Prince Harry Says His ‘Worst Fears Have Been Confirmed’ After His Security Case

Harry and Markle stepped down from their royal duties in 2020. As a result, they don't received security on the same level as a working royal paid for by the British taxpayers. Simple. Problem solved.

If Harry visits the UK on official royal business, he will receive protection. Otherwise, no deal Harry.

Harry refuses to accept this. Tough shit. You leave your job--you don't continue to receive the same benefits. Very simple. Problem solved. Get fucked Harry. You too Markle.

Prince Harry is reeling from the aftermath of a legal battle that has forced him to confront the painful reality he’s never fully escaped since leaving the U.K. in 2020 — a reality that lies at the heart of his ongoing rift with the royal family.

Feeling “exhausted and overwhelmed,” Harry told PEOPLE as he left court on April 9 that his "worst fears have been confirmed by the whole legal disclosure in this case — and that’s really sad.”

The Duke of Sussex, 40, spent two days at London’s Royal Courts of Justice, deeply focused, taking notes and closely following the proceedings of his appeal regarding the removal of automatic state-backed security for him and his wife, Meghan Markle, in 2020.

In the years since, Harry has immersed himself in the process, including learning about RAVEC, the body responsible for the decision-making. One of his core beliefs, PEOPLE understands, is that the removal of security for him and his family when they stepped back from the working royal family was a deliberate tactic of control — a way to force them back into the fold. Rather than bringing the Sussexes back, the removal of security instead revealed to Harry the lengths to which they were willing to go, and it became the final straw. The prince admits that this realization “was difficult to swallow.”

Harry's relationship with his family remains strained. Though they shared a brief, positive meeting in February 2024 following King Charles’ cancer diagnosis, communication between father and son has since broken down. Insiders previously told PEOPLE that Charles no longer answers Harry’s calls or responds to his letters. Attempts to reconnect with his brother, Prince William, through calls, texts and messages have similarly been ignored.

During the two days of hearings, Harry's legal team argued that RAVEC had “diverted” from its standard procedure, leaving Harry “singled out for different, unjustified, and inferior treatment.” They also contended that this decision excluded him from the same protections extended to others in the “Other VIP Category,” including pop stars and former prime ministers.

Crucially, RAVEC includes members of the Royal Household, including close aides to his father, King Charles. Harry believes his father could intervene to ensure that such protection is extended to him. (Buckingham Palace does not comment on security matters, but a palace source previously told PEOPLE that the suggestion Harry's security is under Charles's control is "wholly incorrect.")

Much of the hearing on April 9 at the Royal Courts of Justice in the heart of London was held in secret. Some of the revelations unearthed during the proceedings have deeply unsettled Harry, confirming many of his “fears” about the situation — a realization he described as profoundly disheartening.

Harry has found a way to move on and forgive much of what’s happened since 2016 — but there’s one thing he simply cannot forgive: the events surrounding the legal battle regarding his and his family's safety. “People would be shocked by what’s being held back,” Harry says.

The Duke of Sussex has fought several legal battles, but this particular fight is one that strikes at the heart of his family life and his future. “This one has always mattered the most,” Harry told PEOPLE as he left court.

The three appeal court judges have reserved their judgment, with the result not expected for several weeks. Regardless of the outcome, Harry has made it clear that he will not stop fighting. His commitment to his causes remains unwavering, and on Thursday, April 10, he flew to Ukraine to visit a clinic supporting wounded military personnel and civilians.

Above all, Harry says he is "driven by exposing injustice," a relentless pursuit that fuels everything he does. He has long said he can't simply let things lie — he needs to “get under the bonnet and fix it.” His determination is personal: If anything were to happen to his wife, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, or their two young children, Prince Archie, 5, and Princess Lilibet, 3, he could never rest.

I know Harry is thick but what the fuck does he expect? He and that conniving cunt he married sold his whole family down the river on Oprah, in print and on Netflix.

She humiliated the late Queen and he sat there and watched. She’s even trying to rip off Duchy of Cornwall products without the giving profits to charity part. No wonder his family won’t take his calls.

He should fuck off back to Montecito, he “fought” hard enough for freedom to do so. Nobody will bother them and they don’t need security, just a reality check.

“One of his core beliefs, PEOPLE understands, is that the removal of security for him and his family when they stepped back from the working royal family was a deliberate tactic of control — a way to force them back into the fold.”

Oh no Harry, no one at the palace wants you, nor particularly your wife “back in the fold”. Get that through your thick head.

[quote] "worst fears have been confirmed by the whole legal disclosure in this case — and that’s really sad.”

Wonder what that was. Only thing that comes to mind is that it was old Liz who gave the OK for yanking protection when the government asked if she was in favour of the idea.

That they killed DIana, of course.

They made the announcement about the "half-in, half-out" arrangement on the Sussex Royal website before the arrangement had actually been reviewed and approved by HM. They jumped the gun and proceeded to pursue their own endeavors, disregarding the wishes of HM. So they don't deserve any deference in how things have played out: they have to live with their choices.

