The Heir, The Spare and the “Baby Brain” -The Prince Harry and Meghan show rumbles on…

[kwanfan1818]

It appears he's come up with a solution: Prince Harry will show up in the UK when he's part of an event where he among other participants is given enhanced protection, and if he's anywhere he is not protected to the same extent, that is a risk he will take for himself. However, he is not willing to put his family at risk, so they will stay home, like for the Coronation.

I think that its likely that he will only be back to the UK for selected funerals and possibly his brother's coronation.

 

[Barbara Manatee]

In the latest decision that came out today I think the courts have ruled that he cannot proceed with this lawsuit.

Today's decision is that he cannot buy police protection, but the separate lawsuit over whether he can get the enhanced police protection (at taxpayer expense now) is still ongoing.

 

[starrynight]

Isn't that what H&M asked for, more or less, to be part-time royals, and they were turned down?

I don't know if King Charles meant dropping royal charities when he talked about slimming down the momarchy, but like many businesses, he's getting short staffed.

I read somewhere else a good take on it once.

That is people like Zara and Beatrice etc are in the family - turn up to all the family events, celebrations etc but are not in the working institution. I can see how it might be easier to get them to occasionally sub in for events (although unlikely).

That is an easier fit than Harry and Meghan’s situation of not wanting to be in the family but wanting to be in the working institution some of the time.

Now that we know how much Harry resents his brother and how deep seated and long standing that is, one can see how the proposal of them being estranged from the family but still running a rival royal court overseas with the tax payer trimmings and offical government status could be a big problem.

Given how clear Harry’s been about how much he hates the Institution and everyone working for it, from his father, brother to the staff, I just don’t see how half in/half out could ever have worked.

 

[Mugs]

I recall that Meghan was not allowed to put her legal name on Archies birth certificate. She had to put "Duchess of Sussex."

I thought Meghan's name was on Archie's birth certificate: Rachel (not sure how she spells it) Meghan Markel. But her occupation was listed as Princess of the United Kingdom. Not sure how Harry's name appeared.

 

[liv]

If Harry and/or his family go to the UK, you know they will be given accommodations at a Royal property for the duration of their stay, like one of many apartments at Windsor Castle... you know King Charles would provide for them, and they would therefore have the security that staying there provides.

However, it seems far easier, and suits their narrative, to just say it's too hard to have proper security in the UK... which keeps the family out of the UK.

Does Harry really believe his children would not have security if visiting the King? If he and Meg publicized their visit and wanted to go out shopping I can see the issue, but Sandringham, Balmoral, Highgrove, or Windsor would be crawling with security. Knowing how they love using private planes, it would not be that hard to fly into the UK, have private security escort them to whatever Royal palace where they would be staying, and there they'd be protected... maybe that simplifies things, but honestly, if he really wanted his kids to visit their grandfather it could be done.

 

[kwanfan1818]

If all they wanted to do was visit his father, then he'd be provided security. If he wanted to visit anywhere with his family, like take his son to the Tower of London or go to the ballet or theater with his wife, or be free to travel to Wales, or have meetings outside the royal grounds with his charities and interests, or show his kids one of their countries, he and his family would not be covered. And it's not like his father is retired and has all the time in the world to hang around with his grandchildren.

So just seeing his father and flying out clearly isn't one of his priorites at the moment.

 

[overedge]

I thought Meghan's name was on Archie's birth certificate: Rachel (not sure how she spells it) Meghan Markel. But her occupation was listed as Princess of the United Kingdom. Not sure how Harry's name appeared.

Prince of the United Kingdom as occupation, and his full name with the HRH and the Dukedom listed. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48315300

 

[starrynight]

I don’t really get the fuss about the British security situation and wanting taxpayer security/access to armed police. Why the fuss - he’s estranged from his family and has no personal or professional business in the country.

The only reason this would be relevant is if somehow he mended things and wanted to move back. But then that would be to a royal residence with built in security and he’d have a private security detail for personal outings like Andrew, Beatrice etc have. And if such a dramatic reconciliation was to occur there’s every chance he would return to being a working Royal and get all of his entitlements back.

But such a scenario seems pretty far fetched at the moment.

I’m also struggling to envisage a situation where Harry and Meghan return to live in the UK while still estranged from his family.

 

[MacMadame]

The police and the UK government, on the other hand, have argued that if they let Harry pay to "hire" the police for his private security while he is in the UK, that sets a precedent that would see any number of celebrities wanting to do the same thing, and the UK police/government are not in the business of providing private security for private citizens. In the latest decision that came out today I think the courts have ruled that he cannot proceed with this lawsuit.

