Harry & Meghan

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which is why I can't get particularly animated over the term, even though as an atheist (and indeed anyone else other than a member of the CofE) it seems deeply divisive. It is really just an anachronistic title, without meaning beyond the notion that the Queen is the head of the CofE (something that should also change).

However if a new monarch tried to make is 'relevant' by changing it to 'defender of faiths' then I would have a problem - that would be a deliberate move and one which couldn't be just tossed away as either anachronistic nor merely reflecting the monarch's role in the CofE. It would be a clear indication that the monarch feels that those in the UK with religious faith need protecting - protecting from who, well presumably those of us in the UK without religious faith. That would place the monarch as clearly 'siding' with the religious and against the non religious.

or it could demonstrate the Cyrus like role of a monarch in the face of a vulpine secular humanism, on behalf of the religious minority.

[SteveH]

or it could demonstrate the Cyrus like role of a monarch in the face of a vulpine secular humanism, on behalf of the religious minority.

What prize bollocks you come out with.

[SusanDoris]

Well, all you kiljoy, dump-the-monarchy people are going to get quite a big surprise when the Queen dies in my opinion!:) Charles, or William if Charles has for some reason died, which is doubtful I'd imagine, will step into the role, be crowned King ina a well-planned immaculately presented and rehearsed ceremony, where large crowds wil  line the route and the world will watch on TV. And everything will settle nicely back into normal, whatever the normal is at that time.

I hope I shall be here to see it, but bearing in mind the Queen's excellent health and my history, it is probably doubtful!

[Nearly Sane]

Well, all you kiljoy, dump-the-monarchy people are going to get quite a big surprise when the Queen dies in my opinion!:) Charles, or William if Charles has for some reason died, which is doubtful I'd imagine, will step into the role, be crowned King ina a well-planned immaculately presented and rehearsed ceremony, where large crowds wil  line the route and the world will watch on TV. And everything will settle nicely back into normal, whatever the normal is at that time.

I hope I shall be here to see it, but bearing in mind the Queen's excellent health and my history, it is probably doubtful!

And the protection of Andrew will continue because who cares what he did.

[ProfessorDavey]

Well, all you kiljoy, dump-the-monarchy people are going to get quite a big surprise when the Queen dies in my opinion!:) Charles, or William if Charles has for some reason died, which is doubtful I'd imagine, will step into the role, be crowned King ina a well-planned immaculately presented and rehearsed ceremony, where large crowds wil  line the route and the world will watch on TV. And everything will settle nicely back into normal, whatever the normal is at that time.

I hope I shall be here to see it, but bearing in mind the Queen's excellent health and my history, it is probably doubtful!

I don't think that is what will happen - particularly if (as we must expect) Charles becomes King. He wont retain the Queen's huge levels of support amongst the public - he isn't widely liked nor respected amongst the UK populace and nothing is going to change that as the public have had plenty of time to make up their minds. Being King wont suddenly make him popular.

So I think there will be a pretty major shift in opinions on the monarchy and the royals when the Queen dies. I don't think it will happen instantly - there will be a sympathy rebound and a ceremony rebound. But once Charles is fully ensconced and on the throne for a year or so there will be a diminution of support.

Will it be enough to make a republic likely - I doubt it, but it will be difficult to reverse.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I wouldn't get too invested. Like most people, members of the RF probably spend a lot of time lying to themselves and re-writing their personal narratives. The respective PR people are also busy earning their high fees by adding spin before comments are released.

Harry can stick 2 fingers up to the RF but let's face it, the effect is kind of diluted by him whining about daddy cutting him off financially while he sits in a large mansion in an expensive, exclusive celebrity neighbourhood in the middle of a pandemic. His own special narrative about his mother's dysfunctional relationship with the media also doesn't help his credibility. The whole "we want privacy we want to be in the media oh but wait we need to protect Archie from the media but wait we want to be in in the media" flip-flop to try to squeeze money from his dad just looks daft coming from 2 adults in their his 30s. 

