Prince Harry’s royal protection was suddenly cut off in February 2020

This week, Prince Harry’s lawyers are in court, arguing about his security when he’s in the UK. When QEII was alive, she made sure that he and Meghan had royal protection when they visited, but this situation is now in dire straits with Harry’s father on the throne. Something that never made sense to me about the timeline in 2020 is when did the Sussexes’ royal protection really get pulled and when were they officially “cut off” from the institution? Omid Scobie writes, in Endgame, that the final cutoff happened in July 2020, when the Lord Chamberlain made good on his threat to cut off Harry when Harry refused to drop his legal action against the Sun, which led straight to Christian Jones. But we also know that Tyler Perry basically had to provide his private security to the Sussexes by the end of March 2020. Now, at least the timeline makes slightly more sense – Ravec cut off Harry’s security rather suddenly in February 2020.

RAVEC, a committee that also included police and senior palace aides who Harry had fallen out with, made the decision in February 2020 after he announced his decision to quit a month earlier and before his final royal engagements that March.

Shaheed Fatima, Harry’s attorney, told the court RAVEC’s own policies suggested an assessment by the Risk Management Board (RMB) should have been taken before he was stripped of his protection.

“In this case RAVEC chose not to follow its own written policy,” she told the High Court in London. “RAVEC chose not to do an RMB risk analysis. RAVEC therefore chose to apply a far inferior procedure to [Harry] that lacked the critical safeguards that have been built into the written policy.”

The prince’s team believe it is the first time the Home Office has done this and Fatima added: “No good reason has been provided for singling [Harry] out in this way. The critical point is that when that decision was taken he was still a full-time working member of the royal family,” she continued. “He was plainly still in the RAVEC cohort and the written policies should have been applied to him.”

She said “the court does not need to make a decision about” whether Harry should get “protective security,” but rather whether the decision was unlawful. It is possible that even if Harry wins, the government will simply take the same decision again using a different process.

[From Newsweek]

“It is possible that even if Harry wins, the government will simply take the same decision again using a different process.” Yep. I mean, I support Harry and I find this case really fascinating, because Harry is exposing some really disgusting sh-t at the heart of the royal protection bureaucracy, but nothing is going to change. It’s through this case that I learned that royal protection does not follow the threat, it follows favoritism and rank. Harry and Meghan were in serious danger and under siege from violent racists and lunatics – but because Harry was disliked by Edward Young and because the Windsors wanted to put the Sussexes “in their place,” they limited and ultimately removed the Sussexes’ protection. It’s short-sighted and extremely dangerous. And whatever happens with Harry’s case, the end result will be the same – Ravec has made it abundantly clear that the Sussexes need to be in mortal danger and that the Sussexes cannot pay for their police protection if they ever visit the UK.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

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

85 Responses to “Prince Harry’s royal protection was suddenly cut off in February 2020”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Izzy says:

    If nothing else, he is exposing their dirty shenanigans in court on the record.

    • equality says:

      I think that’s his goal. I’m sure he and his legal reps realize that the end result will likely not be favorable, because they will always find an excuse to not protect him.

      • KFG says:

        It will change things. For one, it makes the public ask multiple questions about how shit is done. Secondly, it’ll push more of the commonwealth to leave. I’m loving the fall of the house of Windsor.

      • Campbell says:

        Which goes back to Charles. Did the Queen understand what was happening to Harry? I expect the lowest of the low from Will and Kate. But Charles never fails to demonstrate what a terrible father he is to Harry, even risking baby Archie.

    • SarahCS says:

      Which needs to happen and I agree with equality on this. Expose the corruption and even with the reluctance in this country to report favourably on anything H&M do this all becomes public record. With the increased scrutiny of the monarchy we need more stories like this in the public sphere.

    • WiththeAmerican says:

      I’d be willing to bet Harry is doing this to expose what likely happened to his mother and contributed to her death.

      This is just the first move.

