The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 9: August 2023 - July 2024

[shady lady]

Good for HRH The Duchess of Sussex for being unbothered and living her own life.

If that's true, it says a lot doesn't it?

Unbothered about the two Dutch translators whose professionalism and integrity are being questioned as a result of their mouthpiece's book?

Unbothered about all the other people who have been affected by her and PH's behaviour? (too many to mention here - those we know about)

There is nothing good about a person living a life where other people are affected or damaged by their actions. It's not a healthy way to live.

Indeed, if a person is consumed with bitterness, and jealousy for others, and goes out of their way to attack, or seek "revenge"; if someone is indeed living rent free inside their head, then they are not living their own life at all.

Acknowledge wrongdoing, seek forgiveness, learn to forgive, move on. Then a person can live their own life (I speak from experience).

In H&M's case, where damage has been done on an industrial scale (and in a very public way), they need to understand it will not just disappear when they want it to, it cannot be undone, and they may well never be forgiven by those affected, and understandably so, or trusted again. They have to learn to live with it and the consequences. If they are unbothered by that, it speaks volumes.

Just my opinion.

As for HRH The Duke of Sussex's case to pay the police to be his private security...I don't think he'll win, especially if there are other people just as famous if not more who don't do so. It might just be the final break he needs from Great Britain, however. If he doesn't feel that his family is safe without this measure, than neither his wife nor children will probably set foot in Great Britain again, and he would be less inclined to do so without them unless absolutely necessary.

From here in the UK, I would say this is already happening.

 

[winifred]

This case isn't about changing the decision which has already been made, ie that Harry will get security in the UK on a case by case basis. It's about whether that decision was made fairly. Harry maintains it wasn't because he didn't testify, because Sir Edward Young, a member of the Royal Household with whom Harry has "tensions", was on the committee etc.

If Harry wins the case it simply means Ravec reconsiders its decision and, almost certainly, comes to the same conclusion.

On Friday this week there will be a decision in another of Harry's cases where he sued Associated Newspapers for "misrepresenting him in an article last February, which says his PR team tried to put a spin on his legal fight with the British government." Harry's lawsuit said "the Mail on Sunday article implied Harry was putting a PR spin on his offer to pay for this protection and that this only came at a later date, while Harry argues he suggested it all along." (I think he said he suggested it at the Sandringham Summit, but I may be misremembering. Please correct me.)

If Harry had come to the UK for the current case (5-7 Dec) I imagine he might have stayed to hear the Friday verdict, but it seems unlikely he'd come just for one day. (Friday 8 Dec is also the day of Kate's Christmas Carol concert.)

 

[Mbruno]

This case isn't about changing the decision which has already been made, ie that Harry will get security in the UK on a case by case basis. It's about whether that decision was made fairly. Harry maintains it wasn't because he didn't testify, because Sir Edward Young, a member of the Royal Household with whom Harry has "tensions", was on the committee etc.

If Harry wins the case it simply means Ravec reconsiders its decision and, almost certainly, comes to the same conclusion.

On Friday this week there will be a decision in another of Harry's cases where he sued Associated Newspapers for "misrepresenting him in an article last February, which says his PR team tried to put a spin on his legal fight with the British government." Harry's lawsuit said "the Mail on Sunday article implied Harry was putting a PR spin on his offer to pay for this protection and that this only came at a later date, while Harry argues he suggested it all along." (I think he said he suggested it at the Sandringham Summit, but I may be misremembering. Please correct me.)

Regardless of whether he wins or loses this latest case against the Mail on Sunday, Harry cannot go on suing newspapers whenever they publish something he disagrees with, in particular when the source of the disagreement qualifies under opinion, interpretation, or fair comment on a matter of public interest. That is not reasonable in practice, especially in a country where the press is free and will keep publishing negative articles about him anyway.

 

[TLLK]

Quote:
Originally Posted by HenRach Dominion
Good for HRH The Duchess of Sussex for being unbothered and living her own life.

If that's true, it says a lot doesn't it?

Unbothered about the two Dutch translators whose professionalism and integrity are being questioned as a result of their mouthpiece's book?