Meg's main gripe seems to be that the Palace employees are not focusing their time on intervening to counter negative stories appearing about her in the international media. She is convinced it's all due to racism and once Meg lets it be known publicly that she has this expectation it just leads to more negative stories in the media...which she then expects the Palace to intervene to counter.

I am guessing what happened was that as she was only married to the spare, the Palace probably prioritised the main royals - the Queen, Charles, Wills, his wife and kids and for Meg that's proof of racism as opposed to a sensible allocation of limited resources on the important royals. Fergie did not get the Palace intervening to combat negative stories about her in the media. But Megs thinks she is special because she has brown skin and also playing the race card could be a good money-spinner to pay for the mansion.

I know it's been a long time since we discussed these 2 and their business decision to quit playing Royal to go make some serious money in the US by raising their public and media profile while controlling their own publicity without being subject to the protocols of 'The Firm' i.e. the people who run the institution of the UK Monarchy.

But I notice Harry has cropped up again - apparently he is trying to sue the government as he wants a Judicial Review of the decision to not give him and his family their own British police protection if they visit Britain - Harry and Meghan are offering to pay for it themselves for the time they are in the UK. Apparently the British government and Intelligence services have determined that unless there is a specific, credible threat, people who are not working royals do not get automatic police protection when they fly in to visit. There is also not a pool of spare police officers sitting around for celebrities to hire if they are worried about security.

Harry's legal representative says Harry's security was compromised during his last visit to the UK to unveil the statue of his mother. But as far as anyone can tell the only thing that happened was Harry was chased by a few photographers trying to get his picture. I can understand why Harry does not want photographers getting unauthorised pictures as Harry and Meghan want to control their media profile as it's more lucrative for them if they control the pictures and their privacy. Harry thinks the government has got their understanding of UK law wrong. This should be interesting if it ever gets to court.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-harry-claims-it-is-too-dangerous-to-return-to-britain-sdzktl8xl

“The Duke and Duchess of Sussex personally fund a private security team for their family, yet that security cannot replicate the necessary police protection needed whilst in the UK. In the absence of such protection, Prince Harry and his family are unable to return to his home.”

Lilibet, who is seven months old, has yet to meet her great-grandmother, the Queen, the Prince of Wales and other members of the family. Meghan, 40, has not returned to the UK since March 2020.

Win or lose - genius way for Harry and Meghan to generate publicity for themselves and keep their names in the media to help them negotiate their million-dollar deals with Netflix etc: "poor Sussex children can't meet their relatives because of the mean UK government; Queen of England old and this may be the last chance to meet but not interested because the children are half-black." 

Good news is Harry and Meghan are now worth far more than they could have ever hoped to be worth if they had stayed in the UK, so hopefully they will count their blessings, live fabulously wealthy lives in designer clothes and wonderful modern mansion in LA, raising their media profile with their celebrity friends and highlighting worthy causes to keep themselves relevant, and we get far less of their self-entitled whinging in the UK Press.

But yes I can see how their narcissistic tendencies might cause them to demand police protection from the Paparazzi if they come to the UK. It would also be helpful for their business interests for them not to be seen as somehow lesser royals - the many millions they are now worth might still not make them feel as important as the police escort given to William and Kate.

[Outrider]

I know it's been a long time since we discussed these 2 and their business decision to quit playing Royal to go make some serious money in the US by raising their public and media profile while controlling their own publicity without being subject to the protocols of 'The Firm' i.e. the people who run the institution of the UK Monarchy.

But I notice Harry has cropped up again - apparently he is trying to sue the government as he wants a Judicial Review of the decision to not give him and his family their own British police protection if they visit Britain - Harry and Meghan are offering to pay for it themselves for the time they are in the UK. Apparently the British government and Intelligence services have determined that unless there is a specific, credible threat, people who are not working royals do not get automatic police protection when they fly in to visit. There is also not a pool of spare police officers sitting around for celebrities to hire if they are worried about security.