      • Mimi says:

        I agree that this is his goal. He’s drawing an obvious parallel to how she was deliberately left unprotected by the BRF. Sadly, I also think he wants to make sure that should something happen to him, he has went on the record to say that he did seek security.

      • Newt says:

        Ohhhhhhhhhh!!!!!! I had NOT thought of that angle, but that’s VERY interesting. And would not surprise me from Harry. I think he feels the need to protect his mother since his brother seems to want to silence her (re: William making sure the Panarama interview she did with Bashir never airs again). Omid writes about this in Endgame. Yes, Bashir used dirty tricks to get Diana to agree to the interview, but the words she spoke were how she felt at the time so Harry feels THAT is what is important, but William is obviously wanting this hidden away to protect the monarchy overall.

        But I had not thought about the security/Diana’s death angle and Harry proving the monarchy/parliment pulling her security leading to her death. Although, I am beginning to believe they ALL had a more direct role in her death. She was a huge problem for the monarchy and the future king. So are Harry and Meghan. 🤔 I’m so glad they have their own security here in the states.

        All the more reason for them NOT to go back to England at all if they can’t be protected. Why would they?

    • Bananapanda says:

      Royal protection has been a joke for decades. Princess Anne was nearly kidnapped. Charles had an assassination attempt where they left him completely exposed on stage while his whole protection group dove for the shooter. It’s a classic case of exactly the wrong thing to do.

      Heck, someone snuck into Buckingham through an unlocked window and got into the Queen’s bedroom.

    • DouchesOfCambridge says:

      I hope he can sue everyone over this. Sue them all. get all the truth out for a dollar or for 100M dollars and give it away to charity.

  2. Brassy Rebel says:

    Charles is a piece of excrement. Clearly, the Sussexes are under constant threat, especially in GB. Not making security decisions based on threat but rather on who pisses you off or might be doing something which could damage the monarchy shows how cruel and despicable Charles is capable of being.

  3. Ana Maria says:

    …so how do they expect him to visit if they do not provide security??

    • Missskitttin says:

      They don’t even allow them to pay for it! It’s like they are joyfully putting them in harm’s way 😬

    • Amy Bee says:

      The Palace’s answer would be that Harry has come to the UK many times without security being provided.

      • equality says:

        But the children haven’t since they lost the security they would have had at Frogmore.

      • Amy Bee says:

        @equality: There hasn’t been any reason for the children to go to the UK and I doubt Charles is clamouring to see them.

      • equality says:

        PH and the children have other family in the UK, such as Harry’s aunts. He has also said that he wants them to know his home country. And PH has business in the UK at times and might like to actually have his children with him. I wouldn’t say there is no reason for them to go to the UK. Seeing KC is probably low on the list.

      • Jais says:

        The only time the children came was when the queen was alive and presumedly provided security. They don’t want Harry, his wife or his children to come to England at all.

  4. Nubia says:

    This Lord Chamberlain is a recent new name to me but he sounds like a terrible person with too much power.

  5. Lady Esther says:

    Good job Newsweek reporting on the royals (a different thing from “royal reporting,” ie the rota) clearly and factually. More of this please and thank you!

  6. It kinda proves his institution wants him dead. They will deny him protection in the UK any way they can including breaking their own rules or laws. I hope Harry will be ok when he has to testify for the trial that is coming up. I hope his military friends will continue to have his back.

  7. kyliegirl says:

    I am waiting for them to reveal that Diana did not reject royal protection, but instead it was stripped from her. It makes no sense that an ex-wife of a royal would get security protection and the SON of a MONARCH would be denied. Something is rotten in Denmark.

    • Jais says:

      The palace would protect that info from coming out. I tried to go back and read what was written about her security at the time and it was a lot of ex-police officers saying it was thought that she refused security. But even then it wasn’t that clear. I found two other articles that said she was given security when she was doing a work event but that was it. So the palace took away security for her all the rest of the time, if she just wanted to go to dinner or anything that wasn’t related to work. Which would make her a homebody. So I don’t think it was ever a matter of her simply denying security bc she thought they were spying on her but that is the narrative we hear. Maybe she did deny it or maybe she wanted certain people on her detail. But everything Harry is going through should make it clear that just because something is said in the papers does not make it so.