The only thing that remains is his insecurity. Just like his dingbat mother or.

His father cannot intervene to change the decision. Infact The late Queen indicated her support for continued security and the independent process still denied him. This is home office driven. There was no conspiracy to force them back infact I rather suspect the family were pleased to be rid of them both. Harry and Meghan seem addicted to victimhood.

R9, Surviving Angel, glad to see you back here.

[QUOTE]The Duke and Duchess hoped that their own contentment would improve relations with the rest of the family.

😂 This was in the Telegraph article. The egomania is. OTT.

r10 Thank you so much X

They shirked the duties yet still want the perks. They quit the country yet still want the titles. These Monecito pretenders made multimillions off of their business endeavors on the backs of the monarchy they besmirched and can’t figure out how to pay for security? They are hypocrites and dullards.

Harry is becoming as litigious as a certain maniac in this country.

Harry and Mo’Nique = two peas in a pod?

Harry does have private security, but he’s fighting for the equivalent of secret service protection which is next level.

I wonder what the evidence he heard in the closed hearing was, if he did indeed hear it and isn't making it up for sympathy. The latter is entirely possible as painting themselves as victims is their MO. He won't be contradicted. The court would never reveal what the evidence is and Charles and the Palace will do the usual and not offer any commentary.

Oh God, he is forever the martyr.

My question is why the need for security? Is he being threatened by a person or group? What motive is there to harm him? He's not an entertainer or political figure. Furthermore, he's very isolated in Montecito. He has an extremely inflated sense of self importance.

He is no longer a dignitary. The BRF has enough trouble justifying their existence without heaping on the costs of a separate cadre of 24-7 help overseas.

me mum. me mum.

The silly sausage thinks withholding his security is a ploy to get him back in to the Royal fold?

The poor dope needs a better therapist. He seems consumed by grievances, grudges, jealousy.

He wants armed security while in the UK. Only the Met Police can carry firearms while protecting the RF and important political figures. His own body guards can't bring theirs into the country.

It would seem that the UK doesn't want him, his asshole wife, or his fug kids. Stay in the USA, you useless idiot.

I don't know why he thinks the RF would want to keep the Sussexes in the UK. To me, it appears to be the opposite. I imagine they're relieved they don't have to encounter the couple at events. There was so much tension the last few times they made public appearances with each other. And their greater proximity would only leave the family and courtiers on edge about the types of shenanigans they'd try to pull. Not might pull. They'd always be up to something.

Sounds like a deluded arrogance sprung from the couple's folié a deux.

Have they blamed racism yet?

Harold is hopeless, too damn thick and obstinate to see the truth.

I'm glad that I'm not the only one who is confused by what are his ‘Worst Fears Have Been Confirmed’ in the article.

After reading the whole thing, I'm still not sure what he's talking about.

What exactly are his "worst fears?"

Sounds a bit overly dramatic, if you ask me.

[quote] What exactly are his "worst fears?"

That his hairstylist will show him what the back of his head looks like, for one.

He's become his wife: a perpetual victim whose only skill is spewing out word salad.

Yet he went to war torn Ukraine

[quote]One of his core beliefs, PEOPLE understands, is that the removal of security for him and his family when they stepped back from the working royal family was a deliberate tactic of control — a way to force them back into the fold.

His misplaced sense of his own importance is downright mind-boggling.

Megan must know some gang bangers from back in the day that can help with security.

In OP's pic, Harry has soft white hands and a softer white head.

Squadie in the courthouse. It's all the fault of the press.

[QUOTE]At one point, as the court was breaking before a private session and Harry was leaving the room, a woman shouted, "I support you, Prince Harry."

[QUOTE]The Duke of Sussex exited the courtroom alongside his team as the woman — who arrived late and was fidgeting with phones and a notebook during the hearing — turned to the gallery and said, "If you're members of the press, you're the reason he's not in England."

Jesus, Harry, then just let it fucking go and never ever set foot in Old Blighty again if security is your chief concern. You turned your back on Queen and country — now enjoy your time under the Californian sun.

He looks so bad at R36. If you search for pictures of his father in his 40th year, even in candids he looks far better.

I wonder if William will speak to Harry ever again, especially after Charles dies. It would serve Harry right if he never does.

Harry just doesn't get it. Living your life in a sheltered bubble and then finding your so-called freedom comes at a cost.

You don't get top-level security protection. WTF doesn't he understand about that? And if he doesn't understand, surely Markle does. They simply refuse.

Too fucking bad.

She knows how to prey upon his fears, to keep him off balance. Otherwise he might begin to wonder if what people are saying about her is true.

They both sound paranoid and completely out of touch.

How much pot are they smoking? Are they addicts?

Something ain’t adding up with these two.

In R36's pic, he looks like Honey Boo Boo's dad, Sugarbear.

Pot is the least of their problems.

