the rookeries, left without any protection as he navigates his Land Rover alone through the dark streets of Britain.
Give me a break. He will have protection while in the UK. But that’s not enough for him. What he wants is more and more and more.
Giving him unlimited, taxpayer-funded security worldwide will demonstrate that the working people are expected to support someone who sprinted on to the “freedom flight” fast as a flash to get far away from the responsibilities of serving those same taxpayers.
Look, even after all the negative things he has implied about the UK, no one wants him to get hurt. He will receive security. If he is truly worried , he can simply write a check for additional security just like any other celebrity.
No one is stopping him from doing that. Just my humble opinion.
Harry offered to pay for his security when in the UK but the issue is about armed security. The UK has strict rules about who can carry arms. He offered to pay the salaries of the forces that protect royalty when he and his family are in the UK, but that was obviously just not on.
Apologies for seeming so disagreeable, but I believe this is a red herring. As long as he gives adequate heads up, he will receive security. And depending on the current threat level, won’t the Met police be armed?
Unless I am reading this wrong, what he’s asking for is the constant special “extra” protection, as if he were heading into an active war zone or high crime areas like, oh, I don’t know, Ukraine or Chicago….
Is that assumption inaccurate?
I don’t know, it just seems excessive for someone who isn’t doing “official” work while the rest of us support him in his quest of grand fanfare.
And that's what it really comes down to. It's nothing about security. Harry just wants to have the fanfare that a king would. And on someone else's dime.
It still would come down to manpower. There's only so many policemen. And even if they would allow armed guards from the outside, not all of those are necessarily highly trained. The government would have to go about vetting all of them every time Harry came over. And that cost money. So the taxpayers would still be on the hook.
Harry wants to feel "relevant" in the eyes of the world, especially in GB, and this complaining over security is for all to see that Harry want to feel important...after all , he says he was born for the role.....ahem.... the role he did not want mind you. I think he is looking for a way out of his current state of affairs. Why are the dastardly duo on the royal website?
Yes, he can't bear that his star is fading & so very many people dislike him & are disgusted by his antics. I agree - they should NOT be on the royal website.
Your first post about the security issue was overly dramatic Tom, the facts are that Harry absconded the UK, proceeded to make money off the back of Netflix, Spare etc and now wants back in to boost his waning credentials.
He already has a security arrangement that is perfectly adequate. He is a private citizen, like us who have to face threats everyday like going on a train to London to work. Give notice, stay in the authorised premises that already have established royal security and if he wants to wander around London, then take his American security personnel with him.
People are facing a cost of living crisis, using tax payer funded security to see him and his wife odiously gurning at events while shilling her outfits is not going to be palatable. Do you really think they will abide with a non-commercialised caveat if they come to the UK?
Remember when H&M took their kids to Disney World and they closed the place off for them. And I think that's been done in other venues. Yet William went jogging in New York City with just a couple of guards. Harry knows he's not important. So he wants to look important.
I suppose I’m a little unclear on your position here Tom regarding Harry’s security: correct me if I’m wrong but, when he comes to town for, let’s say, Invictus, isn’t it already assumed he will have security because it’s a high profile event and there will be advanced notice? And isn’t the security Harry is looking for from Ravec a high level security that he would receive on the tax payers dime whenever he feels like dropping in or indeed to any country he feels like visiting on his private faux royal cash grab tours. Are you saying you agree with Harry that he should get the highest level security wherever he feels like going in the world? Because I just can’t see that type of tax payer funded security being justified in Harry’s case.
That would be on H&M. They're supposed to give notice. If they don't, that's their problem. If they give notice security would be there the minute the plane touches down.
And the outrage of the people of those other countries seeing their money go to that would be tremendous. Most people in the United States aren't even happy that he lives there. I don't see them, especially as high prices are hitting the average person hard, exactly rejoicing in paying for his and his wife's security.
You write as if Harry has no security. He HAS security, he just has to follow the guidlelines. What a specious argument that only stirs things up and ups the danger meter.
Sorry to disagree; but the bespoke security is fine. He brings his own security any how as it is. If more is needed then give him an extra officer. Harry does not need security befitting a monarchy or head of state. Otherwise where does it end for the minor royals? What about Andrew, what about threats to York sisters, what about the Tindalls; what about James and Louise, what about the children of the current Lord Snowden
Harry has built himself a persona of war hero, great humanitarian, fighter for truth and justice. He sees himself as above the common herd (including the rest of his family) and thus so inherently “special” that he need special protection as he is under permanent threat from forces of darkness. I think all that weed has given him a paranoid messiah complex.