      • Dara says:

        My memory is a bit hazy, but my recollection is that after the divorce she was no longer “entitled” to security because she was out of the firm and family. The boys had RPO’s with them everywhere they went so when they were with her, she had it by extension, but when she was on her own she had none. The wisdom of that wasn’t questioned until after her death.

        I can also see her refusing it even if it had been offered. I am sure the guards and staff at Kensington Palace reported back when she was coming and going and who came to visit, so security also meant surveillance.

      • Jais says:

        @dara and @Mary pester, that is my understanding, that they did give her protection for specific events. But what about the rest of her life when she wanted to leave the house without her children or was not doing events. I don’t think she was ever even offered RPO’s during that time. So yes that is stripping her of protection.

    • Mary Pester says:

      @kyliegirl, Diana was stripped of H. R. H, they wanted to use that to completely strip her security, but prince Phillip said no, it would look bad, so Charlie and the Queen decided that she could only have protection when THEY chose the events, so Diana said no, stuff your protection, because she knew they would use it to spy on her. Now look at history repeating itself. They have stripped Harry and his family of HRH

  8. Cessily says:

    I have never despised a country more than I do England.. I refuse to even fly through that country, Germany has much better airports anyways. I just hope they realize I am not the only one that feels this way, why would I, or anyone, want a stamp to add to the tourist numbers of that evil country. What they did to Princess Diana and are currently doing to Prince Harry and his family are the very definition of evil imo.

    • Missskitttin says:

      We travel a lot! After the violent and racist treatment of H&M I would never set foot there. Yuck. They seem so tacky and cruel

    • Harla A Brazen Hussy says:

      I had long wanted to visit England, go to all the tourist destinations but no more, that country will never see a penny of my tourist money.

    • booboocita says:

      I’m on the fence. England and Scotland have long been on my travel bucket list. I still want to go, but I couldn’t care less about seeing Buckingham Palace, the Changing of the Guard, the Crown Jewels, and the whole racist/colonialist/monarchical shebang. I’d like to see the Lake Country, where Beatrix Potter lived and wrote. I’d like to visit the parsonage at Haworth, where the Bronte sisters lived and wrote. I’d like to visit Westminster Abbey — not to see where royal asses got married and buried, but to pay my respects to the many great poets, playwrights, and novelists interred or memorialized there. Literary UK is my jam — not royal UK.

    • kirk says:

      I’ve totally soured on England travel since they’ve taught me how much they hate Americans — never mind how much Willy keeps trying to win a colony that skunked his family >200 yrs ago. Their treatment of Meghan is and was abominable. When >50% of a country supports BRFCo & Assoc, I’m not interested. There are other paths from USA to Scotland that don’t go through England. And there other places to visit 🌏

      • Cessily says:

        I went to Scotland through Iceland which was a great place to schedule an extended layover in. (Coming from the states). When visiting any country in Europe now I go through Germany or Ireland both are EU.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        I’ve never wanted to go to England. Scotland and Ireland, yes. Might be due to having a lot of Irish heritage. Don’t remember which RR it was that was gleefully spouting out that Harry/H&M would be placed in Iceland seats for the crooked Big Hat Day. Recall posting that being seated in Iceland wasn’t a bad thing-probably a better thing.

        I know two people in the last year that have gone to Iceland. They both loved their experiences & food there.

  9. Amy Bee says:

    I think Harry’s main purpose in bringing this case is to expose the inner workings of the Palace. I’d be surprised if Harry wins and I think he knows that it’s quite possible that he will lose. As for the Queen providing security after Harry left, she did it for the Philip’s funeral and the Jubilee but the others times, Harry didn’t have security, hence the reason he brought the case in the first place. He filed his case after he was followed by paparazzi when he visited in July 2021 to attend the Wellchild Awards.