In the US, celebrities often hire off-duty police officers who then hear things at work that they use to protect their clients and also they are allowed to carry guns even in places with a lot of restrictions. But officially, they are not being hired as police officers.

I wonder if that would work in the UK.

 

[starrynight]

In the US, celebrities often hire off-duty police officers who then hear things at work that they use to protect their clients and also they are allowed to carry guns even in places with a lot of restrictions. But officially, they are not being hired as police officers.

I wonder if that would work in the UK.

I don’t know. I had a quick google and there was something that said in the UK police aren’t allowed to work private security in their spare time as this would be classified as a conflict of interest.

Probably for the reason that private individuals might try and capitalise/access confidential information/knowledge of the police.

 

[ballettmaus]

In the US, celebrities often hire off-duty police officers who then hear things at work that they use to protect their clients and also they are allowed to carry guns even in places with a lot of restrictions. But officially, they are not being hired as police officers.

I wonder if that would work in the UK.

A UK friend and I were talking about TV shows the other day and in that context she mentioned that only special units within the UK police are permitted to carry weapons.
So, even if Harry could hire off-duty officers, I'm not under the impression that they would necessarily be allowed to carry guns.

 

[once_upon]

So, even if Harry could hire off-duty officers, I'm not under the impression that they would necessarily be allowed to carry guns.

This is what I read/understood. Harry and Meghan cannot hire body guards/security as they cannot carry guns/weapons.

If I had heritage in UK and I want to bring my children to England - I would want them to be able to see those famous sights. But if I couldn't secure security - even at my own expense, I would have to choose safety.

AFAIK, none of us is privy to their wants, desires, fears. None of us know how we would react to having titles or not, because that is not our reality - at least I don't think so.

 

[MsZem]

This is what I read/understood. Harry and Meghan cannot hire body guards/security as they cannot carry guns/weapons.

If I had heritage in UK and I want to bring my children to England - I would want them to be able to see those famous sights. But if I couldn't secure security - even at my own expense, I would have to choose safety.

They can have all the bodyguards and security they want (and can afford). But they wouldn't be armed.

 

[starrynight]

A UK friend and I were talking about TV shows the other day and in that context she mentioned that only special units within the UK police are permitted to carry weapons.
So, even if Harry could hire off-duty officers, I'm not under the impression that they would necessarily be allowed to carry guns.

Yes that’s correct only specialised police units carry guns. For the rest of the police it’s a telescopic baton, pepper spray and a taser.

But by the same token the gun threat in the UK is in no way comparable to the US.

I question who exactly in the UK Harry envisages he will need his security team to shoot at.

 

[kwanfan1818]

I question who exactly Harry envisages he will need his security team to shoot at.

Perhaps someone like the person who attempted to kidnap his aunt, a person who shot two people, including her security person?

 

[starrynight]

Well Harry’s next upcoming legal case is the appeal of the Home Office’s decision to remove his metropolitan police bodyguards after stepping back from royal duties.

So that would be taxpayer funded police protection.

That original entitlement to police bodyguards followed him wherever he went - hence the UK metropolitan police guards following him to Canada.

I am not sure what the implications of this case will be and if a victory would entitle him to UK police protection in the US? Or just the UK?

 

[MsZem]

Perhaps someone like the person who attempted to kidnap his aunt, a person who shot two people, including her security person?

Foiled by an boxer and the princess herself, neither of them carrying a gun:

The Bloody Attempt to Kidnap a British Princess

Remembering the failed plot undertaken by a lone gunman

www.smithsonianmag.com

And here's Anne highly entertaining description of the event some years later.

 

[starrynight]

Anne sort of freaks me out a bit. Perhaps it’s how she has all of these Bull Terrier dogs that seem to bite everyone and everything. You can tell a lot about a person by their choice of dog breed I think.

Particularly as she could have her choice of any specialised dog breed ever, the bitey Bull Terriers raise questions.

(And I know you can’t judge a dog breed by its cover, but Anne’s dogs have bitten a bunch of people and other dogs so they aren’t exactly softies).

 

[Karen-W]

Perhaps someone like the person who attempted to kidnap his aunt, a person who shot two people, including her security person?

But, that happened in 1974. I don't know off the top of my head, but aren't the UK gun restrictions more recent than that?

 

[airgelaal]

If someone wants to kill Harry and his family so badly, then why is he so sure of being safe in countries other than UK?

 

[starrynight]

But, that happened in 1974. I don't know off the top of my head, but aren't the UK gun restrictions more recent than that?

A quick google says that they were progressively tightened from the 60s through to the present.

Wiki has an impressive statistic that between 2000 and 2011 there were only 3 fatal police shootings in England and Wales. (Which does give some perspective to the seriousness of Harry’s security contemplating shooting someone).