Unbothered about all the other people who have been affected by her and PH's behaviour? (too many to mention here - those we know about)

There is nothing good about a person living a life where other people are affected or damaged by their actions. It's not a healthy way to live.

Indeed, if a person is consumed with bitterness, and jealousy for others, and goes out of their way to attack, or seek "revenge"; if someone is indeed living rent free inside their head, then they are not living their own life at all.

Acknowledge wrongdoing, seek forgiveness, learn to forgive, move on. Then a person can live their own life (I speak from experience).

In H&M's case, where damage has been done on an industrial scale (and in a very public way), they need to understand it will not just disappear when they want it to, it cannot be undone, and they may well never be forgiven by those affected, and understandably so, or trusted again. They have to learn to live with it and the consequences. If they are unbothered by that, it speaks volumes.

Just my opinion.

An opinion that I happen to agree with Shady Lady.

 

[duchessrachel]

Very true. Failure to recognise the full ramifications of Harry's decisions prior to them being made will be something he will live to regret for the rest of his days.

If he isn't already, I think one day he will regret giving up his royal role. He was well-loved and a natural at his work. I think as the years pass, he will miss his family more and more. Unfortunately, there is hurt there that will never completely be healed. Even if there is a rapprochement at some point, they will never completely trust him again. The choices he and Meghan have made are saddening.

 

[TLLK]

You cannot pay for police protection in the UK. They do however police big public order events.

It was entirely rational and proportional for him to have his security removed. I mean he has spent, what a handful of nights here in a year. Less then. This is point scoring. How dare you treat me as anything other than the Prince I am. What does he want from them? He isn’t getting security while he is aboard. Hen ever comes to England. Of he wants to stay on guarded property, he has it anyway.

Thank you for the information Fig Tree as there appears to be some continuing confusion about the police providing security at large public order events.

 

[Ista]

Several posts have been removed. Once again, I am reminding you that this is a thread for current events, not for unsubstantiated theories, rehashing of old news or theories, or settling scores. It drags the discussion off topic, and is tedious for members who have had to wade through similar off topic discussions frequently over the last few years. Further posts along those lines will be removed.

 

[Hallo girl]

Thank you for the information Fig Tree as there appears to be some continuing confusion about the police providing security at large public order events.

As far as I am aware he is asking for armed police protection, basically what he had when he lived and worked here.

 

[TLLK]

As far as I am aware he is asking for armed police protection, basically what he had when he lived and worked here.

That he's asking for armed protection similar to when he was a working royal is significant.

 

[tommy100]

He wanted to pay for police protection including armed officers (as no civilian "bodyguards" are permitted to carry guns in the UK). HE argued this was in part because of access intelligence reports, liaising with police, current practices etc.
The problem is in the UK no one can pay for protection from the police. Either you are deemed a threat (at any level) and the police deem it necessary to protect you thus pick up the bill, or they don't deem there is a threat and don't provide protection.

The only possible "exception" to this is a rather different situation where big football teams pay something towards the costs for the policing operations around football matches - e.g. Liverpool FC pay towards the cost of the huge number of police on duty at Anfield on a Saturday match day. However, its important to note polices forces consider their role as being "responsible for preventing and detecting crime and disorder when present". They are not there as bodyguards but because putting 50,000 people (often with drink and on opposing teams) together in a stadium for hours will result in illegal stuff going down. It is also important to note football clubs only pay for police inside stadia not in the streets outside it since a legal challenge in 2012.

Other than this (which is really more a case of "recovering" costs than any old organisation being able to pay for police support) no one is able to pay for police protection.

I am intrigued by the case because, if the UK police don't allow charging for police protection there is no way this could be part of the overall "considerations" of Harry's security provision. In many ways it is irrelevant to Ravec's decision as it isn't allowed so the decision to be made was; no protection at all, protection on basis of risk assessment (which he got), or full time protection. Harry's willingness to pay for it is completely irrelevant.