Harry's legal representative says Harry's security was compromised during his last visit to the UK to unveil the statue of his mother. But as far as anyone can tell the only thing that happened was Harry was chased by a few photographers trying to get his picture. I can understand why Harry does not want photographers getting unauthorised pictures as Harry and Meghan want to control their media profile as it's more lucrative for them if they control the pictures and their privacy. Harry thinks the government has got their understanding of UK law wrong. This should be interesting if it ever gets to court.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-harry-claims-it-is-too-dangerous-to-return-to-britain-sdzktl8xl

“The Duke and Duchess of Sussex personally fund a private security team for their family, yet that security cannot replicate the necessary police protection needed whilst in the UK. In the absence of such protection, Prince Harry and his family are unable to return to his home.”

Lilibet, who is seven months old, has yet to meet her great-grandmother, the Queen, the Prince of Wales and other members of the family. Meghan, 40, has not returned to the UK since March 2020.

Win or lose - genius way for Harry and Meghan to generate publicity for themselves and keep their names in the media to help them negotiate their million-dollar deals with Netflix etc: "poor Sussex children can't meet their relatives because of the mean UK government; Queen of England old and this may be the last chance to meet but not interested because the children are half-black." 

Good news is Harry and Meghan are now worth far more than they could have ever hoped to be worth if they had stayed in the UK, so hopefully they will count their blessings, live fabulously wealthy lives in designer clothes and wonderful modern mansion in LA, raising their media profile with their celebrity friends and highlighting worthy causes to keep themselves relevant, and we get far less of their self-entitled whinging in the UK Press.

But yes I can see how their narcissistic tendencies might cause them to demand police protection from the Paparazzi if they come to the UK. It would also be helpful for their business interests for them not to be seen as somehow lesser royals - the many millions they are now worth might still not make them feel as important as the police escort given to William and Kate.

I get your take on it, I can't speak to their motivation, I don't pay very much attention to articles about them - I was vaguely aware from headlines that he'd been denied police protection, I didn't realise they'd been happy to pay for it.

All I'd say as a partial qualification is that the 'only thing' that happened to his mother was that she was 'chased by a few photographers', and look how that ended up. He may be cynical enough to just leverage that for publicity, she might be leading him on this, I don't know their dynamics, but underneath it all I'd imagine that his understanding of being followed by paparazzi might be more emotionally charged than yours or mine.

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I get your take on it, I can't speak to their motivation, I don't pay very much attention to articles about them - I was vaguely aware from headlines that he'd been denied police protection, I didn't realise they'd been happy to pay for it.

All I'd say as a partial qualification is that the 'only thing' that happened to his mother was that she was 'chased by a few photographers', and look how that ended up. He may be cynical enough to just leverage that for publicity, she might be leading him on this, I don't know their dynamics, but underneath it all I'd imagine that his understanding of being followed by paparazzi might be more emotionally charged than yours or mine.

O.

Yes I do understand that his emotional reaction is based on his perception of past events about his mother. And emotions are often immune to facts. His mother died because her chauffeur was drunk-driving - according to the autopsy. The alcohol affected his judgement and he did not mention that he was over the limit when Dodi asked him to drive and he started speeding through a tunnel and crashed. Yes it was to get away from media photographers who were chasing them. But Dodi and Di could have stayed at the hotel instead of leaving chased by Paps. They could have decided not to try to use the media when it suited them, by tipping of photographers in their media war with the Royal Family.

I think Harry and Meghan are trying to reign the media in, and trying to use UK police resources for that purpose. Good luck to them but I don't really have any interest in using police resources to support celebrity wars against the Press.   

ETA: I think the main cause of Diana's death was a car-crash caused by erratic driving of the chauffeur who was under the influence of alcohol. So I think Harry, like other high-profile individuals who face death threats (JK Rowling, MPs etc), should be ok if his private security detail do not drink on the job or make other serious errors of judgement when it comes to out-running photographers.