He isn't above the herd—he’s curated what he thinks is a heroic & dragon slayer exhibit of a person, & the saddest part is that even with all that effort of flying round the world & memorizing all that word salad repetition about his mental illness, nobody’s waiting in line to see or hear him anymore.
Sorry Tom, I still disagree with your stand on security. This is the perfect example of caveat emptor. No perks without the work, dedication and honour that comes with being a member of the RF. Hazz willingly turned his back on it, and then proceeded to make millions by trashing them. So he can use those millions to pay for his security. As for his wife, I hope she never travels back to the UK. EVER. And quite frankly, I couldn't care less if the kids do either. I'm willing to bet if there was a referendum in the UK, asking if the government should pay for security for any of the Harkles, it would be a resounding NO. People are starving. Do you honestly think these hypocrites deserve being pampered?
That said, I thank you for the welcome opportunity to express opposing positions. You are a true gentleman. :)
I agree completely. This is about the only subject with which I disagree with Tom concerning the Sussexes.
Me as well
I still wonder if he put the Taliban claim in on purpose and where was the legal team to proof read his book when you need them.
I agree with Tom. High-profile public figures can face genuine threats, and I believe the state has an ongoing duty of care because Harry was born into the royal family. It would be devastating if something happened to him. The public would feel incredibly guilty for the government denying him that.
I would not. If the stretched taxpayer is forced to pay a penny for the Harry, I would consider it cause to abolish the Monarchy. Charles can pay personally to enhance Harry’s security in any way he sees fit. It is a billionaire’s job to protect themselves; not an over-burdened citizen for a being not serving them in any way.
I would not !! We will paying for their “police protection” whilst on a holiday/grifting /quasi royal visit down under simply because they felt we ripe for a shill. They weren’t even invited by ALL of us now paying the bill.!!!!
Then why don't high profile celebrities get extra security? Wouldn't they getting killed on British soil be a tragedy? Because that's all Harry really is, a celebrity now.
Others “born into the royal family” don’t have security so that’s not a good argument. Harry has no official role in the constitutional monarchy (he’s neither the Monarch nor the heir) so why should dna be the reason he gets taxpayer funded security? Why should more taxpayer-funded resources go to protecting the Sussexes than any other person in the UK?
Total agree with JLR those self entered people think they are above us, and can do what they want. They are not welcome anymore. And sorry for Invictus those two were in it for them selfs not our soldiers.
Harry chose to live in our good old crime-ridden US of A where we get a mass shooting every week. Where unhinged people walk around with AR-15s and a trip to the grocery store, to the mall, to school... can get you killed. But evidently, Harry isn't afraid in the US. His paid bodyguards are enough. The UK has stringent gun control but still Harry needs gun-totin' cops protecting his and the missus' every move? Give me a break. He wants the status and the motorcades so Meghan can pretend after a couple of decades of being a nobody in Hollywood, that she is finally Somebody.
Well said!
Do you remember when The Harkles came back for the Jubilee and they insisted on and got the security they demanded and Meghan opened the car window while they were in the motorcade so the all the "little people" could see her since she wouldn't be permitted to be on the balcony?
Re: Andrew - I cannot believe that anyone tolerates his demands for "lower" when they bow to him. If everyone he demanded that of quit and he had to do things by himself, maybe he'd stop abusing others.
Sarah Ferguson keeps sinking lower and lower. I completely believe she had a relationship with Diddy. It sounds like she is a sex addict a well as a profligate spender of other peoples money. Her "jolly hockey sticks" Fergie persona really got her far in the world. Her constant bragging about what a wonderful mom she is turns out to be a sick lie. I feel so badly for her daughters. They grew up with crazy - both their parents are so morally compromised. It is amazing that they are so seemingly normal.
I would feel sorry for them when they were children. Definitely. But as adults they made their own choices to stay in with the grift of their parents. They could have chosen differently.
I totally agree with everything you said except that it's only Megan who wants his security. Don't you forget about Harry complaining because he was stuck in traffic? He loves all the pomp and splendor as much as his wife.
If Meghan wants it, he wants it. But the laugh is on him. She’s never coming back to the UK so the argument is moot.
I would never wish any harm to befall Harry, his wife, and especially his minor children. Or Andrew and the York family. But I disagree that there would be a backlash if something happened to Harry while he remains unprotected.
British subjects find themselves the victims of car accidents, crime or terrorist attacks. There is never an uprising over the lack of police protection for these victims that we read about everyday.
Harry was never slated to receive a 24/7 wrap around security package! His Aunt Anne and Uncle Edward do not receive full police protection. Tom, you and Harry are asking for something he was never entitled to in the first place, even if he had stayed on as a full time working royal.