Much like Australia, I imagine people can get access to guns in the UK - but you need to have a plan and connections to access one. As such it’s usually dedicated career criminals who have them (and then still it’s a shotgun or handgun at best).

A mentally ill person can’t stagger off to their father’s garage etc and just access a semi automatic (like what seems to occur in the worst US mass shootings)

 

[ballettmaus]

If someone wants to kill Harry and his family so badly, then why is he so sure of being safe in countries other than UK?

Has he been anywhere but the US (and Canada) with his entire family since he and Meghan left the royal family?

The irony of it all is that given the gun violence in the US, it's probably easier for someone to shoot (at) him and his family in the US even with armed bodyguards around than it would be in the UK.

 

[skategal]

Less incentive for someone to try in the USA if you know 100% that you will be shot at with a semi if you try to harm them?

 

[morqet]

But, that happened in 1974. I don't know off the top of my head, but aren't the UK gun restrictions more recent than that?

The first gun restrictions were in 1594 - because of concerns about potential assassination attempts by Catholics against Elizabeth I. And there have been restrictions in various forms ever since then. But the biggest tightening was in 1988 after the Hungerford massacre, which banned ownership of semi automatic weapons, and in 1997 after Dunblane, which banned handgun ownership.

 

[allezfred]

The first gun restrictions were in 1594 - because of concerns about potential assassination attempts by Catholics against Elizabeth I. And there have been restrictions in various forms ever since then. But the biggest tightening was in 1988 after the Hungerford massacre, which banned ownership of semi automatic weapons, and in 1997 after Dunblane, which banned handgun ownership.

Remarkable the lack of thoughts and prayers and instead actions to stop those incidents happening again.

 

[puglover]

Buckingham Palace are very reluctant to discuss security for any of the royals but I would certainly assume that the king and queen and Prince William and his family are protected 24X7 by the best trained armed personnel and the best safeguards as to where they go and how are always in place. Prince Harry and his family are as high profile and all that has happened in the last few years could conceivably put them more at risk. They are non-working royals like Princess Beatrice and Eugenie but really not like them at all. This is one of the far reaching results of the decision to not remain as full-time working royals. They really do need a special category for them but exceptions are usually problematic and I can understand the reluctance to set a precedence. No easy solutions and I do feel for Harry on this one.

 

[taf2002]

I don’t really get the fuss about the British security situation and wanting taxpayer security/access to armed police. Why the fuss - he’s estranged from his family and has no personal or professional business in the country.

The only reason this would be relevant is if somehow he mended things and wanted to move back. But then that would be to a royal residence with built in security and he’d have a private security detail for personal outings like Andrew, Beatrice etc have. And if such a dramatic reconciliation was to occur there’s every chance he would return to being a working Royal and get all of his entitlements back.

But such a scenario seems pretty far fetched at the moment.

I’m also struggling to envisage a situation where Harry and Meghan return to live in the UK while still estranged from his family.

Being in the US hasn't stopped the death threats. I don't know of threats to Lilibet but supposedly the others still get threats at various times. Although even if there was a video of an armed person with an Uzi attacking them the story would be that they staged it.

 

[kwanfan1818]

But, that happened in 1974. I don't know off the top of my head, but aren't the UK gun restrictions more recent than that?

It happened to a family memeber. Add in trauma and being active in a military war zone and wanting control, but fearing that there's a lot you can't, it doesn't mean the thoughts are rational, but they are internally consistent.

 

[airgelaal]

Has he been anywhere but the US (and Canada) with his entire family since he and Meghan left the royal family?

He and Megan were in the Netherlands and Germany last year.

Being in the US hasn't stopped the death threats. I don't know of threats to Lilibet but supposedly the others still get threats at various times. Although even if there was a video of an armed person with an Uzi attacking them the story would be that they staged it.

Real life threats are a job for the police, not for security guards.
In my opinion, women who experience domestic violence are significantly more likely to be killed in UK than Harry. I'm not saying that Harry shouldn't think about the safety of his family, but it's quite naive to demand special treatment for himself. This will not reduce the number of haters in any way, but only increase.
Harry and Meghan have an exceptional talent for publicly speaking out against any privilege, but claiming it for themselves.

 

[once_upon]

Some of you are impossible. It doesn't matter what you think is the perceived risk and how you think security should be expected.

AFAIK - none of us have been the 3rd in line to the Kingship. None of us had (AFAIK) 24/7/365 armed guards growing up and until entering military service. None of us (AFAIK) moved from being third in line to fourth, fifth, sixth in line to Kingship. None of us (again AFAIK) had our mother chased by paparazzi and killed.

So none of us (again AFAIK) can comprehend the danger perceived, real, or as some of you think non existent.