It was interesting that in the statement Harry's legal representative made sure to mention Harry's connection to the Royal Family and his war record (well-known US PR tactic).   What a great opportunity to publicise that “Prince Harry inherited a security risk at birth, for life. He remains sixth in line to the throne, served two tours of combat duty in Afghanistan, and in recent years his family has been subjected to well-documented neo-Nazi and extremist threats. While his role within the institution has changed, his profile as a member of the royal family has not. Nor has the threat to him and his family.”

ETA: Almost forgot - main cause of Diana's death is she was not wearing a seatbelt. The only guy who was wearing a seat-belt survived. Henri Paul (the driver), Dodi and Diana were not wearing seatbelts and died.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/1/newsid_2493000/2493315.stm

And Harry and Meghan keep making sure they mention their royal connections as a way of making money, so they are not doing anything to reduce their Royal profile even if their connection endangers their lives as they claim - though do not see how they are more at risk than say Princess Anne, who actually faced an attempted kidnapping when she was young, but is not living in terror with permanent police protection. 

I assume they need the money to live a certain lifestyle - Harry would claim it's only to pay for the security but given the mansion, its location, the designer clothes, the private jets  - I think as usual Harry has his own version of the 'truth' https://pagesix.com/2021/09/27/prince-harry-meghan-markle-take-private-jet-after-global-citizen-live/

[splashscuba]

Just my 2 penneth worth.

There is some risk to him and his familly due to his previous service in the military and that he gets so much publicity. I think offering to pay for police protection is a very reasonable compromise.

He and Megan do get a dis proportionate amount of negative press (here's just one comparison):

https://www.boredpanda.com/uk-media-double-standarts-royal-meghan-markle-kate-middleton/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic

I saw an article yesterday complaining about the companies that they are setting up. Why this should be a problem given that many people do this. Why single them out yet again.

I'm certainly not a fan of royalty (or ex royalty) but do think the press (UK anyway) have it in for them.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yes - there is some risk. There has not however been any mention of any credible threats based on his tours of Afghanistan about 9 -10 years ago. If there is a credible threat he has been told the police protection will be provided.

Regarding payment for police protection, the principle seems to be that the police are not for hire for people who do not face a credible threat. I believe Harry has been made aware that the resources do not exist as there is no employment agency with a list of off-duty specially trained policemen waiting to be deployed for hand-holding duties for neurotic celebrities. Therefore currently employed police would have to be pulled off existing duties to help Harry and Meghan not have their pictures taken without their permission. 

If there is no credible threat then many people including other members of the Royal Family who do not have constant police protection and who also face some risk, manage to visit family members without all this drama, if they really want to see them.

The threat of bad press is not something against which the police are usually employed to provide protection. Many celebrities, attention-seeking people, high-profile people including other members of the Royal Family face bad press, intrusive photographs and loss of privacy. Hence many people prefer to not seek out high-profile roles but Harry and Meghan seek publicity, along with their connections to the Royal Family, in order to get the Netflix deals to fund their lifestyle. This Judicial Review is one way of getting publicity for their soap-opera lives.

[splashscuba]

but Harry and Meghan seek publicity, along with their connections to the Royal Family, in order to get the Netflix deals to fund their lifestyle.

.. is an readily used method by many of our celebrities around the world. So what. They are still a target by the usual suspect press more than the majority of celebrities. I see no evidence of a balanced press, but a concerted effort to smear them.

I'm certainly no fan of celebrities as a whole and them in particular.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

.. is an readily used method by many of our celebrities around the world. So what. They are still a target by the usual suspect press more than the majority of celebrities. I see no evidence of a balanced press, but a concerted effort to smear them.

I'm certainly no fan of celebrities as a whole and them in particular.

I agree celebrities who seek publicity make themselves more of a target for the press.

That isn't usually a reason for the UK government to divert police resources - to give celebrities police protection from unfair stories in the press.