    • Jais says:

      Another twist that was revealed in the court filings is that Harry has to apply for security 28 days in advance and he has done so every time. And every time, he’s been denied security. Which is so messed up.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        He didn’t even get security when he visited for his father Coronation!!!!

      • Christine says:


        Holy shit. I don’t know how I can still be surprised by how awful they are, but here we are. I cannot believe he has followed their ridiculous 28 day rule, and still been denied security. PRINCE HARRY!

        Tell me again how important the monarchy is, you won’t even protect the person who will be monarch, if something happens to the Wails family.

        It’s probably time to revoke their helicopter, if you want to be extra sure Harry will never be the direct heir.

      • Jais says:

        Nope, he was not given security for the coronation from what the court files seem to say.

      • tamsin says:

        Maybe that’s why Harry left for the airport directly from Westminster Abbey- he had no protection, and every minute he was there he was in danger. How awful for Meghan to see him off to a country where his life is in danger because Harry is honourable and dutiful.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        That is some f*cked up sh*t. He wasn’t provided security for the Conanation?

        I’ll admit I got a timeline wrong. Looked back at SPARE and pg. 386 (totally missed it). 2nd sentence from the end of the page-February 2020. GAH missed that. H&M really had a love and sense of duty towards QE2 to have been told their security was being pulled at the end of March 2020 and yet, they still went back to England for the Commonwealth Service and Endeavour Awards. That iconic umbrella photo carries even more meaning to me now. They are brave.

        Meghan has never said she hated England. Harry has said how he feels about going back to London. Land of the BM. He hasn’t said he hates England. Quite the opposite.imo

    • notasugarhere says:

      What he’s also exposing is the undue royal-influence on RAVEC. RAVEC isn’t just about royal security, it is about security for other high-profile UK citizens. Do any of them have to give 28 days notice? What level of threat are those others exposed to and what level of security do they get as a result?

      What’s being exposed, and I hope is listened to, is how the royal plants on that committee are deliberately trying to bring harm to Sussex Family. Those people need to be removed from any and all RAVEC decision-making about Sussex Family moving forward. Let the other people on RAVEC make the decisions based upon the proven threat level for a high-profile UK citizen – who happens to be HRH Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex. Just as they do for others.

      • MsDoe says:

        Yes, this exactly. The disregard for the Sussex’s security is so blatant that is is clearly a feature and not a bug. That’s the point Harry’s case is revealing.
        And given the composition of the committee, it’s also clear that his security is being stripped at the behest of his own father, his children’s grandfather. His own father. Let that sink in.
        No charm offensive can ever undo this truth. And given that PW is encouraging that cruelty, it will taint him as well.

    • Jay says:

      Exactly – I doubt that Harry expects anything significant to change, he’s just exposing a rigged system. RAVEC is a government entity and should be responsible to the taxpayers, who I assume are footing the bill for all of these legal challenges.

  10. M says:

    This is why Meghan and the kids will never go back to that crusty mess. She knows that if they do, their lives are in danger. And even if he wins and they magically approve security, would you really trust them? I don’t think I would.

    • Harla A Brazen Hussy says:

      Not after royal protection officers were involved in that racist WhatsApp group, specifically targeting Meghan.

    • Libra says:

      That’s the whole point of removing security isn’t it? Keeping Meghan and the children out while allowing Harry( and only Harry), to apply for protection. They get what they want. Harry. Alone.

      • Jais says:

        Except they’re not even giving Harry security. Every time he has applied to RAVEC, he has been denied security. Not even for the kings coronation.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        Right @Jais. The whole point of removing security is not about keeping Harry in and keeping Meghan& their beautiful children out. The removal of security was about keeping Harry in line. Control. He said that at the Sandringham(sp) Summit, their security was priority. A month later, that priority was taken away because Harry didn’t back down on the Christian Jones/William business.