 

[FigTree]

He wanted to pay for police protection including armed officers (as no civilian "bodyguards" are permitted to carry guns in the UK). HE argued this was in part because of access intelligence reports, liaising with police, current practices etc.
The problem is in the UK no one can pay for protection from the police. Either you are deemed a threat (at any level) and the police deem it necessary to protect you thus pick up the bill, or they don't deem there is a threat and don't provide protection.

The only possible "exception" to this is a rather different situation where big football teams pay something towards the costs for the policing operations around football matches - e.g. Liverpool FC pay towards the cost of the huge number of police on duty at Anfield on a Saturday match day. However, its important to note polices forces consider their role as being "responsible for preventing and detecting crime and disorder when present". They are not there as bodyguards but because putting 50,000 people (often with drink and on opposing teams) together in a stadium for hours will result in illegal stuff going down. It is also important to note football clubs only pay for police inside stadia not in the streets outside it since a legal challenge in 2012.

Other than this (which is really more a case of "recovering" costs than any old organisation being able to pay for police support) no one is able to pay for police protection.

I am intrigued by the case because, if the UK police don't allow charging for police protection there is no way this could be part of the overall "considerations" of Harry's security provision. In many ways it is irrelevant to Ravec's decision as it isn't allowed so the decision to be made was; no protection at all, protection on basis of risk assessment (which he got), or full time protection. Harry's willingness to pay for it is completely irrelevant.

It is a pointless case. If won, the decision returns to Ravec and they will 10 to 1 say the same thing. What is coming about about him isn’t great either. He gave them 17. Look I just think if you are dealing with organisations like this you do what is asked. Problem is Harry hasn’t realised that people have been doing that for him for years.

 

[travelguy]

Good for HRH The Duchess of Sussex for being unbothered and living her own life.

As for HRH The Duke of Sussex's case to pay the police to be his private security...I don't think he'll win, especially if there are other people just as famous if not more who don't do so. It might just be the final break he needs from Great Britain, however. If he doesn't feel that his family is safe without this measure, than neither his wife nor children will probably set foot in Great Britain again, and he would be less inclined to do so without them unless absolutely necessary.

Of course they will set foot in the UK again, either for celebrations or sad times I'm sure we will see them sometime

 

[Ghost]

New day, new contradiction. Harry says they were forced to leave UK. Their manifesto said clearly the “chose” to leave, by words and by meaning.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-hears-legal-battle-Home-Office-security.html

 

[Katymcwaity]

The review is about procedural unfairness

But how could they not deviate when they faced with a unique situation?

It will be interesting to read the judgement which ever way it goes

 

[Hallo girl]

The review is about procedural unfairness

But how could they not deviate when they faced with a unique situation?

It will be interesting to read the judgement which ever way it goes

I agree, the Home Office claim they had planned a bespoke arrangement when Harry and his family were coming to the UK> .

 

[Alison H]

Does he expect state-provided security when he visits, say, France, where a German tourist was recently stabbed to death? No. So why should he expect it in the UK? He no longer plays any more public role here than he does in any other country.

 

[Ghost]

The review is about procedural unfairness

But how could they not deviate when they faced with a unique situation?

It will be interesting to read the judgement which ever way it goes

Yeah, but his written statement today is a monument of hipocrisy in my opinion.

And if he wants to be treated like the son of a king he should start acting like one.

 

[shady lady]

Yeah, but his written statement today is a monument of hipocrisy in my opinion.

And if he wants to be treated like the son of a king he should start acting like one.

I agree with you on both counts, but I honestly don't think he is capable of behaving rationally and like an adult; he's too damaged, sadly.

 

[TLLK]

New day, new contradiction. Harry says they were forced to leave UK. Their manifesto said clearly the “chose” to leave, by words and by meaning.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-hears-legal-battle-Home-Office-security.html

That is very different viewpoint from the one released in January 2020 when they stepped back from senior royal duties.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

New day, new contradiction. Harry says they were forced to leave UK. Their manifesto said clearly the “chose” to leave, by words and by meaning.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-hears-legal-battle-Home-Office-security.html

There's absolutely no contradiction to what he's previously said. Have you even read the article?