Kate faced smear stories when she and William were together after university - they only started being nice to her after many years of giving her a hard time. The press are arbitrary and fickle and aren't very nice as their business model seems to be to manufacture news rather than just report it. Hence, it seems dangerous to try to use the press for your own agenda as they cannot be controlled - much like social media, which invites its own trolls to attention-seeking people.

Harry seems to have got the publicity he needs - good or bad it's all publicity and helps fund their L.A. lifestyle. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Just my 2 penneth worth.

There is some risk to him and his familly due to his previous service in the military and that he gets so much publicity. I think offering to pay for police protection is a very reasonable compromise.

He and Megan do get a dis proportionate amount of negative press (here's just one comparison):

https://www.boredpanda.com/uk-media-double-standarts-royal-meghan-markle-kate-middleton/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic

I saw an article yesterday complaining about the companies that they are setting up. Why this should be a problem given that many people do this. Why single them out yet again.

I'm certainly not a fan of royalty (or ex royalty) but do think the press (UK anyway) have it in for them.

I agree with a lot of that, and like you I am also no fan of royalty.

I think there are some important differences between Harry and some random celebrity. The first is that Harry had no choice in becoming in the public eye - he was from the day he was born. Secondly his time in the army places him in at additional risk compared to most people in the media, from extremists who opposed military action in Afghanistan. So even though he is no longer a front line royal he remains at risk because of his background and his past. In some respects that makes him more akin to an ex senior minister (e.g. Northern Ireland secretary) who I gather ofter continue to receive security even after they've left office.

Now I think it was the case that were he and Meghan to have remained in the UK that security would have been provided. I think it was the issue of them being abroad that provided the sticking block, which I can see as that is additional cost and their choice.

So surely a solution would be that if he would have been provided with security in the UK, then that could still be provided at public expense when he is in the UK. Security elsewhere would be his own business.

I agree with VG - he cannot simply 'pay' for the UK police - that isn't how they work. I'm sure there are all sorts of people who might want to 'buy' their own personal bobby, but were they allowed to do so there would be less resource available overall as you cannot simply conjure up more police officers.

But I'll come back to my oft-stated position. The fundamental problem here is the symbiotic/parasitic relationship between the royal and the press. We should move to a situation similar to other countries with monarchies, where someone sixth in line to the throne would be expected right from the get-go to pay their way and live a broadly ordinary life with precious little press interest. And, of course other countries recognise that the 'spare', while often being high up in the line of succession when young slips further and further down the succession as time goes on and in our modern world is vanishingly unlikely to even become monarch.

We seem to have a multi-generational problem with the 'spare', Margaret, Andrew, Harry. Will we learn for the next generation or will Charlotte be brought up to be a play thing for the media with no real job, or be allowed (or rather required) so go off and make her own life. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

If there are any credible threats to Harry because of his participation in Britain's war in Afghanistan, the government has said it will offer him protection while he is in the UK. Harry has not mentioned any credible threats due to Afghanistan.

There are lots of people who were in the armed forces who were posted to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban, and like Harry would therefore become legitimate targets for their enemies.

Harry, knowing his high-profile in the Royal Family, chose to  pursue a career in the army in a role where he would see action and have to kill Britain's enemies and make himself a target for Britain's enemy in return. He chose to give interviews where he drew attention to what he was doing while he was out there. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/21/prince-harry-afghanistan

I do not know that it is particularly relevant that Harry did not choose to be Royal. People do not choose the circumstances of their birth, and most people have no choice but to adapt and work within the parameters of their particular circumstances.

[ProfessorDavey]

If there are any credible threats to Harry because of his participation in Britain's war in Afghanistan, the government has said it will offer him protection while he is in the UK. Harry has not mentioned any credible threats due to Afghanistan.

There are lots of people who were in the armed forces who were posted to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban, and like Harry would therefore become legitimate targets for their enemies.

