Prince Harry has filed a second lawsuit, this one against the Met police

I don’t understand every moving part of the bureaucracy of “royal protection,” nor do I understand every part of Prince Harry’s lawsuit against the British Home Office. Here’s what I do understand: Prince Harry has the time, money and inclination to see this through to the bloody end, and he will do his best to expose all of the bullsh-t. A few weeks ago, Harry won the right for his case to proceed to a full judicial review. There will be a judicial review of the Home Office’s choice to refuse Harry’s offer to pay back his security costs whenever he visits the UK. As in, he wants police security and he wants to pay the police back, but he was denied security AND the chance to pay it back. Well, not only is that case proceeding to its full Judicial Review, but Harry is now introducing a new lawsuit? LMAO. I told you that he has the time.

Prince Harry has filed another lawsuit over the decision not to allow him to pay for police protection when he is in the UK. The Duke of Sussex began a legal challenge against the Home Office after his taxpayer-funded security was stripped in 2020 when he stepped down as a working royal and moved to California. Now, it has emerged that a second lawsuit has now been filed by Harry at the High Court with the Home Office and also the Metropolitan Police as defendants.

It is understood it focuses on the decision from earlier this year that people should not be able to privately pay for police protection.

An official from the Judicial Office told the Mirror: “It is at an early stage, no hearings have been listed yet and no decisions have been made.”

The new claim comes just weeks after Harry won the latest stage of his court fight in his initial claim against the Home Office in the High Court over his security arrangements. The ruling means he will now be able to take the case for a judicial review.

He and his team had argued that his US-based entourage do not have sufficient jurisdiction in Britain to be able to protect him properly. They further argued his hiring of police officers during the duration of his trips would come at no cost to the taxpayer.

But the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec), which falls under the remit of the Home Office, ruled last June that he could no longer be entitled to the “same degree” of security as he is now a private citizen. Harry’s lawyers said in an appeal in June that the decision had been made with “procedural unfairness” as he had not been able to make “informed representations” before his application was denied.

[From The Daily Mirror]

In the preliminary hearings for the first case, Harry had already exposed some significant stuff about Ravec, the secretive committee which makes the determinations as to who gets royal protection. Keep in mind that Ravec is apparently fine with Prince Andrew still having full royal protection, but Ravec rejected Harry’s offer to pay back his security costs. Harry also exposed Sir Edward Young, the Queen’s private secretary, who apparently failed to present Harry’s offer in full to Ravec. One thing is for sure: this fight is about a lot more than who pays for Harry’s police protection on his next visit to the UK.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

138 Responses to “Prince Harry has filed a second lawsuit, this one against the Met police”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Amy T says:

    He is coming for them all and I am here for it.

    {Grabs 🍿}

  2. Cel2495 says:

    Get them Harry! Every single one of them needs to be exposed. If I had his money I would be doing the same thing 😂

  3. Alexandria says:

    I am genuinely asking in case I missed something. What is the problem with paying for police security? None right? Does it take up police resources? Yes (but that’s regardless of anyone paying for it). Then why do they offer the service in the first place?

    • Oona says:

      “Why do they offer the service in the first place? ” They don’t.

      • Alexandria says:

        I’m not even going to mention Kate Moss. If they don’t and they can’t, why wouldn’t a legitimate law firm tell their client Harry not to pursue this? He did and now they’re forced to be more transparent about their review process. They dug their own hole.

      • Sunshine says:

        @oona Actually the Met does offer the service. I have pasted the evidence in the reply section of Kaiser’s twitter post.

      • aftershocks says:

        ^^ Yeah @Alexandria and others. This is about way more than meets the eye, as @Kaiser said in her summary review. They just trying to mess with our Ginger Prince Harry and our Madam Duchess of Everything ❣️ ‘Princess Meghan’ (as Tyler Perry just referred to our lovely, kind DoS) in a birthday tweet. 🥰👍

        Yep, some sad, bitter forces in the UK is tryna play dumb games wid Captain Harry Wales. They best to know, he ain’t havin’ none of their dangerous bs. Harry is done with their nonsense! They best to stop messin’ wid this strong soldier, husband, and father, Good King Harry!!! As Harry said, “I will always, always protect my family, and now I have a family to protect!” A lot of people don’t seem to get his meaning. FAFO!!!!

        None of the excuses being put out by shadowy RAVEC and Met Police are based on anything except the fact that Edward Young and the firm was trying to put the screws to Harry by pulling his security in Vancouver in the first place. They wanted to scare him into returning to the UK. But Harry is not a weakling nor a fool. Nor is he the royal family’s or his brother’s spare third wheel scapegoat to be used and abused anymore! By trying to say Harry don’t need high security protection in the UK anymore, they are trying to punish and belittle him. That’s the same reason they pulled all of his honorary military titles. They can’t take what he earned during his brave service, but they took the honors bestowed by the Queen. It wasn’t his grandmother though. She is not and has never been in charge. She listens to the men around her. And in her 90s, she’s long past intervening and interjecting into the machinations.

        Apparently, with Harry’s and Eugenie’s help, the Queen did put her foot down hard on wanting Harry and his family in the UK for the Jubbly with full protection! But then palace factions made sure to leak nonsense fiction for the tabs to constantly construct false narratives around the Sussexes’ visit to the UK in June. The whole bunch of royal firm palace intriguers just don’t know when to stop, but Ginger Avenger is schooling them. 🔥🪖🏹🌪️💪

    • Concern+Fae says:

      Allowing people to pay for police protection is a really bad thing. Police have legal power over people and the wealthy should not be able to pay money to be able to wield that power over their foes. Police powers have expanded so much, even when off duty, that letting someone pay money to “own” those powers is wrong. Realizing that I’m talking about the particularly heinous US situation, but the principle of the thing is the same in the UK.