        In SPARE, Harry said he’ranged Pa’. Chucky Cheese didn’t answer his calls. Coincidentally, Will texted him. Will(ing) to deliver bad news.

  11. s808 says:

    I think he just wants it on record that they’re insidious. There’s no reason why he can’t pay for security, they just don’t want him to have the ability to and he wants it on paper. Historical record.

    • Jais says:

      Agree. And also for bay critics that might say he abandoned his country. Well, he’s literally going to court to be able to visit his country in a safe way. No one can accuse him of not trying.

      • Jais says:

        Any critics🙄

      • Christine says:

        Excellent point. At this point, I’m shocked the rota aren’t campaigning for Harry and Meghan to get security in England, they are clearly very bored with the Leftovers.

    • booboocita says:

      But it’s not just a question of paying for security. RAVEC can approve or deny the sharing of information about threats to persons. When Pres Biden or Dr Jill travel to the UK, they have US Secret Service protection, and RAVEC shares information/intel about threats with the Secret Service so they can better protect the Bidens. Harry can pay for his own security, but RAVEC isn’t sharing intel with his security, which makes his security less effective.

    • Tara says:

      s808, that’s a smart point of view!!

  12. Mimi says:

    Does anyone else have jumping comments? I scroll down, an ad pops up and puts me at the beginning again. Super annoying. Just me?

    • Raspin says:

      Not just you. And it is super annoying.

    • Becks1 says:

      this happens when I’m on my phone or ipad. It doesn’t happen on my computer bc my work blocks most of the ads lol. It’s super annoying though bc I lose my place in the comments. If a post has more than 20 comments or so and I’m on my phone I usually don’t bother reading or commenting (or I’ll just post a reply to one of the first 10 comments or something.)

    • Anastasia says:

      I do, it’s really bad on my phone, to the point where I have to refresh the page because there’s no way to x out of the ads. I’ve reported it to Google a few times, and I feel like I’m now visiting Celebitchy less because I can’t read it on my phone.

    • windyriver says:

      Try the DuckDuckGo app. Works well to contain the ad issue for the iPad (where I do most of my CB reading), and for my phone.

  13. Nic919 says:

    This provides more clarity as to why Meghan and the kids rarely went over to the UK when Harry went. The lack of security would matter, especially with kids.

    Now why would Harry lose his security because he had evidence that Christian Jones was leaking to Wootton? Evidence which was presented to Scotland Yard. Isn’t the normal reaction to fire the employee leaking about the family? Or at the very least a reprimand? Christian Jones is being protected over Harry and it has to be since he has information that would compromise William.

    My guess is that Jones and his partner got something on video about William , which is one of the few explanations for the Lord Chamberlain protecting a comms secretary over the then 6th in line to the throne.

    • Angie says:

      The the 100$ question. Why would they protect Christian Jones over Prince Harry. I really hope that information would come out. In any organization he would have been fired not rewarded. That has to be the ultimate betrayal to Harry.

    • sevenblue says:

      Umm.. They protected Christian because he was doing what Willy asked him to? Wasn’t that obvious? Omid said Christian asked Willy if the affair story is true. So, Will knew that his employee was trying to kill the story, but not succeeding. Christian first went to Omid to convince him to give stories in Finding Freedom to Dan, so he would write about H&M instead of Rose & Will. A few months after Omid refused, negative stories started to appear in Sun about H&M and no stories about Rose & Will. It is apparent what happened. Christian convinced Dan to kill the story and in exchange he would feed him H&M stories through his partner. Harry was on his way to expose Christian, which would lead to his own brother Willy.

  14. B says:

    The point of Harry’s case is that HOW the decision made to remove security was unlawful and violated RAVEC’s written policies and current practices. RAVEC did not conduct a risk assessment which is supposed to be done for everyone. RAVEC did not allow Harry to have representation and a member of the royal household who bore a grudge against Harry was on the decision making board which is a clear conflict of interest. Additionally when Harry abided by RAVEC’s ruling of requesting security 28 days in advance of a visit he was still being given inadequate security. Which is more evidence that Harry is being treated inferiorly to everyone else within the RAVEC cohort.