Harry, knowing his high-profile in the Royal Family, chose to  pursue a career in the army in a role where he would see action and have to kill Britain's enemies and make himself a target for Britain's enemy in return. He chose to give interviews where he drew attention to what he was doing while he was out there. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/21/prince-harry-afghanistan

I do not know that it is particularly relevant that Harry did not choose to be Royal. People do not choose the circumstances of their birth, and most people have no choice but to adapt and work within the parameters of their particular circumstances.

Well neither you, nor I are security experts, but as far as I know the Taliban have issued a specific threat to kidnap and murder Harry. Why do you think they might have done that? As far as I'm aware the Taliban have never revoked that threat and they are now back in power in Afghanistan, and we know their record of supporting terrorist organisations when they were previously in power.

It is also widely reported that Harry to considered to be one of the most at risk of the royals.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-harry-among-most-at-23690113

And of course the royals are no stranger to seeing their own targeted by terrorists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Mountbatten,_1st_Earl_Mountbatten_of_Burma#Death

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Well neither you, nor I are security experts,

We don't need to be security experts as it's the UK government that makes these decisions and they have said if there is a credible threat to Harry they will provide police protection when he is in the UK

but as far as I know the Taliban have issued a specific threat to kidnap and murder Harry. Why do you think they might have done that?

Well obviously because Harry was part of an army invading their country about 10 years ago and was therefore the enemy; along with the other British troops invading Afghanistan. Quite correctly the Talban wanted to kill the enemy before the enemy killed them. Pretty normal for warfare.

As far as I'm aware the Taliban have never revoked that threat and they are now back in power in Afghanistan, and we know their record of supporting terrorist organisations when they were previously in power.

Even security ignoramuses like you and me are aware that regimes who threaten to kill invaders into their land rarely have the time to go around revoking their threats against every invader once the invader leaves and goes back to their own country. What the Talban said was "We will do our best to kill Prince Harry and Britain's other troops based in Helmand,"

The British police are not required to provide escorted protection for every British soldier who was threatened by the Taliban while invading their country. But if there is credible evidence that any of the soldiers still face a specific threat now in the UK as a result of being part of the British army in Afghanistan, the police presumably will get involved. Has it been reported that British soldiers who are no longer invading Afghanistan still feel the same level of threat from the Taliban as they felt while they were over there 10 years ago?

It is also widely reported that Harry to considered to be one of the most at risk of the royals.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-harry-among-most-at-23690113

The British government seems to have said that they will make their decision based on the current intelligence information available to them as to who is the most at risk royal and how much actual risk that royal  faces and whether it is enough to require police protection.

And of course the royals are no stranger to seeing their own targeted by terrorists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Mountbatten,_1st_Earl_Mountbatten_of_Burma#Death

Yes the Provisional IRA were able to get access to Mountbatten because he was at his holiday home in the Republic of Ireland. Lots of people have been killed by terrorists and British troops in Ireland as paramilitary troops tried to drive British forces out of Northern Ireland. The Provisional IRA then moved their operations to the British mainland as a way of exporting the suffering of the people in Northern Ireland and making British people feel unsafe to try to get them to put pressure on their government regarding political decisions in Northern Ireland. It's part of the risks that go with military force and occupation. The Provisional IRA had few qualms about killing civilians on the Mainland and pointed out that civilian deaths were occurring in Northern Ireland.

Their statement said “The IRA claim responsibility for the execution of Lord Louis Mountbatten. This operation is one of the discriminate ways we can bring to the attention of the English people the continuing occupation of our country. The death of Mountbatten and the tributes paid to him will be seen in sharp contrast to the apathy of the British Government and the English people to the deaths of over three hundred British soldiers, and the deaths of Irish men, women, and children at the hands of their forces”

British troops are currently not occupying Afghanistan so there is less reason for the Taliban to want to kill British troops. Harry is also not currently in Afghanistan in order for the Taliban to have an opportunity to kill him.   