      The UK part of this is that the media, in collusion with the RF, have built up a scenario where criticisms of the RF are couched in terms of “taxpayer spending” instead of recognizing that shit costs money and what do you value enough to spend it on. So, instead of saying that you are angry at Harry for leaving and don’t think he should get protection, it turns into a case of not wasting the taxpayers money.

      Harry, because he was born into the royal family, has certain security needs. The government should just STFU and either provide it or not, not hiding behind the “taxpayers money” dodge. Harry is offering to pay, but that sets a bad precedent. The way it should go is Harry gets the protection, government pays for it, Harry makes some sort of donation that matches the costs. But private citizens should not be allowed to pay money to direct police resources.

      • Dee says:

        What on God’s green earth are you talking about? Paying for police protection does not allow the wealthy to “wield the police against enemies”, specifically because the police are not allowed to follow illegal orders from the client. They literally cannot be “wielded against enemies”. They are there so that people with a legitimate fear of attack or kidnapping can access enhanced protection without unduly burdening taxpayers. And the fact is that a system where the government decides who deserves protection and who doesn’t is way more corruption as this case has shown.

      • equality says:

        They aren’t “buying” the police. They are reimbursing expenditures for their services.

      • C says:

        Er, several wealthy people like Kate Moss who have no place in the government whatsoever (as opposed to Harry who is still a Counsellor of State for the time being anyway) have absolutely paid for private police protection, so the argument that Harry doing so would “set a bad precedent” makes no sense.

        I hate to tell you this but lobbyists and others already pay money to direct police resources in situations that have nothing to do with security in the heinous US situation you are referring to.

      • ADS says:

        @Dee I agree with you entirely. I think Concern+Fae and some other derangers have decided to fight the bad fight by coming here and spreading their fake news. I’ve noticed a few other “off” comments on one or two other articles on this site. Hopefully Kaiser and colleagues are alive to it.

      • Vivica says:

        Um…That’s not how it works. If you want to order “security” you are offered two options, personal security or uniformed security. The only difference is that the uniformed security *has* to operate within the law and they have the ability to arrest. We use personal security all the time. They are fully armed, fully insured, fully bonded, and fully intimidating. They work with our local PD as the private sector ALL THE TIME. So much so that when we do order uniformed security (police or Sheriff) the first thing they ask is “will so and so be your private security?” As amazing as our private security team is, they aren’t though an actual police presence with legal access to federal and state investigations or known threats unless the police are willing to cooperate. The Met didn’t want to, making it difficult for Harry’s private security to do their job, so here we are.

      • Jais says:

        I’m confused by Oona saying they don’t offer this service bc as @C says, Kate Moss and others have done that in the past. I think the point is that the police have done this and Harry is suing bc they’re lying when they say they don’t. Maybe I’m missing something but that’s what seems to be going on.
        @vivica-again, I’m confused. How does the met cooperating with Harry’s security make it more difficult for them to do their job? Am I misunderstanding something?

      • ElleE says:

        lol you can’t be British. The Met exists only to cover up Tory crimes and arrest women that protest police crimes against women and brown people.

        The Met doesn’t even pretend to have any other mission.

        PH is not, and never will be a private citizen in the UK. Anyone who says this is daft.

      • Concern Fae says:

        Deranger? The question was an open one about why being allowed to pay police for private protection is bad. Yes, there can be situations where it makes sense, but it is also a vector for corruption. Why? Because the “private protection” gigs are off duty and usually paid at at least time and a half, often double. The police brass control who gets to do this highly paid work and it inevitably only goes to cops who keep their mouths shut about any wrongdoing that they see. Private money paying for police becomes a slush fund funneled to dirty cops.

        Is it possible that The Met is a force that has magically solved these problems, but considering that Harry is currently suing them, probably not.

        Yes, this is a gossip site, but it’s important to see what drives some of these stories at a deeper level. The right wing tabloids training their readers to think of themselves as taxpayers rather than citizens is part of it.

      • C says:

        I don’t really understand why that makes Harry getting protection a bad thing.
        Honestly, most police forces are corrupt, so that question seems to be moot in my opinion. I have to think that Harry would be vetting who protects him because he’s not unintelligent as he has proven.
        This situation has come up before and others have done it. It can be done, so the issue is why he’s being kept from doing so.

        Their readers ARE taxpayers. That’s not the issue. The issue is covering up wilfully who pays taxes on what and why. It’s not a coincidence that a lot of this coverage about Harry has obfuscated the detail about him wanting to pay for himself.

      • Jaded says:

        @Concern+Fae — the police protection Harry requires isn’t done by a bunch of off-duty goons looking for extra money. Royalty Protection Officers go through rigorous training programs in a myriad of skills on top of already having at least a decade or more of police experience. Harry’s needs would ensure he gets the cream of the crop and if someone like Kate Moss can get it, and he can’t, it’s because Edward Young, who is a Ravec member, stonewalled his request out of sheer antipathy towards him. In case you forgot, it was Young who stepped in and cancelled Harry’s visit with TQ at the last minute. So if you’re looking to justify Harry’s not being able to reimburse protection expenses, don’t look at the RPOs as crooked and on the take, look at the royal household.

      • Nic919 says:

        The UK has restrictions on who can use guns and that makes any private security an issue. This is not an issue in the US because of their more permissive gun laws. With Harry living in the US full time, that is clearly where he is most exposed but since he can have security that is armed we don’t hear about any issues of him needed police security while in the US.

        And Tony Blair has police protection because of security issues. Harry and Meghan getting it the short time they visit in the UK at their own cost is not the breach of police protocol the Uk media pretends that it is. Besides policing in the UK started as private hires anyway.

        And let’s not get into the Met and their awful history of racist police officers and pretend that doesn’t play a role here too. Especially with officers caught texting racist comments specifically about Meghan.