Harry himself has done an incredible amount of self promotion that has raised his profile while also engaging the British taxpaying public. If there is a larger target on his back now it is of his own making.
If full bells and whistles police protection is restored to Harry at taxpayer expense it will be a torpedo in the side of Charles reign. At a time when the reign is already taking hits from Andrew and Epstein. Harry's security has the potential to bring the whole show down. It is not a cause a monarchist should support.
Enraging the public, not engaging
Doesn’t Prince Harry have a bespoke security arrangement which means the officers are armed if there is even a perceived threat.
God forbid anything happens to Prince Harry, Meghan Markle and their children. But the UK is a safer place than the countries he has visited: Nigeria, Jordan etc.
Let’s say Prince Harry is given the full security his brother has, will he feel safe. I don’t think so because he has a mindset that he’s always in danger.
If I may be so blunt: if there are people out to get you, they will find a way armed security or not. The number of security officers may be inversely related to the level of safety.
Correct. And it might be different if his popularity polls put him at the top. But he's low in those ratings. That says how much the population cares about him. The population who would be funding this security.
I'm compelled to repeat a post I made a week ago here:
I agree with Tom that Harry/Sussexes should recieve robust security for Invictus. At this point, the threat profile is too specific and too public to pretend otherwise. The attack on Andrew truly underlines how quickly hatred of royals can become physical.
But the public is also entitled to ask why taxpayers should fund security for visits that are then commercialized or used to wage a running campaign against the monarchy. That is the real issue underneath all this.
Perhaps the answer is a conditional security compact - Harry receives enhanced police protection for approved UK visits - Invictus, funerals, charity events, court appearances - but only if certain objective conditions are met.
The most obvious and enforceable condition should be a strict non-commercialization rule. No video crews, no documentary footage, no monetized “behind the scenes” content, no product launches orbiting protected visits. If protected appearances later appear in commercial projects, reimbursement provisions automatically trigger. And the Sussexes should be required to place a significant amount in escrow from which the reimbursement would come. That is not punitive; it is the same principle applied to former officials and diplomats who cannot convert state privilege into private profit.
Second, eligibility should depend not on whether Harry criticizes the monarchy, but on whether he engages in conduct that actively escalates security and constitutional tensions immediately before or during protected visits - timed media offensives, disclosure of private family communications, etc., erc.
Importantly, enforcement should sit not with Buckingham Palace but with an independent panel of constitutional experts, including but not limited to a retired judge and a counterterror policing figure. This group would apply written standards transparently and the individuals tapped would not be negoitable.
As has been mentioned, there is precedent here. Edward VIII’s post-abdication arrangements were built around preventing a rival commercial court from exploiting royal status while remaining outside royal discipline. The same principle applies now.
Security should not be a reward for royal rank. Nor should it be withdrawn out of spite. But neither should Britain subsidize a freelance royal enterprise attacking the institution that justifies the protection in the first place. A conditional, rules-based arrangement could be a workable middle ground.
Non commercialisation is critical
He gets it with 28 day notice. More than anyone else in UK is given. How many Uk citizens died this week by murder? Bet those loved ones had wished for 28 day notice protection. Harry can just stay away. If so scared.
Realistically such an agreement as the above is only setting up for more trouble & contention in an already contentious situation. An independent panel who monitors & enforces this? Who has the spare staff & funds to do that & if breaches occur what is the enforcement? Who decides what's commercial & what's not? Escrow? So RAVEC or the HO would also have to monitor a financial agreement? This would be a boondoggle nightmare in real life & set the stage for even yet more wrangling & contention. We've already seen how Harry treats agreements, even those made by QEII whom he confessed all respect & devotion for. Edward VIII's security when it was actually provided (mainly during his stint as Governor of the Bahamas) was for the major part paid for by his brother George VI.
Please forgive the length of this guys, but I wanted to address the objections of Jeanie and Jennifer - two people I’ve come to respect a great deal. I understand your practical objections, but I don’t think they defeat the idea of a conditional security compact. In fact, in my view, the objections prove why something more explicit is needed.
The present arrangement is already discretionary, bespoke, administratively burdensome, and contentious. RAVEC already assesses Harry’s visits case by case after advance notice. The Court of Appeal has treated that customized framework as lawful, even though Harry continues to contest its adequacy. So the choice isn’t between a clean, effortless status quo and a complicated compact. It’s between an opaque, endlessly disputed discretionary system and a clearer written framework with objective conditions.