[ProfessorDavey]

We don't need to be security experts as it's the UK government that makes these decisions and they have said if there is a credible threat to Harry they will provide police protection when he is in the UK Well obviously because Harry was part of an army invading their country about 10 years ago and was therefore the enemy; along with the other British troops invading Afghanistan. Quite correctly the Talban wanted to kill the enemy before the enemy killed them. Pretty normal for warfare.Even security ignoramuses like you and me are aware that regimes who threaten to kill invaders into their land rarely have the time to go around revoking their threats against every invader once the invader leaves and goes back to their own country. What the Talban said was "We will do our best to kill Prince Harry and Britain's other troops based in Helmand,"

The British police are not required to provide escorted protection for every British soldier who was threatened by the Taliban while invading their country. But if there is credible evidence that any of the soldiers still face a specific threat now in the UK as a result of being part of the British army in Afghanistan, the police presumably will get involved. Has it been reported that British soldiers who are no longer invading Afghanistan still feel the same level of threat from the Taliban as they felt while they were over there 10 years ago?
The British government seems to have said that they will make their decision based on the current intelligence information available to them as to who is the most at risk royal and how much actual risk that royal  faces and whether it is enough to require police protection.

I think we can confidently conclude that:

1. Harry is more of a terrorist target than other ex-members of the armed forces of equivalent rank etc because he is a member of the royal family and

2. Harry is more of a terrorist target than other members of the royal family of similar level of succession as he is ex military and specifically due to having served in Afghanistan.

That seems to be the conclusion of the security experts. Interestingly there seems to be an additional threat from the extreme right due to him marrying a black woman.

Whether this is sufficient to warrant additional security measures is, of course, a matter for the government to determine and, also of course, they won't formally comment as to the threat level as that may compromise security. But I think we certainly agree on the following:

1. When he is in the UK any necessary security should be the responsibility of the UK government.

2. As he has chosen to live abroad the UK government should not be responsible for paying for security when he isn't in the UK

3. He cannot just 'hire' the police.

[ProfessorDavey]

Quite correctly the Talban wanted to kill the enemy before the enemy killed them. Pretty normal for warfare.

Not really - even warfare is governed by international laws and conventions - hence war crimes. And those rules of warfare do not permit you to simply kill as many of your enemy as possible. For example you are not permitted to kill enemy combatants if you can reasonably capture them alive.

[jeremyp]

3. He cannot just 'hire' the police.

What is the difference between hiring the police and making a contribution towards costs that will be incurred anyway?

[ProfessorDavey]

What is the difference between hiring the police and making a contribution towards costs that will be incurred anyway?

Because decisions relating to the deployment of the police need to be determined by the police, not by private individuals. Once you allow an individual to determine that they need police, rather than the police themselves making this decision, then you have set a very challenging precedence regardless of who pays. You'd end up with a situation where the availability of policing resource becomes determined by who has the deepest pockets to pay. And regardless of who is paying we don't have an infinite pool of police officers, so if they are deployed in situation A, they cannot be policing in situation B.

But the fundamental issue isn't who foots the bill, but who makes the decision.

[ekim]

Not really - even warfare is governed by international laws and conventions - hence war crimes. And those rules of warfare do not permit you to simply kill as many of your enemy as possible. For example you are not permitted to kill enemy combatants if you can reasonably capture them alive.

I think warfare is driven by indoctrinated emotions including those that are religiously inspired, politically inspired and power inspired.  Revenge can also play a part.  Weapons of mass destruction ensure that as many of the 'enemy' are killed as possible and the language of warfare becomes dehumanised where words like 'target' and 'collateral damage' are used rather than '100 civilians'.  I doubt whether the bomber pilot who bombed me out of my home or the Messershmit pilot who open fire on me during the 2nd World War ever thought about being governed by international laws and conventions.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think warfare is driven by indoctrinated emotions including those that are religiously inspired, politically inspired and power inspired.  Revenge can also play a part.  Weapons of mass destruction ensure that as many of the 'enemy' are killed as possible and the language of warfare becomes dehumanised where words like 'target' and 'collateral damage' are used rather than '100 civilians'.  I doubt whether the bomber pilot who bombed me out of my home or the Messershmit pilot who open fire on me during the 2nd World War ever thought about being governed by international laws and conventions.