      • Joey 🦘 says:

        …..GO SIT DOWN AND EDUCATE YOURSELF…. (sorrow filled inbr)…

      • Bpleaseme says:

        The removal of royal “security” which allowed the Queen’s residence to be breached TWICE and continues to offer protection to Amoral Andy, who is a known pedophile, as well as the stripping of Harry’s well-earned distinguished military honors, is a blatant attempt by the RF (who control the Queen) to force Harry to abandon his Black wife and mixed children and put their security and safety at risk, and come back to the den of vipers of the RF. There are countless examples of articles written by journalists that demand Harry do just that. This entire security issue is very, very thinly veiled racist abuse because Harry married a Black woman and with whom he had children and who he loves, adores and has promised to protect.

    • Tara says:

      I thought about that too. I think if you pay for a service you get the say in it. At least be informed over execution, background information, have your needs met. I am not coming from a point that Harry would be difficult, but get access into some details they don’t want to make transparent to him?

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        Tara, well, as far as I understand the problems, Harry’s private security not only cannot carry guns in the UK, but they do NOT get any intelligence on risks or threats. It’s also my understanding that they are not able to keep people (media, etc.) away from Harry & family. Only the police are allowed to do so. Tell me, how does the private security actually help?

        Harry is a Prince. That is a fact that will never change. If there are those here that don’t want rich people hiring the Met Police, I guess it doesn’t apply in this case. Harry and family will always need protection because they are part of the royal family and because Harry has been targeted because of his military service. I don’t know why these FACTS are overlooked/ignored by the bm, brf, Home Office and Met Police. Frankly, they should be embarressed and ashamed, because I would bet any amount of money you choose to name that the other countries either provide security or give the private security the means in which to protect the Sussexes.

    • Nynthlyfe9 says:

      It’s the gun question. Protection officers from here carry weapons. The UK folk are squealing ” inappropriate and not legal. Harry and his attorneys are exposing this nonsense.
      I believe most of the Firm would love to see an ” accident ” happen to Meghan. I believe Harry thinks this also.
      Harry,like so many returning Vets, doesn’t give a damn that much for his own life but his family is another story. The f—ingRF has gone a bridge too far.

      • Geegee says:

        Let’s not forget Princess Diana was dead within 2 years of losing her protection. I get the feeling that the institution would really love history to repeat itself.

  4. Sarah says:

    I am LOVING that since Harry broke free of the practical and emotional constraints of the BRF and ‘one does not do XYZ’ he is willing to go after the things that are just plain wrong. He may not be setting out to burn the establishment down but he’s absolutely standing in a dry wheat field with some matches. I can’t wait to see what rot comes out into daylight at the met.

  5. SJ (they/them) says:

    I can’t help but think he is looking for answers about his mother. Godspeed, Harry.

    • Carole says:

      That’s what I thought too.

    • JanetDR says:

      Same. 🙏💗🙏

    • ncboudicca says:

      I think you are right and that plays into it. He will not let anything bad happen to his wife and children, and if that means he exposes the Little Gray Men for what they did to leave Diana, then that is so much icing on the cake. I’m fully expecting the press to then turn that to some kind of blame on Harry for “causing Charlie and Willie so much stress at a vulnerable point in the Monarchy’s history” or some such other bull-junk and malarkey, but I think Harry also expects that and is willing to take the abuse.

    • Christine says:

      Word. Harry is a dog with a bone, at this point.

      • aftershocks says:

        ^^ Exactly! 💯 👍 🎯

        Harry is also a man on a mission; a son who was taught ‘a set of values’ by his loving mother; he’s a veteran military soldier; a loving husband and father; and a Ginger Avenger-seeking strategist with a plan! They didn’t heed him and call off the dogs — they doubled down on their gaslighting. So Harry is setting boundaries and maneuvering strategically. He will block them, beat them, and methodically cut them all down.

  6. ThatsNotOkay says:

    Harry and his lawyers are being methodical. They had to win the first motion in order to proceed with filing this. And, yes, it will expose a lot of underhanded dealings and people in both organizations (Home Office and the Met police), thought we probably won’t get to hear what it is.

    • Hawaiiangymrat says:

      anybody with a brain know what this situation really is about. he knows the consequences of Megan’s safety and him literally repeating what happens with his mom if they do not have security there. that was such a terrible thing to happen to his mom, and truth be told it’s my opinion and just logistics, has she had that Royal security she will probably still be here and be able to enjoy her grandkids and seeing her children grow up. he said in a documentary I think the thing on Mental Health on Apple or something that that has left a profound permanent effect on him for the rest of his life, and rightfully so. he has seen first hand as barely a teenager what the consequences is if they don’t have adequate protection in that country, and with Megan getting the same level or nearly same level of Paparazzi harassment that Diana did, I don’t blame him for ensuring with whatever the cost it may be, that he doesn’t have to see history repeat himself again. this is something he’s already said, that that is a real fear for him, and it’s a real fear that he could end up being a single father raising his kids by himself because she isn’t adequately protected and Megan gets killed. I’m just saying this as my own opinion he does not want to see history rewrite himself, he does not want to be widowed, because people want to be prejudiced with providing adequate security. because

      I’m just going to be blunt hopefully I won’t get deleted it is the biggest crock of b******* to me, that his pedophile uncle Andrew who was in bed with Jeffrey Epstein and God know who else else can still get security, can still hold on to patronages, but they can’t allow him and make him to pay the UK for Royal security while in the country? even stepping down Harry is still a higher Royal than Andrew, but Andrew is so up mommy’s ass she’s going to protect him until her last breath which is also part of her undoing. but the fact of the matter is for protecting Harry’s mental health insanity if they do not grant them the thing to get the security they need I don’t blame them for barely coming back to the UK especially after she passes in the future. they talk about this stuff about Harry coming back into the fold if he leaves Megan know what’s going to happen is God forbid is something happens to her similar to Diana I really think Harry is going to f****** break, he’s going to lose his s***. it’s disturbing that they haven’t learned from what happened to his mother and seeing Megan getting similar treatment and acting like it’s not a real threat.