Being "forced to leave" and choosing to leave isn't mutually exclusive. They chose to leave because they didn't feel secure – that's always been his stance, that it was a decision he was forced to make in order to protect his wife and children.

 

[star84]

That is very different viewpoint from the one released in January 2020 when they stepped back from senior royal duties.

And how is it that all the press have access to this specific part of a statement, when only the opening statements on day 1 were able to be reported on due to security concerns?

 

[EllieCat]

PHarry is a very bitter person, IMO. He may have cause; he may not. Whatever the situation, it certainly looks as though both sides of the (Windsor) family look at things totally differently, and I doubt they will ever find common ground, but hopefully perhaps I'm wrong and time may heal some wounds.

 

[AnnieCat]

How are Harry and his family safer in the U.S. with private security (which may or may not be very good) versus in the U.K. With normal Royal protection? Not to mention the number of guns in circulation here.

I’ve also read statements that H and M are angry that they did not get more protection from the press. What exactly was the royal establishment supposed to do about the press?

I’m a Yank so although I’m interested I’m not necessarily current on all this.

 

[Hallo girl]

There's absolutely no contradiction to what he's previously said. Have you even read the article?

Being "forced to leave" and choosing to leave isn't mutually exclusive. They chose to leave because they didn't feel secure – that's always been his stance, that it was a decision he was forced to make in order to protect his wife and children.

When they announced via the website in January 2020 that they were moving abroad to live it was about earning their own living, not accepting anything from the Sovereign grant. They actually said something to the effect of their personal security continuing as Internationally renowned people (paraphrased).
I am now becoming confused by these statements that they left the UK because they didn’t feel safe. They obviously expected the security to continue when they moved abroad.

 

[Mbruno]

Here is the BBC link quoting Harry's claim that "he was forced to step down" as a working royal, rather than being his choice.

I suppose his argument is that he wanted to be a part-time working royal under the half in/ half out arrangement, but was "forced" to step down because of the Royal Family's inflexibility to accept his demands. And, then, in his view, he was additionally punished by losing his state-funded security, which now prevents him from coming back (as his wife and children are "not safe" in the UK).

 

[TLLK]

Here is the BBC link quoting Harry's claim that "he was forced to step down" as a working royal, rather than being his choice.

I suppose his argument is that he wanted to be a part-time working royal under the half in/ half out arrangement, but was "forced" to step down because of the Royal Family's inflexibility to accept his demands. And, then, in his view, he was additionally punished by losing his state-funded security, which now prevents him from coming back (as his wife and children are "not safe" in the UK).

They were offered the opportunity to return to their royal duties in one year which would have been at the end of March 2021. If they truly believed they were "forced out" and concerned for their safety, then why didn't they return?

 

[Mbruno]

They were offered the opportunity to return to their royal duties in one year which would have been at the end of March 2021. If they truly believed they were "forced out" and concerned for their safety, then why didn't they return?

To be clear, that was only my interpretation of what I think Harry's reasoning is. His barrister just quoted him as saying he was forced to step down and claiming that he can't come back to the UK because it is not safe for him and his family.

 

[A Tudor]

They were offered the opportunity to return to their royal duties in one year which would have been at the end of March 2021. If they truly believed they were "forced out" and concerned for their safety, then why didn't they return?

Because Harry was mad HE couldn't FORCE the Royal Family to accept his demands.

Twisting facts and half-truths are their bread and butter.

 

[TLLK]

To be clear, that was only my interpretation of what I think Harry's reasoning is. His barrister just quoted him as saying he was forced to step down and claiming that he can't come back to the UK because it is not safe for him and his family.

Thanks Mbruno

 

[Katymcwaity]

When they announced via the website in January 2020 that they were moving abroad to live it was about earning their own living, not accepting anything from the Sovereign grant. They actually said something to the effect of their personal security continuing as Internationally renowned people (paraphrased).
I am now becoming confused by these statements that they left the UK because they didn’t feel safe. They obviously expected the security to continue when they moved abroad.

I think the nub of it is that if he was international protective person, then basically he wouldn’t be paying for any security anywhere in the world.