The argument that “Harry won’t respect agreements” isn’t a reason to avoid conditions. It’s the strongest reason to have conditions that are written, narrow, measurable, and financially enforceable. If you think he’s likely to blur lines or commercialize royal access, then the answer can’t simply be, “therefore no rules.” The answer is rules with consequences that don’t require pulling security in the middle of a visit.
That’s my key point. Enforcement would not mean abruptly withdrawing protection while a threat remains active. That would be reckless and would defeat the whole purpose. Enforcement would mean after-the-fact financial clawback, refusal to approve discretionary future visits, tighter limits on protected itineraries, or reimbursement from a well-funded escrow. Governments and public bodies enforce conditions this way all the time. They don’t have to choose between “do nothing” and “remove the bodyguards while someone is exposed.”
It isn’t impossible to define commercialization. The law and public administration define such boundaries constantly. “No documentary crews,” “no filming inside protected venues,” “no use of protected movements or police presence in monetized content,” “no product launch or paid content tied to the protected visit,” and “no sale or licensing of behind-the-scenes footage from protected events” are not mystical concepts. They are administrable rules. There will always be grey areas, but grey areas are not a reason to abandon the entire concept. Tax law, lobbying rules, ethics rules, parliamentary standards, charitable regulations, and government procurement all operate despite grey areas.
The escrow point is also being overstated. RAVEC or the Home Office wouldn’t need to become a financial-monitoring agency. The compact could be structured much more simply: before receiving enhanced protection for certain categories of visit, Harry places a fixed sum in escrow under agreed terms. If a breach is found by the independent reviewer, reimbursement is drawn from that escrow. If there is no breach, the funds remain untouched or roll over. That is not a “boondoggle”; it’s a straightforward risk-allocation device.
The criticism is right that an independent panel shouldn’t become a sprawling bureaucracy. But it would not need to be one. It could be a small standing review mechanism used only when enhanced protection is requested or when a breach is alleged. The point is not to create a royal morality court. The point is to prevent Buckingham Palace from being seen as judge and jury, and to prevent Harry from claiming that every adverse decision is family retaliation. A retired judge, a senior constitutional/public-law figure, and a security professional would provide a more defensible structure than either palace discretion or Harry’s unilateral demands.
The “who decides what is commercial?” objection also misses the central distinction. The condition would not regulate Harry’s speech generally. He could criticize the monarchy, write memoirs, give interviews, and say what he likes in his private capacity. The condition would regulate the conversion of state-protected access into private revenue. That is a narrower and more defensible principle. The taxpayer is not underwriting his brand. The taxpayer is protecting public order, national reputation, and personal safety during defined visits.
While I agree the Edward VIII analogy isn't perfect - it is relevant. The point is not that the Duke of Windsor had precisely the same security structure. The point is that Britain has faced this problem before - a royal figure outside the working structure, still carrying royal status, capable of creating reputational and constitutional difficulty, and needing to be managed through a mixture of support, restriction, and containment. Edward’s governorship in the Bahamas was itself part of a broader effort to keep a destabilizing former king away from the center of British political and royal life during wartime.
The response to my post also contains an unresolved contradiction. On the one hand, it claims Harry already has a reasonable bespoke arrangement. On the other, they say any conditional arrangement would create endless litigation and contention. But we already have endless litigation and contention. Harry has already challenged the current arrangement through the courts. The Court of Appeal’s May 2025 judgment did not end the public argument; it merely confirmed that the government’s approach was lawful.
The compact I suggested wouldn’t magically make Harry cooperative. But it could make the government’s position stronger and more publicly intelligible. It would say: Britain will protect you where there is a legitimate security, public order, or national-interest reason to do so. But that protection is not a platform, not a content opportunity, not a commercial asset, and not a substitute for being a working royal.
That is the middle ground. Not spite. Not blank-check protection. Not palace control. Not taxpayer subsidy for a freelance royal enterprise.
A rules-based compact would recognize the real threat while protecting the public interest. And if Harry refused such terms, that refusal itself would clarify the issue. The problem would not be that Britain denied him safety; it would be that he rejected a fair system because it did not give him status without discipline.
Richard the sentiment is very good & i think most everyone agrees with that, however the working part of this would be a headache for the people involved in setting it up, monitoring, enforcing, etc. Plus why try & establish something that he would probably reject anyway - that would defeat the purpose. Thanks for your comment, i didn't see the orig post until Tom endorsed it.
A headache - maybe - but perhaps better than the current recurring migraine.
Your points are well thought out and well laid out. The only problem is we're dealing with humans. And people like H&M always try to get around something even when it's written strictly. And you never know how politicians will react if it came down to litigation. And litigation cost the tax payments. I know I'm being repetitive. And I truly adore and respect what you wrote. I'm just unsure that reality would interfere. Not saying it's a pie in the sky idea. It's just I don't trust H&M.