      • aftershocks says:

        While I agree in principle about the absurdity and affront of Harry not receiving full security vs Andrew still having security, I don’t think the two are comparable. The firm and BM just enjoy trying to place Harry and Andrew in the same box. NOT!

        Still IMO, both Andrew and Harry & his family should continue to receive full security protection. Harry & his family, especially require the highest level of protection! Meanwhile, Andrew has a ton of issues, and he’s a criminal reprobate who thought himself above the law. But he was also a dumb patsy being used by Epstein. Andrew has also been used as poster boy and cover for a number of shadowy unknown powerful men who were directly involved with Epstein and the abuse of young women, teenagers and preteens. It’s not for nothing that Epstein mysteriously died b/f being brought to trial.

        That said, Andrew is still a member of the royal family which won’t change, so a measure of security is needed. At the same time, he is completely disgraced and a total reprobate who refuses to admit to his sins and faults. So there’s no hope for him. He’s dumb, greedy, entitled and overbearing, which led him into the traps laid by Epstein. Andrew clearly was never taught a set of values by his mother! Although that doesn’t negate his royal status and need for security, it’s just that he should never be allowed any reprieve for the seriousness of the harmful acts he engaged in, yet he refuses to own up to.

        Harry’s and Andrew’s situations have absolutely nothing in common. They should stop being compared and talked about in the same breath and lumped together.

  7. Beenie says:

    Anyone know which firm(s) is representing Harry in these lawsuits?

  8. Noki says:

    Man on Fire!!! Lol no wonder they are having meltdowns anticipating his memoirs.

    • KFG says:

      The suit let’s his team obtain records, phone calls, emails for discovery. I have a sneaking suspicion that Harry is going to expose a plot to merc Meghan and Archie.

  9. Rapunzel says:

    I hope this leads to us also finding out who is paying for that other helicopter William abs Charlotte were riding in. . . wasn’t it a police copter? Are the police footing the helicopter bill for Will as part of “security” to save the Windsors money.

  10. Snuffles says:

    I’m almost certain that celebrities are allowed to pay for police protection while they are in the UK. So, it’s complete bullshit that Harry was denied.

    • C-Shell says:

      Way back when this started, I saw the written policy that allows JUST THAT, and I wondered then why this is even a conversation. Why is Harry being made an exception? I think we all know why, and Ed Young is evil through and through.

    • Carole says:

      I thought it was established that Tony Blair was doing it?

      • Jaded says:

        Edward Young is a member of Ravec and it was proven that he didn’t forward Harry’s request to pay for security to the other members and the Met. He’s behind all this and he will pay. He also cancelled Harry’s visit with his gran at the last minute due to “a conflicting engagement”. Bullshit. He’s picked the wrong person to eff with, that’s for sure.

    • kirk says:

      IIRC when this topic started becoming a thing I saw articles about how soccer teams (scuze me football clubs) routinely hire police protection. Also there was an article about former PM Tony Blair having to reimburse for protection provided while working on private matters. I think this 1-16-22 tweet was one of the links I saw at the time –
      You could also search for more info on SPS agreements that Metropolitan Police enter into. I believe some elite protection is also done by Thames Valley Police(?) but don’t really know.

  11. Lila says:

    I wonder which courtiers and senior royals are sweating over what will emerge. The chickens are coming home to roost.

    • equality says:

      They are likely also sweating because if PH can pay for his own security, the peasants might ask why other RF members can’t pay for their own.

      • ADS says:

        @equality 1000%! The peasants are already questioning a lot. And with the regular booing of William at football matches, the glee with which people spread #PrinceOfPegging and the persistent questions around Charles and the dodgy donations he has accepted from the Saudis and Bin Ladens relatives, I think there is a shift in the public mood.

      • BeanieBean says:

        Especially those ‘non-working’ royals. (That expression always cracks me up. None of them ‘work.)

    • Nic919 says:

      Edward Young is a key player here. He’s on the Ravec committee for some unknown reason and he’s clearly fine will letting Andrew get the full RPO protection which is contradictory to why they refuse it for Harry’s visits.

  12. Harper says:

    Harry coming specifically for Edward Young to keep him squirming. Wish he could go after Burger King and Jason the Knife in the same way but he’s left that in karma’s hands, which is universally more efficient, creative and entertaining.

  13. YeahRight says:

    The son of the soon to be king shouldn’t have to fight this hard to security in the country he was born, raised in and went to war for. Two individuals went to jail in the UK a couple of years ago because they were plotting his demise so he’s not being paranoid about threats on him and his family. The fact that Andrew of all people get to have security paid for by mummy but Harry who haven’t done anything wrong can’t pay for his out of his own pocket. Something is wrong with that picture.

    • SURE says:

      Does Mummy privately pay for A or do taxpayers pay for his security?

      • Cessily says:

        Is there a difference?

      • aftershocks says:

        ^^ @Sure, the royal firm, the Met Police, and the British government NEVER give out any of such details, ostensibly for security reasons. The reality is they don’t want the public to have info about their finances and security practices. Plus, Met Police operations are likely highly classified as a matter of course! In general, taxpayers’ money is mainly used for royals’ security costs. But individual taxpayers are each paying probably well under a pound (as the total number of taxpayers is in the millions, eh).

        Other royal family expenses are covered by Sovereign grant money related to Duchy holdings. It’s all fairly complex and the exact details are kept under wraps. That’s a different discussion.

    • Harper says:

      Oh but the Twitter bots are all out, saying look how many other veterans are walking around the UK without police protection. Look how spoiled Harry is. Jeez. These people.

      • equality says:

        Is there some way that those other vets would be identifiable easily?

      • HeatherC says:

        Well that’s because every other veteran in the UK were also legitimately threatened by white supremacists (who served jail time) and are married to a biracial woman who also has suffered threats against her life and their children.

        Oh wait.


      • Feeshalori says:

        That is legitimately one of the most insane objections I’ve ever heard @Harper. This man’s life is in constant jeopardy as well as his family’s. These bat-crazy bots are definitely drinking the Kool-Aid.