    Harry is fighting to have the same rules applied to him that are applied to everyone else. No more, no less. Could he win and when RAVEC is forced to reassess they change their rules to still exclude him or give him inferior security? Yes, BUT the new rules would have to be applied equally and would impact everyone else in the cohort as well. Do we really think former Prime Ministers, government officials and other notable figures in the UK are going to allow their security to be cut or accept inferior security just so Charles can continue to endanger his son, daughter in law, and grandkids?

    I think not.

    • ArtHistorian says:

      What this case really lays bare is the fact that Harry’s father abuses his son with the full might of the Establishment in the UK, and he does that as the Head of State. This is, in essence, a case of corruption where an organizational body under the government is corrupted at the request of the institution that supports the HoS (an unelected one). It is utterly jaw-dropping that the other representatives on RAVEC just went along with a completely unorthodox procedure and decision because that is what the royal institution wanted).

      In short, the HoS is corrupting a governmental body due to a familial conflict. And he has been allowed to do so – and the worst consequence of this corruption could be the loss of innocent life. It also exposes the fiction that the BRF and the Monarch has no power and is mainly ceremonial.

      Charles and his courtiers are stupid – because this case not only exposes corruption (which I find to be the most serious aspect of this case), it also gives life to all the conspiracy theories about his ex-wife’s death (the woman whose son he is now placing in danger). Charles wanted to punish Harry and try to force him into submission – and now the spotlight has been put on things that actually makes the entire institution vulnerable because one man should have the power to use the full might of the governmental to punish his son for private reasons.

  15. Becks1 says:

    the July 2020 timeline compared with February or March 2020 is interesting – I feel like H&M made it sound like they were cut off when in Canada and that combined with the border closing had them going to Tyler Perry’s. Did they not have security when they came back for their Bad Bitch tour?

    We’ve seen July 2020 more than once and I wonder if that’s more a technical thing than anything -if Charles still had H&M on his books until then even though he wasn’t supporting them at all after March 2020.

    Regardless, i’m glad Harry is exposing some of these inner dealings even if the end result will still be that he doesn’t have security in the UK – its clear his security was yanked as a way of punishing/controlling him, and that’s just really disturbing.

    Someone the other day commented that Diana’s death was the best thing that happened to the royals and no way would Charles have cried at her death. But it seems that way now, 26 years later. At the time, her death was a huge crisis for the royals. It was probably one of the biggest crises of QEII’s reign.

    And it likely could have been prevented had Diana had RPOs who were actually interested in protecting her.

    So all that to say – its clear to me that Charles has forgotten what a big crisis that was, because he seems fine with a repeat of it with his son and DIL and grandchildren. If something happened to them that could have been prevented had they had appropriate security – it would be a huge crisis for the monarchy. And I cant believe Charles doesn’t realize that. he may not love his son, but he loves his crown and you would think he would try to protect that at all costs.

  16. Mads says:

    I think the only satisfaction Harry will obtain from this case is putting all the underhand and vindictive actions of RAVEC and the institution (Charles) in the public domain. I sincerely hope Harry applies for US citizenship once the judgement is handed down. This country is run by the establishment and it protects the monarchy; Harry is seen as a direct threat and will always be expendable. It’s utterly disgusting.

  17. Jais says:

    Just adding, this is one area where the RF and the press are not aligned. The BM would likely prefer the Sussexes to still have frogmore and security and the ability to come for short visits with the kids. Imagine the stories that could be generated. Whereas Charles and William seem to want the family fully exiled.

    • kirk says:

      “Just adding, this is one area where the RF and the press are not aligned.” Doubt it. The ‘Assoc’ part of BRFCo & Assoc has no problem running stories on Meghan and her children. Even if it’s only to pose questions which they then answer themselves. Plus there are brit stringers submitting junk stories to receptive US outlets (Daily Beast, Newsweek, Page 6, Elle, Marie Claire, San Jose Mercury News, US Weekly, Yahoo, etc.).