Thank you for your comments and your skepticism, JD. That is the outlook needed for the countermeasures I called for to work. The people selected to implement them have to be dead serious. I believe that conservatives, liberals and other parties would rally to prevent Sussex abuses. A tremendous spotlight would light up anything approaching commercialization. The broader public won't stand for such abuses. And the clawback of escrow funds would nullify any profits the couple in question would receive.
Also the British govt was more than willing to pay for the Duke & Duchess of Windsor’s security because the security staff were also acting as govt spies - for very good reasons.
Yes thankfully they didn't have to pay for much though. The warship that ferried him a few times prior to & during WWII & then the escort to/from the Bahamas. The tax free payments which were meant to cover several things from the King were conditional on the Duke not returning to Britain without permission.
Wasn’t RAVEC the “independent panel of experts”
I don’t know how you could make sure commercialization won’t happen, especially since they seem desperate for money. If they did commercialize their trip - then what? Pulling security from them? Isn’t that exactly what you said can’t happen because they’re in too much danger? I know there are no easy answers. I’m just *very* skeptical that the Sussexes would abide by any deal they make. They were banned from being half-in half-out by the Queen herself and they’ve decided to break that promise. I appreciate you being open to other perspectives. Also one of the things I love about your Substack is that people are nice & respectful even when we disagree.
Yes, a proposal like that is just asking for trouble. Especially an oversight committee (which does cost, it wouldn't be volunteers). I see complications from a mixed purpose trip too, part of it covered part not? It just isn't workable.
And there's nothing to stop a set piece where some journalists would ask Megan how much her dress cost and she would say where she got it and how much it cost. You couldn't legally say she was commercializing that. She's very good at working with magazines such as People.
Part of the problem here Tom is that everything with Harry and Meghan is commercial. If they come together there will certainly be some sort of link to that one off platform Meghan has invested in. If it's Harry alone she will be putting up some sort of veteran inspired bundle on her As Ever sales page.
I totally agree. But I've always felt that Harry gets something out of that sales page also.
Harry does not respect agreements. Any sort of security "compact" between Harry and the government would immediately become an explosive mess, with taxpayer monies constantly being wrangled and litigated over. Harry already has a reasonable, bespoke security arrangement with the government. With notice, he receives an appropriate level of protection for approved visits. Harry has been litigating for something more, a full on wrap around package anytime, so he can stay as long as he wants. Harry wont stop all this until he has what he wants, which is for his family to have the same security his brothers has.
His jealousy for his brother knows no bounds. Sometimes, and this thought doesn't look well for me, I wonder how much he would mourn if William died.
The government would never put any restrictions. No security except when in the country. He isn't entitled to it, period.
This is the AI summary but to me this says it all:
"As of 2026, Princess Anne does not receive full-time, state-funded police protection or automatic "International Protected Person" (IPP) status while on private vacation."
The hardest working royal that we have. One constantly in the public eye and one who already had a kidnap attempt.
I completely agree.
I think you should present this to the judge. It is the most coherent answer to this mess. You have a right, as it is your money, to suggest a workable plan !
Why is everyone calling that an attack on Andrew? The guy wasn't armed and went running yelling after him. I'm not sure you could call that an attack. And I'm tired of everyone talking about the crowbar. It was in his car. I have many tools in my car that people could think were weapons. A tire iron for example. Does that make me a raving lunatic attacking someone?
I love the idea of conditional security. But I would see the highly contentious Harry and Megan taking to court that whatever they were doing wasn't commercialism. And the taxpayers would be paying for those trials.
My feelings about monarchy have changed since last fall, before first Epstein file drop. I had a negative opinion of Harry, Meghan, Andrew and Sarah. But the last six months of revelations have changed my views of Charles and the Queen. Because of the way they handled Andrew and Harry. Which is sad.
Those candles are literally the childrens titles being boxed and sold, solely for profit. The King's reasons for letting this happen are unknown. But it doesnt matter that we don't know why he lets it slide, it is wrong. The sale of those candles has rubbished the Sussex reputation. But they also degrade the King's.
William so far remains untarnished by Harry and Andrew. Hopefully he continues to refuse to be forced into handshakes with Harry. It will all come crashing down if he does.
Spot on
Well, having lived for a long time under a parliamentary system of government with a monarch as titular head, I admit my feelings have changed as well: from not caring very much if the monarchy collapsed to watching with horror as people in the republic next door elected a monster who, with colluding cronies, threatened my country and set about demolishing the world order.