  14. ShazBot says:

    You can tell he’s onto something because the home office is complaining about how much money it costs to deal with these lawsuits, as if they don’t have full legal departments at their disposal. They’re trying to use “bad PR” against him, but don’t they realize Harry lived his whole life with bad PR? It can’t touch him.

    • Eurydice says:

      It’s a stupid argument because it’s the courts that decide if a lawsuit is frivolous or not. The Home Office should be complaining about the judge that let the case go through. But then , that wouldn’t give the same PR result.

    • ElleE says:

      Last September the Met had a help wanted AG for a spokesperson for the RPO division ( Idk what it is called).

      I recall the ad saying it was a new position. The way it was worded made me think it was solely to speak about what was to be a torrent of Sussex actions against the Met. It was a DEDICATED position. The Met knew what the plan was and it knew what the response would be.

      The “taxpayer” $ thing is all they got?
      One division of the met is more corrupt than the other divisions in the met and it gets its own spokesperson?

      Wonder how that job is working out for whoever took it.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Let’s hope his lawyers are following Christopher Bouzy. He proved one of the major racist t r o l l accounts against Meghan was run by a disgraced Met supervisor’s 40-year-old unemployed son. Was the man fed information about the Met decision and instructed to attack Harry’s efforts online?

      • ElleE says:

        I bet their attorneys Paid very close attention to what the squad exposes on Twitter and LSA.

        The British media has scrubbed many articles from 2018 and 2019 that reported death threats to Harry from white supremacy groups and articles about the white American women that started hate accounts for M. back in 2017.

        We post those sometimes, just for no reason, under “never forget “ because people have screenshots but the articles, that Would support this as a six claim that they do have real security concerns when they’re in the UK are no longer there.

  15. Aurora says:

    The only way Harry can get transparency is through lawsuits.

    There is clear a discrepancy in how Harry’s security request is being treated versus every other Royal and celebrity. These lawsuits will force people on the record to explain the decisions that went into denying his request. It may expose that the Royal family directed the Met police to deny his request.

    The bottom line is that Harry is in line to the throne. He is the grandson of the current monarch, the son of a future monarch, and the brother of a future monarch. There is no valid reason why Harry should be denied security especially when he’s offering to pay.

    • Leslie says:

      Other grandchildren of the current monarch don’t have security

      • Aurora says:

        Are those other grandchildren the sons/daughter of the person who’s next in line to be King?

      • SURE says:

        Those other grandchildren are not the offspring of the heir apparent. Also I
        doubt whether those other grandchildren have been subjected to the same threats as PH?

      • C says:

        They don’t have taxpayer-funded security, no, but that’s a moot point because that’s not what Harry is asking for. And they’re not subject to enough attention and threats, nor do they have the funds, to offer to pay for their own.

      • Jais says:

        Do that many people even know the names of monarch’s other grandchildren? The UK has a monarchy, whether all like it or not, and the children of the heir serve as gossip and fascination for the people. It’s pretty sick but that’s what happens. The people can now let this man pay for security after being raised as entertainment for the masses his entire life.

      • Feeshalori says:

        No doubt these great/grandchildren aren’t getting viable death threats either. These relatives are unknown in comparison to Harry and his family who is the son of the next monarch.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Are white nationalists in prison for active attempts to murder those other members of the family, their spouse, and children? Have the Taliban and their successors issued statements they will hunt down and kill those members of the family? No. Lord the t r o l l s are out today.

      • KW says:

        What is your point to this ignorant comment Leslie?

      • Laura D says:

        As others have pointed out the other grandchildren aren’t son’s of the future monarch or brother and uncle of future monarchs. The other grandchildren didn’t p off the Taliban fighting for Queen and country resulting in a massive target on Harry’s back wherever he goes. Also, when was the last time any of the other grandchildren (or great grandchildren) been subjects of vile podcasts by white supremacists?

        The other grandchildren may or may not need royal protection; that’s an argument for a different day. However, it’s been shown time and time again that Harry and his family do.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        Other grandchildren of the monarch are not as high profiled as Harry. Other grandchildren of the monarch have not been on the receiving end of hate filled British Media stories on a daily basis. Other grandchildren of the monarch are not married to a WOC. Other grandchildren of the monarch did not serve in Afghanistan and have a price on their head with the Taliban…could go on. The list is long.

        Maybe it’s time the British Media, derangers, courtiers, “palace sources” and royalists agree to a ceasefire.

    • Both Sides Now says:

      @ Aurora, well said!!! Harry is very well educated in regards to how the security in Britain works and has been able to proceed diligently to strip the MET of their ridiculous position when it’s been an offer to others in the UK as well.

      Their blatant refusal is based on the influences of EY as well as others in The Firm. They are purely driven by pettiness as well as punishment.

      May Harry expose this awful lot with their misdeeds and lies.

      @ Laura D, there still is a bounty on Harry’s head with the Taliban too!!! That enough is the very reason he needs armed police protection as well as the necessary intelligence!! My gawd, this entire family is such a blight on the world stage…..

      Born to rule by God my ass…..

  16. Leslie says:

    Good god Harry let it go and move on with your life. Why waste all this time and money fighting these battles when you could just be living your great life free in the US?

    • Snuffles says:

      Because he has family (not named Charles or William), friends and charities he wants to visit on a regular basis.

      • Eurydice says:

        The thing is that there are private protection services in the UK that he can hire, just as he does in the US. It just seems that there’s something else going on here.

      • C says:

        The difference is that armed protection can only be provided by the police in the UK.

      • Jan90067 says:

        I don’t think it’s *just* armed protection. IIRC, it’s also HUGELY a matter of his protection being privy to threats and information that could impact Harry directly, ie: a phoned in threat to “get” to Harry when he visits XY charity, “chatter” on the net that Harry will be in Z on Thursday for an event, this kind of stuff.