  18. Thelma says:

    King Charles, Prince William and the grey men in the palaces are scum and so petty. It’s disgusting. So glad Harry and Meghan are away from this dysfunctional inbred family and enjoying the California life.

    • Mary Pester says:

      And in the words of princess Margaret, “that which they can’t control, they seek to destroy”. Or in Harry’s case, they have given others carte blanch to destroy him. They took away security from him and his family, and let every nutter on the planet know they had, so target painted LARGE AND LOUD. They tried to “Diana” her son the sick bastards, and these dates also prove what lieing shits the British press are about WHEN Charlie cut the funds of. Will Harry win this one, I don’t know, I would like to think so, but, what it has done is shown the rest of the world what bastards his family are, and what liars. The press are still telling lies by omission, as are the barristers representing RAVEC. They are not admitting that Harry offered to PAY for his security, or that he also employs his own private security detail

  19. Mary S says:

    There has to be so much more to this story than a vindictive, petty sovereign and a rage-filled jealous heir.

  20. Beverley says:

    Dogsh*t Charlie wants his “Darling Boy” dead. Period.
    He sees Harry as a race traitor and a whistleblower who must be punished.
    Charles wants to look wise and reasonable to the rest of the world, but inside he is seething, enraged, and wishing he had the murderous power of his predecessors.

    He already succeeded with Diana. He’d prefer to eliminate Meghan and the mixed race kids who “thickened“ the blue blooded royal DNA and save Harry. But he absolutely WILL destroy Harry to save his own (or Queen Jump Off’s) hide.

  21. Myeh says:

    I really liked Diana. She went through the same situation as Harry is facing now except the stakes are much higher now as his wife and children are also put in harms way on purpose. It was sad how Diana experienced that level of coercive control and died because of it. I hope her son and his family survive and thrive and bring the monarchy down. I think the reason the world stopped and grieved Diana the way that it did was because she was so loved and on some level everyone knew the grave injustice to her and felt awful about how she went. I have never seen such an outpouring of love everywhere for her. Imagine if the public knew then what Harry is trying to break the lid off now that would have ended the monarchy right then.

    • sevenblue says:

      I think Diana had a few more things going against her. Her children were part of the firm, so she could never break away fully like H&M. Also, even though British media doesn’t write about it, H&M have many powerful people on their side thanks to Meghan’s American connections. Although Harry is scared for his family’s security, he also has them as a source of strength. He is fighting the tabloids for Meghan and for their children’s future. Harry said, he couldn’t imagine how his mother went through the same things all alone.

  22. JaneS says:

    Every time anyone brings up security for Harry and his family, my #1 thought is that Diana was killed deliberately. I do not care a fig if anyone agrees with me or not. I still think The Firm had a solid hand in her death. Period.

    #2. Look at the unhinged threat to so many celebs now days. Stalkers increasing, more celebs getting their own security, etc.

    A single man with a gun killed John Lennon in broad daylight, on the street, by simply walking up to him.

    Harry and his family certainly are constantly in need of security.
    KC is a billionaire. What else needs to be said?

    If harm comes to Harry or his family, I think that will bring the monarchy to an end.

  23. Tara says:

    This is an unbelievable, intolerable approach. It’s not human, it’s solely a power play. Anyone following this must inevitably come to the conclusion that they have given Harry and his family the boot, right? I immediately think of the circumstances surrounding Diana’s death. And that they both stood in the way of the monarchy’s interests – or knew too much. Either way, they became very uncomfortable. And is it really disproven that James H. is not Harry’s father? He once said in an interview that the RF made sure he never got a foot on the ground again. Not even abroad. At the time I thought he was full of himself. But now… It’s obviously the RF’s modernized playbook – page 137, banish people to the dungeon.