In his visit to Washington, it was King Charles, cogently, eloquently, who articulated the values I cherish and that so many of us imagined we once shared. His family may not be perfect--whose is? But I find I now prefer a relatively benign monarchial system with its scuffles over titles and who deserves them to the bombast of autocrats with lethal intentions.
So, for the foreseeable, let British monarchs and their troubled offspring continue on their way.
How could KC stop them from selling candles in the US? Who would buy them, anyway!
I agree, who buys wickless, overpriced candles that are supposed to smell like someone else's kids? But the King could, with letters patent, get rid of the prince and princess branding on the candle boxes.
True, definitely.
Good point and I second the motion.
King Charles has ZERO Control over whatever Crass marketing scheme Harry and Meghan devise to exploit their “Royal Adjacent” status and that of their Children. To exert any influence certainly Charles could remove their Titles BUT to do so while leaving the YORK Grift Machine Intact would be to invite an ENORMOUS Firestorm of Criticism, rightfully so, which Charles is obviously loath to do by Nature and Position.
I think Charles should take letters patent to both Sussex and York titles and they should all go. Non-working royals do not need titles.
While I agree with your sentiment I don’t see Charles undertaking Wholesale Disenfranchisement of a significant number of his family, both Royal and Familial.
I don't either.
It will fall to William, which is unfair, but at least KC3 got Andrew out of the way.
Years too late and only after the public was ready to get the pitchforks and torches out.
He took away Andrew's titles. And that's his brother. And it's not a significant amount. It's only Harry and his brood. Megan was not born to a title and the two children are too young to really understand it. It's only Harry who would be really bothered. And that doesn't cause me one minute of sadness.
Especially when they live in a country like the United States that does not have titles.
Charles is and always has been weak as water. Lately I've wondered if he isn't greedy for money. Look at the money scandals at all of a sudden were dropped when he became king. I wonder how far back this goes?
Good Lord! I didn't think of that about the candles but you are absolutely right. How sickening of H&M.
No matter what agreement is made the Sussexes will never be happy. This bespoke has worked. Stop gauging the taxpayer. Be more concerned with Prince George and what Chris Ship did.
Sorry Tom. Could care less. Don't come if so worried. More concerned with Chris Ship and idiots at ITV disclosing Prince George's security. What say you on that??
I saw that clip! It is unbelievable nothing was said about Chris Ship. We don't have Chris Ship speculating on the security Harry's children receive privately during the school day in the US
We have no idea at all about the Sussex children's security or where they are schooled. I'm not aware of who Chris Ship is, but I get the impression he's a media personality who somehow found out and blabbed on air ?? about Prince George's schooling and his security there? Outrageous !
Chris Ship is a long-time royal correspondent for ITV news, he is part of the royal rota and definitely understands the rules in place regarding royal children, their schooling and their security. The media is not supposed to disclose the security arrangements for royal children, Williams or Harry's, while they are at school. During an interview this week Chris Ship disclosed that Prince George does not have a policeman in the classroom with him. I would be just as angry if Chris Ship had discussed Archie's security arrangements at school. Chris Ship holds a position similar to Rebecca English at Daily Mail. So his behavior was shocking. I suspect a blanket was put on coverage of Ships statements to avoid drawing further attention to the breach.
It was crazy
And frightening to the Wales family. Ship knows better.
Wow... that's a serious breach.
It was and I was shocked to see Chris Ship make the statements. I would never have believed Chris Ship would do such a thing if I had not seen the interview.
He should be fired from that position.
I think the Harry security issue is a rock and a hard place. Without it yes, there is a risk of harm befalling him and his family, but with it the outrage of British tax payers will be inflamed especially if every time the Sussexes visit the Uk they are actively seeking opportunities to make money- imagine seeing a taxpayer funded policeman in the background of a OneOff post. The optics will not be good. Beefed up security under the 28 day arrangement seems like a more palatable option.
And I don’t think Prince William is the only one not shedding tears over Meghan not gracing the shores of Britain this summer.
I was also listening to a separate podcast that mentioned how Taylor Swift had taxpayer funded security during her eras tour dates in the UK. I think the main point of difference here is that the eras tour brought millions into the British economy. Whether you attended or not, it was very lucrative for the Uk. I don’t think the same can be said for a Sussex tour.
She also threatened to cancel the tour in UK due to threats. Harry can just not come if he does not feel safe.
And she wouldn't go around bitching about not being able to come. As Harry does every day or two.
A very valid point!
They didn't exactly draw big crowds when they went to Australia. Which is part of the Commonwealth. So I don't see them drawing crowds in the UK itself.