        Also, he needs actual protection en route so his car doesn’t get locked in, and he gets chased, as what happened in the visit prior to the Jubbly.

    • amyb says:

      Because he wants to see his family and travel within his birthplace without the fear of being blown up or shot. You do know he has family aside from his Father’s side.

    • SunRae says:

      @Leslie No idea why he won’t just let himself be exiled from his own country. He should totally let it go and only visit England at the behest and benevolence of people who hate him and his family. Befuddling that he won’t accept only being able to visit his mother’s grave at Edward Young and co’s say-so. Shocker, I tell you.

      • C says:

        Right? Especially about his mother’s grave. I guess his kids shouldn’t ever be able to visit that either.

      • Jais says:

        Exactly. It’s a form of exile and control but he should just let it go and allow his wife and children to live a not so free existence every time they want to visit the uk? Having to bow down to EY or whichever aide is in charge and inform them of all their plans before getting permission to get protection. So it can potentially be leaked to the tabloids? Jeez can’t imagine why he won’t just let it go and move on with his life.

    • Eurydice says:

      To tell the truth, this is my feeling, too. On the other hand, I really have no idea what’s really going on or if there are additional motivations. Everything I know about the situation comes from the tabloids. Maybe if/when there’s a ruling and if/when the details are announced…

      • Hopey says:

        “Everything I know about the situation comes from the tabloids.”

        Jeebus H. Christus! Did a sentient being just admit that out loud?

      • Julia K says:

        So far, it’s only the tabloids giving this coverage. Guess it’s not newsworthy enough for mainstream press. I too read the tabloids articles as some information is better than none. Using Google directs you to tabloids so there we are.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Why should a UK citizen and his dual UK/US citizen children be banned from visiting the UK because someone in the royal office wants their lives in danger? Harry has close family, both Windsor and Spencer, in the UK. He has lifelong friends in the UK. He has significant charity interests in the UK including the Endeavour Fund, WellChild, and The Diana Awards. Of course, you’re likely one of those people who thinks William should be allowed to steal all of Harry’s charity work and claim the results as his own.

    • Blithe says:

      I thought there were at least two issues. One is whether a private protection service could carry weapons. I had understood that they could not. The other is whether a private protection service would have ongoing access to intelligence. Again, my understanding is that they would not.

      If the private protection service can’t be armed and can’t gain immediate access to information about threats AND this is public knowledge, then, at best, that puts Harry and his family in a uniquely vulnerable position. Add in the enormous number of racially tinged threats against Meghan, the kids, and Harry, and it’s hard to see this as something other than deliberate efforts to ensure that Harry and his family cannot travel safely within his home country.

      Having said this, I have an even more horrifying thought. Presumably Harry, Meghan, and the kids would be somehow generally protected if they were with members of the BRF who received protection themselves, as well as in protected spaces. I’m now wondering how this would be prioritized in an actual crisis. That is, if I’m standing next to the president, and someone attacks me, the priority of the USSS will be protecting the president—not me. What would happen to Harry in a similar situation? Would Harry, Meghan and the kids be left vulnerable while BRF members with their own personal protection officers got whisked away?

      If so, this is a peculiarly diabolical way to treat the son of the FK, and someone whose mother died in large part because she lacked adequate security. It also highlights questions about the people who ordered and approved such plans.

      Perhaps someone with more knowledge about the specifics of this situation than I have could chime in.

      • Hopey says:


        Youve succinctly stated the 2 key problems and their implications, inter alia:
        (1) Private security personnel ARE NOT AUTHORIZED to carry guns in the UK as part of their apparatus to protect their principals (UNLESS youre the president of the US or any other Head of State that the brits cant dictate to.)

        (2) Access to the kind of intelligence that H wd need, being the high-risk target that he is, has to come via an agreement with brit security forces, sanctioned by RAVEC (of which EDWARDYOUNG who has it in for H, is a member.)

        These 2 issues can only be resolved with the cooperation of the Met Police. But these are not special requests that H is asking for. He’s not setting precedent with his request to PAY or reimburse the british taxpayer for this service.

        But in playing their usual game, wherein its the men-in-grey who really run the monarchy, EDWARDYOUNG et al have EXPOSED themselves for the SPITEFUL game they tried to play, regarding H & his family and their security and now, the DISINFECTANT OF SUNLIGHT is being shone on their shenanigans by H’s judicial challenges.

    • 2cents says:

      Harry HAS moved on and only wants to secure his right to freely visit his homeland UK with his Sussex family, while being well protected.

      Other minor royals like Princess Anne’s or Andrew’s children clearly don’t have the same security risks as Harry which are well documented.

      Harry still has a high profile and status on the global stage as a humanitarian leader, not just as a son, brother or uncle of future kings.

      At some point Harry will want to visit his family/friends and show his children the place where his mother Diana was buried and his royal history.

      He and Meghan should be able to do so without interference or restrictions from the palace or the government.

      It seems to me that the right wing British establishment (the holders of the invisible contract: media bosses, palace and Tory government) collectively see Harry and Meghan as a threat to their autocratic power in the UK. They treat H&M like paria’s/outsiders and keep smearing them in the UK press.

      The security lawsuit is another way (besides the ongoing telephone hacking lawsuit) for Harry to expose and battle the injustice the autocratic and selfserving establishment poses on many UK citizens, but who don’t have the financial resources to do the same.

      Harry knows he’s setting an example for the greater good by fighting this injustice publicly and legally. Hopefully he will be as successful as his wife Meghan who won her privacy/copyright lawsuit last year.

    • Jaded says:

      England is Harry’s home. Yes California is now his home, but he still has ties to the UK. Furthermore, Harry would like to be free to see the friends, charities and family members he still has contact with. To do that he has to have protection because he and Meghan are the targets of numerous terrorist groups, white supremacists and nutbars. He can’t hide himself away in California and think that he’s safe, he and his family have to have protection wherever they go. Certainly with his work for Invictus, Sentebale, Travelyst, and other organizations, he cannot evade going to his home country simply because his American security team isn’t allowed to use weapons there. This is not as easy as you think it is.