Of course the international laws regarding warfare have developed since WW2, in part in response to what went on in that conflict.

But you can, and members of the armed forces or their leaders are, subject to international and local law in relation to their actions during conflicts. If you kill an enemy combatant when your legitimate military objective could reasonably be achieved without killing them then you will likely be subject to that law. So, in the most obvious example, if an enemy soldier has genuinely surrendered to you but you kill them anyway then that would be unlawful.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Of course the international laws regarding warfare have developed since WW2, in part in response to what went on in that conflict.

But you can, and members of the armed forces or their leaders are, subject to international and local law in relation to their actions during conflicts. If you kill an enemy combatant when your legitimate military objective could reasonably be achieved without killing them then you will likely be subject to that law. So, in the most obvious example, if an enemy soldier has genuinely surrendered to you but you kill them anyway then that would be unlawful.

I think warfare has moved on a lot from this as you get nation states (either US and Allies or Russia) with superior fire power invading less militarily powerful countries and trying to impose their rule directly or indirectly (by supplying arms and training and intelligence to local forces). In asymmetric warfare against an invader a lot of the rules don't apply as you would have no chance of winning against their superior fire power. You just kill people where you can to try to even the odds against you.

For example Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. 

Or for example,  200 Al Qaeda fighters were hiding in some caves in the Tora Bora facing a pounding from US Daisy Cutter bombs during the US invasion of Afghanistan.

The US 'shock and awe' aerial bombardment phase of their invasion of Iraq resulted in (according to Iraq Body Count, which tracks civilian casualties in Iraq), 6,700 civilians killed in the first three weeks of action in Iraq. In the 21 days between 20 March and 9 April, when Baghdad was seized by Allied forces, 320 civilians were killed each day. So it makes sense that people fighting against those tactics used to support ground troops will not be following the rules you have mentioned.

In Afghanistan, for example, following the 1979 Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, Ahmad Shah Massoud, a powerful insurgent leader of the Afghan mujahideen nicknamed "Lion of Panjshir", devised a strategic plan for expelling the invaders and overthrowing the communist regime. The first task was to establish a popularly based resistance force that had the loyalty of the people. The second phase was "active defense" of the Panjshir stronghold, while carrying out asymmetric warfare. In the third phase, the "strategic offensive", Massoud's forces would gain control of large parts of Northern Afghanistan. The fourth phase was the "general application" of Massoud's principles to the whole country, and the defeat of the Afghan communist government.

ETA: https://thoughtsonhistoryweb.wordpress.com/2017/09/17/the-tactics-of-ahmad-shah-massoud/

"The Soviets did not have the luxury of surrendering. Asked why there were no Red Army soldiers in his prisons, Massoud replied, “Hatred for the Russians is just too great. Many mujahedin have lost their families or homes through communist terror. Their first reaction when coming across a Russian is to kill him.”

[jeremyp]

Because decisions relating to the deployment of the police need to be determined by the police, not by private individuals. Once you allow an individual to determine that they need police, rather than the police themselves making this decision, then you have set a very challenging precedence regardless of who pays. You'd end up with a situation where the availability of policing resource becomes determined by who has the deepest pockets to pay. And regardless of who is paying we don't have an infinite pool of police officers, so if they are deployed in situation A, they cannot be policing in situation B.

But the fundamental issue isn't who foots the bill, but who makes the decision.

So there isn't a problem with Harry making a contribution to the policing costs as long as the police were planning to provide him with protection anyway.

[ProfessorDavey]

So there isn't a problem with Harry making a contribution to the policing costs as long as the police were planning to provide him with protection anyway.

I don't see that as an issue as long as it is the police's view that the protection is required.

I think this already happens with policing large events where the police indicate that their presence is required and the organisers are expected to pay for, or at least, contribute to the costs. These are so-called Special Police Services.