Beefed up security yes; just not blues and twos.
He wants paid security for his kids in British schools like he had but they are too far down the list of succession.
He fails to grasp that fact.
I picture Harry and Megan leaning out the windows and waving at the crowds as they zip through traffic. The traffic that Harry complained about. Taxpayer money funding that is a disgusting thought.
There are limited police resources irrespective of funding. We should not prioritize a non working Royal who has deliberately courted danger for his own ego and commercial value. Would suggest removing all titles to minimize any reputational damage to the monarchy. One side effect of dwindling relevance is that it actually might make Harry safer.
Exactly the more estranged from the reality talk family the safer!
royal
You’re exactly right about limitations on the police. One possible problem could be the number of trained officers. Idk about Britain, but one big problem the Secret Service has in America is they don’t have as many agents as the govt needs. The ones we do have are incredibly overworked & that can be dangerous.
If the number of protection officers guarding the king and working royals on the job was diluted in order to pander to Harry and Meghan's ego or commercial interests, that should not be allowed to happen. I was acquainted with a SServ officer, a friend of my brother, when both lived in Miami for a spell. While the officer didn't go into any improper details, he was able to tell us generally what's involved when they prepare for a high profile visit. Best stated, A LOT, including deep background checks for all locations, persons, vendors, offices... you name it, each and every location and event should be researched prior to the high profile visit. Failure to do that means things can happen, as they did at that recent hotel appearance by Trump and his cabinet and the misguided armed soul who was tackled in the hallway before he could get into the ballroom. That was a serious breach of security protocol. I read that the attached hotel, where the man had a room, was not searched because there weren't enough SServ personnel on site. Frivolous appearances cost as much money as serious ones and take as much work and agents.
Good point about checking out each location and the police manpower involved to do so. That would surely detract from police services to other royals and the community at large. For OZ that would be 14 venues between Meghan and Harry.
Britain too - The Metropolitan Police Service's Royalty and Specialist Protection Command (RaSP/SO14) has faced challenges in managing personnel, with reports indicating pressures on staffing levels for specialized protection duties because of the lack of experienced & trained officers (City Security Magazine).
Thanks for the info
Apparently, there are under 200 specialist RaSP/RAVEC personnel, while there are over 4,000 secret service personnel. The UK just doesn't have the manpower.
Damn! I can’t believe you have so few security personnel. Who are they able to protect outside the royal family, the PM, & the ex-PMs? I can’t imagine there would be many other people getting protection.
How can the UK Taxpayer justify elevating Harry and family to the same security package as the King/Queen and the Wales? The other working Royals only have security when undertaking Royal duties. Harry and wife are self appointed part time Royals without any constitutional constraints including self serving commercial enterprise. The problem in giving in to their security demands is that a precedence is set where anyone adjacent to Royalty can demand the same perks- you only have to self sabotage and place yourself in danger. Harry is not as important to Britain or the monarchy as before. His relevance will only diminish over time as the Wales children grow up and have families of their own, Perhaps it would be a kindness to remove any delusions of grandeur by removing the titles from any non working Royals.
correct. Then Eugenia and Beatrice could ask for it. They're in line for the succession. And their children could have it.
I respect your opinions and generally agree with your perspectives…. (and here it comes); however, in the case of security, I must respectfully disagree.
As Harry’s annuities and stock accounts are quietly printing money, he cosplays an impoverished prince huddled in the rookeries, left without any protection as he navigates his Land Rover alone through the dark streets of Britain.
Give me a break. He will have protection while in the UK. But that’s not enough for him. What he wants is more and more and more.
Giving him unlimited, taxpayer-funded security worldwide will demonstrate that the working people are expected to support someone who sprinted on to the “freedom flight” fast as a flash to get far away from the responsibilities of serving those same taxpayers.
Look, even after all the negative things he has implied about the UK, no one wants him to get hurt. He will receive security. If he is truly worried , he can simply write a check for additional security just like any other celebrity.
No one is stopping him from doing that. Just my humble opinion.
Harry offered to pay for his security when in the UK but the issue is about armed security. The UK has strict rules about who can carry arms. He offered to pay the salaries of the forces that protect royalty when he and his family are in the UK, but that was obviously just not on.
Yep, and the government was right to reject it. The police cannot be for sale.
Exactly.
Apologies for seeming so disagreeable, but I believe this is a red herring. As long as he gives adequate heads up, he will receive security. And depending on the current threat level, won’t the Met police be armed?
Unless I am reading this wrong, what he’s asking for is the constant special “extra” protection, as if he were heading into an active war zone or high crime areas like, oh, I don’t know, Ukraine or Chicago….