    • Laura D says:

      Any half decent journalist would be looking at why the establishment are refusing Harry’s request. Under any other circumstances this would be a great piece of investigative journalism. Look at the responses under your post(s) and tell me the RRs don’t know most of what’s been posted? If ordinary folk are able to deduce there is something unsavoury going on behind the scenes then why haven’t the reporters and their editors? This isn’t about staying safe in US it’s about being safe in the UK. Surely, there is something wrong when the son of the future monarch is refused security to move freely around his home country?

      Whoever has the nerve to break away from the pack and “prints and be damned” will have a global scoop. No matter what the BM media likes to print, the world are watching in disbelief at how poorly Harry and his family are being treated. The nonsense printed about H&M is getting push back from all parts of the globe. What the establishment is refusing to accept is how bad this looks for Britain when it absolutely refuses to protect one of their own from known (and identifiable) threats. IMHO the journalists and their editors are cowards for ignoring a proper investigative story into what prompted the establishment to ignore security threats on a high profile royal and his family.

    • KFG says:

      You can always tell what they’re scared of by the way their trolls comment. Look @Leslie. Suing the Met and reviewing Ravec is what the palaces and tories are afraid of because their other crimes and attempts on H&M will be exposed, as will their corruption. Pay attention to what narrative or wishes the trolls put out. That will always signal what the BRF are terrified of exposed.

  17. Amy Bee says:

    I like his determination. He may not win but he will get the system exposed in the process.

  18. Southern Fried says:

    I strongly suspect he and Meghan have been seriously threatened many times and need the security more than others. It seems like the Brits don’t even inform them about them, notHarry himself or his security team when he’s there.

  19. Mary S says:

    This entire controversy is disgusting. It is common knowledge that Prince Harry and his family are targeted by white supremacists, Al Qaida, and sundry nutters. Denying him the ability to obtain adequate security to safely visit his home country is unconscionable, especially if he’s willing to cover the costs. Is exile now the cost of independence from the RF? Doesn’t QE2 pay for Andrew’s security? Doesn’t Andrew pay for Beatrice and Eugenie’s security? Didn’t Charles pay for Camilla’s security before their marriage? Why are royals further down in the line of succession or not even in the line of succession able to pay for or have someone pay for their security but not Harry? Again, this is disgusting.

  20. Izzy says:

    Go Harry! Burn it all to the ground.

  21. WithTheAmerican says:

    To all of the derangers here saying why should Harry need security, allow me to explain in simple terms:

    The fact that so many of you find every single article tweet YouTube Facebook post Instagram etc about Harry and Meghan and swarm it with hate is exactly why he needs security.

    Your illogical and obsessed presence here proves he needs it.

    • Kels says:

      Speak on it!!! 📢
      Freaking crazy stalkers all of them..

    • Agreatreckoning says:

      Excellent points @WithThe American. I’ll add:

      1. In a few months it will be 6 years of racist, hateful, mysogynistic, false (etc.,) stories about Meghan that were heralded by certain groups. Articles/tweets that incited rage and threats to Harry & Meghan.

      2. On air media commentators/”journalists”/whoever spewing hate filled rants with comments such as (paraphrasing) ‘thrown him/them? off the balcony’ and ‘she’s a threat to the monarchy’. These are words that royalists that are not right in the head to begin with take seriously.

      The British Media alone, has collectively presented serious reasons, for Harry & Meghan’s need to have armed security/with in time intel. That they have said they would pay for. It’s utter nonsense when people claim he would be setting a precedent when it’s been done already by others.

      It’s amazing someone would claim Meghan, who hasn’t lived in England for going on 31 months, is a threat to the monarchy. Someone who lives thousand of miles away on a different continent. It doesn’t say much about the stability of the monarchy.

      I hope these judicial reviews lead to the sussing out of more snakes.

  22. Nubiacoco says:

    Harry’s lawyers are never going to be out of job lol .
    I wonder how this is going to end though.
    The Met police doesn’t have a great track record with investigations/lawsuits.
    I am still confused on why Charles or the Queen didn’t help making things right for him and his family protection.

    • MsIam says:

      They are not helping Harry as part of his “punishment” for daring to leave/ escape. They need to realize this is making them look bad. And things may be uncovered that the Charles and even the queen would rather keep hidden.

    • Hopey says:

      Betty and Charles arent helping because they cant…….theyre not the ones running the monarchy. EDWARDYOUNG and his cabal are in charge of betty and therefore, in charge of charles.
      This is also one of the things being brought into the light by Harry’s lawsuits.

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        Hopey, well, unless the brf wants the world to see them place royal family members in jeopardy IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY, I suggest Chuck fires EY and blames him for everything and makes sure that Harry and family have the proper protection. This is the smart thing to do–right now. If this keeps playing out, the brf is going to take a beating. Just sayin’

  23. Polo says:

    Considering the corruptness of the whole establishment and especially the Met Police I applaud him for continuing to fight this!!
    I really hope he’s able to get to the bottom of this whole convoluted mess! I want the big players exposed though I don’t have much hope it will actually happen!

    They’ve had great success in their court cases and I pray that continues and hopefully it’s another sign for the whole establishment to not mess with Harry and Meghan.

  24. KW says:

    I’m starting to wonder the power Edward had during the last years his mother was alive and exactly what his position was. Didn’t Charles place him in his current position? This is disgusting. F U Charles. FYI being named after the first King Charles suits him too well.

    • CourtneyB says:

      He worked for Barclays from 1985-1999. He didn’t enter royal service until 2004 or thereabouts.

  25. Slippers4life says:

    Go Harry go! It doesn’t matter who actually wins, the exposures and the pressure this will create is a win anyway. Bet those bastard men in gray never thought Diana’s little boy would be taking them all out.

  26. J Bruhn says:

    I keep wondering if any part of this is Harry trying to figure out who specifically decided his mother didn’t get protection?

  27. A says:

    Worth pointing out here that the person in charge of the Home Office is the notorious Priti Patel, a xenophobic, racist Tory, carrying out their xenophobic, racist platform when it comes to issues like immigration and policing. I’m sure she and Ed Young got along splendidly on this issue.

  28. CheChe says:

    The old adage the truth shall set you free applies here. Win or lose ,Harry wants answers instead of excuses. Let the games commence with legal consequences.

  29. tamsin says:

    I don’t see how this is a good look that Harry has to sue for information and he is not given the security that he and his family need. One has to conclude that the Queen and Charles don’t care about Harry’s safety, because they are angry/jealous/hate him, or they don’t have the authority to over rule their own staff for working against Harry. The only excuse for the Queen is that she doesn’t have a clue about what is going on because she is getting senile; otherwise she is the most ineffectual and unaware person with influence and power who was ever born. What exactly does she stand up for? If there is nothing, then she is simply a tool of all bennign, good, or corrupt powers. What did Harry mean when he said he would uphold the Queen’s values? What values does she have that inform her actions as Queen. Does she uphold any of the values that he clearly has? I think that all her life she has put her nose to the grindstone and done what she thought was her duty. She may have been bullied her whole life by the grey men. She has not exhibited any characteristics of any kind of moral leadership. What a puny thing she has made of her role as a Queen in the end if that is the case.

  30. Feebee says:

    I’m pleased to see Harry adopt the more American mindset on these issues in terms of taking proactive legal action to get answers and accountability.

  31. Christina says:

    He is regal. Kaiser, the header pic is great. It seems almost like a painting. You are such a pro.

    Great Britain’s huge loss. He is, inside and out, the personification of the fairytale prince.

  32. Nic919 says:

    To the deranger talking point that Harry should let this go because he’s not a working royal etc bla bla bla. You are monsters. Harry’s mother died because she did not have adequate protection. One of the primary conclusions of the inquest was that had Diana had RPOs in Paris, they never would have driven away from the paps in that manner. And now we learn that Diana may have been misinformed about whether or not she could or should keep RPOs post divorce.

    So Harry knowing this and knowing the real threats against him and his family, and learning that Edward Young was on the committee making decisions without telling him, the same Edward Young who has been a bastard to Meghan from day one, yeah Harry is going to pursue this second judicial review.
    It’s not a lawsuit but the Court examining the decision making process of a branch of government.

    And to those who complain about taxpayer funds… yeah shut it because the royals cost way more than a few judicial reviews and fyi Andrew still gets protected without any complaints by the police about the cost.

  33. Mslove says:

    Is it just me or does this make the met office seem juvenile & unprofessional? No wonder the UK is the laughing stock of the entire planet.

  34. jferber says:

    Since he’s suing the Metropolitan Police, in my opinion any future protection for him will always be compromised. It reminds me when Eleanor Roosevelt was traveling sometime after her husband’s death to a meeting with some Black caucus and J. Edgar Hoover PERSONALLY refused her protection on that journey. Things don’t run the way they’re supposed to since fallible people are in charge. Who’s to say that in future if Harry or his family are in danger in England, the Met Police protecting them just “happened” to be looking the other way or deployed to the wrong site? End of story: he can never trust them to protect him. Stay out of England forever, Harry. They don’t deserve you and will not protect you or your family.

    • C says:

      That’s not good enough for him nor should it be. Why should he be banished from friends, charities, and his mother’s resting place and Spencer relatives by throwing up his hands and accepting their corruption? If they are choosing not to protect him on shoddy grounds he’s demanding to know why, publicly.

    • equality says:

      There are quite likely those in the MET who take their job seriously and “looking the other way” and allowing someone globally known and liked would really damage the MET’s rep and the UK’s.

    • Tan says:

      His security has always been compromised that’s also the point of the suit.

  35. Hopey says:

    Heres a sobering thought: Prince Harry is not fighting this fight only for the here-and-now; i:e he’s not just fighting for the right to visit britain whenever he wishes, secure in the knowledge that he and his family have the security arrangements that they need.

    I believe that H is also thinking about what we all hope is in the distant future, but sadly, can happen any minute and that is: what happens if H should die? Will the monarchy and all its might, fight M for her right to bury him in the USA if that was the couple’s wish?

    But lets say the couple’s plans included H being interred in the UK, will M and the kids and their entourage have adequate security to go there? And beyond the actual sad event, will his children be able to visit their father’s final resting place whenever they wish, or will they have to depend on the caprice of the men-in-grey, who really run the monarchy and who have it in for H&M and their family?

    This issue is more serious and bigger than those numbskulls in britain would have folks believe.

  36. jferber says:

    C and Equality, I agree with you that this is not good enough for Harry. He should not be barred from his homeland, absolutely not. He is a noble man and he is fighting the good fight. But institutions are often invulnerable to “damaged reputations.” Look at the FBI in the U.S. Look at the presidency in the U.S. Damaged reputations be damned because J. Edgar Hoover controlled the FBI for DECADES and Trump, damaged reputation and all, could still be running for president in 2024 (and WIN, I might add). I guess I’m saying that corruption and evil are real forces in the world. You can take them on, sure, but be very realistic about the possible consequences, not just to you, but to the people you hold near and dear. I don’t know what the answer is. I really don’t.

  37. sammi says:

    The Labour Party, Keir Stammer, said that Prince Harry would get security in Uk as his position by birth and high security needs would be all assessed. He was careful in his reply to this question but with his legal background and political insights he did affirm that security would be given in his opinion. It may be that Prince Harry and his team are looking at revealing issues rather than real concerns with how he and family would be protected on visits. They will have access to documents and arguments given by the other side and so will the World. Not a good look for the Royal Family or the UK government.