Is that assumption inaccurate?
I don’t know, it just seems excessive for someone who isn’t doing “official” work while the rest of us support him in his quest of grand fanfare.
And that's what it really comes down to. It's nothing about security. Harry just wants to have the fanfare that a king would. And on someone else's dime.
Atlanta has a higher crime rate than Chicago. People forget that.
It still would come down to manpower. There's only so many policemen. And even if they would allow armed guards from the outside, not all of those are necessarily highly trained. The government would have to go about vetting all of them every time Harry came over. And that cost money. So the taxpayers would still be on the hook.
Harry wants to feel "relevant" in the eyes of the world, especially in GB, and this complaining over security is for all to see that Harry want to feel important...after all , he says he was born for the role.....ahem.... the role he did not want mind you. I think he is looking for a way out of his current state of affairs. Why are the dastardly duo on the royal website?
Yes, he can't bear that his star is fading & so very many people dislike him & are disgusted by his antics. I agree - they should NOT be on the royal website.
I say, his father wants him back, then his father could pay for his security in totalitary.
Your first post about the security issue was overly dramatic Tom, the facts are that Harry absconded the UK, proceeded to make money off the back of Netflix, Spare etc and now wants back in to boost his waning credentials.
He already has a security arrangement that is perfectly adequate. He is a private citizen, like us who have to face threats everyday like going on a train to London to work. Give notice, stay in the authorised premises that already have established royal security and if he wants to wander around London, then take his American security personnel with him.
People are facing a cost of living crisis, using tax payer funded security to see him and his wife odiously gurning at events while shilling her outfits is not going to be palatable. Do you really think they will abide with a non-commercialised caveat if they come to the UK?
Remember when H&M took their kids to Disney World and they closed the place off for them. And I think that's been done in other venues. Yet William went jogging in New York City with just a couple of guards. Harry knows he's not important. So he wants to look important.
I suppose I’m a little unclear on your position here Tom regarding Harry’s security: correct me if I’m wrong but, when he comes to town for, let’s say, Invictus, isn’t it already assumed he will have security because it’s a high profile event and there will be advanced notice? And isn’t the security Harry is looking for from Ravec a high level security that he would receive on the tax payers dime whenever he feels like dropping in or indeed to any country he feels like visiting on his private faux royal cash grab tours. Are you saying you agree with Harry that he should get the highest level security wherever he feels like going in the world? Because I just can’t see that type of tax payer funded security being justified in Harry’s case.
First major incident and the armed police do not arrive quick enough because
Meghan and Harry had shown up and armed police were immediately redeployed there would be outrage.!! If my son was injured….
That would be on H&M. They're supposed to give notice. If they don't, that's their problem. If they give notice security would be there the minute the plane touches down.
And the outrage of the people of those other countries seeing their money go to that would be tremendous. Most people in the United States aren't even happy that he lives there. I don't see them, especially as high prices are hitting the average person hard, exactly rejoicing in paying for his and his wife's security.
I am an American and believe me. We don’t want them here!
You write as if Harry has no security. He HAS security, he just has to follow the guidlelines. What a specious argument that only stirs things up and ups the danger meter.
And let us know that beloved Princess Anne follows guidelines. She doesn't expect security every minute.
Sorry to disagree; but the bespoke security is fine. He brings his own security any how as it is. If more is needed then give him an extra officer. Harry does not need security befitting a monarchy or head of state. Otherwise where does it end for the minor royals? What about Andrew, what about threats to York sisters, what about the Tindalls; what about James and Louise, what about the children of the current Lord Snowden
I'm afraid that what Harry and Meghan want is a rival royal court, with equal protection and privilege as the Wales.
I think so too. Beefed up security with 28 days notice fine, but that still wouldn’t be good enough for these minor royals.
This has always been the issue.
It's all about status with Harry. He wants to look big because he's not big.
Harry has built himself a persona of war hero, great humanitarian, fighter for truth and justice. He sees himself as above the common herd (including the rest of his family) and thus so inherently “special” that he need special protection as he is under permanent threat from forces of darkness. I think all that weed has given him a paranoid messiah complex.
He isn't above the herd—he’s curated what he thinks is a heroic & dragon slayer exhibit of a person, & the saddest part is that even with all that effort of flying round the world & memorizing all that word salad repetition about his mental illness, nobody’s waiting in line to see or hear him anymore.
The lack of crowds in Australia should have told him something. But he likes to blind himself.
I agree - he never has seen reality & especially if it's something "not positive' about himself.
His ego really is something.
With his head that large from his ego, I'm surprised he can walk through doorways anymore.