Assuming King Charles dies before the Sussexes do, I surmise now that the security issue is a ready-made reason, no matter how flimsy, for Markle not to attend his funeral.

Still, it remains a toss-up for me about whether she attends or not.

She should, for posterity's sake on behalf of her children, the very same children they insisted have titles.

She also, for her own position and pocketbook, such those are, can't pass up an opportunity to remind a world-wide TV audience she was a Royal daughter-in-law of the former King and a current sister-in-law of King William.

I always have liked Prince and now King Charles.

I'm not wishing for his death, but I make no apologies for saying that his funeral will be not-to-miss TV.

So much drama....

I conjecture she will not attend, but will send the children with Harry....orRRRRR...send the children over to sit with Harry at the Abbey, in the event she divorces him before Charle's death, which of course would be foolish, so stay tuned!

I would assume that if she attends her father-in-law's funeral, the new King William V will make sure she stands at the very back of the Abbey.

[QUOTE] surmise now that the security issue is a ready-made reason, no matter how flimsy, for Markle not to attend his funeral.

That would be so awful and disrespectful after Charles treated her kindly and walked her down the aisle.

If Charles passes, I think she'll go to the funeral. It will be the only opportunity for her, Harry and the kids to be photographed at an official royal engagement, and she wants her kids to be linked to the royal family in people's minds. She might even use that event as the big public reveal of her kids to try to steal attention away from William/Kate on their home turf one last time.

Harry needs to get some self awareness. Most people are struggling with the cost of food and housing. He’s had everything handed to him including multi-million dollar inheritances, titles and huge media contracts. Nobody feels sorry for him in his 16 bedroom mansion in Montecito.

[quote]That would be so awful and disrespectful after Charles treated her kindly and walked her down the aisle.

R48. That's ancient history in Harry and Markle's minds. Their philosophy is "What have you done for me lately?"

Harry needs to be honest with the public about the two surrogate children he had with Meghan Markle.

I know it's considered against the social rules for upper-class men in the UK to use Minoxidil, but I don't understand why Harry either can't start using it or at least (like his brother) embrace his baldness and shave his hair close. That skimpy ginger translucent hair film over his otherwise obviously bald head looks ridiculous.

Harry’s hair was glorious when he was a teenager but he got hit with the Windsor ugly stick even worse than his relatives.

William looked awful until he embraced his baldness and got a buzz cut. he's still nowhere near as handsome as he would be if he had retained that beautiful thick blond hair, but such was not to be. At least he looks respectable now.

Harry's had a beard and mustache for a few years now, so I think he's preparing for the bald-with-facial-hair look.

He's been balding for awhile now, but he was lucky to have a bushy tuft right up front to hide the barren scalp behind it. It worked because he was so tall; when photographed from the front, he looked like he had a full head of hair. But now that tuft in front has diminished.

I thought Meghan never wanted to return to England and would never let her children go there without her. So what exactly is he getting in a tizzy for? He has no problem going on his own. She premiered her newest destined for failure enterprise on the day he was in court and Harry got the attention. She hates him more every day. Another man to hate which suits her misogyny obsession just fine. And another reason for him to abuse prostitutes with shot glasses(still trying to figure out exactly what he does with them.) It all works out for both of them.

[QUOTE]Harry’s hair was glorious when he was a teenager

No. His hair was often Sid Vicious-worthy tufts here and there. And he made his remaining follicles a Brillo pad through cocaine abuse. Yes, cocaine abuse decimates hair follicles.

[quote] If Charles passes, I think she'll go to the funeral.

No way.

She won't risk being booed by the British public, and trashed by the British media, ever again.

Meghan hasn't been back there since Queen Elizabeth's funeral, and she won't return.

The other big thing, is that there is no way she will EVER bow to William and Kate.

Never, never, never.

[quote] She won't risk being booed by the British public, and trashed by the British media, ever again.

r59, I'm not disagreeing with you here. Markle will weigh a risk. Where I do part company is what she sees as the risk.

Maybe to her, the risk is one of a deeper blow than booing and trashing. To boo and trash means you have to care one way or another about the object.

Apathy and indifference to their presence would be the real killer.

Ouch. Now that would really hurt, especially if you're still using jams, packaging, 4 car motorcades and a "lifestyle" business to gain attention and money.

Damn straight, their presence will be noted and will cause comment and gossip (oh, goody!) but I think the British public and media will stop short of booing and trashing just out of sheer apathy at their presence.

As for her never bowing to William and Kate, that's another manifestation of why she's still a B List striver (I've upgraded her from C List, but just barely).

If she had any sense, she'd be on her best, most protocol respecting behavior which means unhesitatingly, publicly, with as many cameras as possible to capture it, bowing to King William and Queen Catherine.

But Markle is too shallow, to steeped in mere celebrity to not draw the wrong obvious conclusion that she'll be perceived somehow, to have "lost" to William and Kate if she's seen to bow to them.

No dummy. You'll be seen as respecting what is significant and perpetual, whether anybody likes it or not - the British Royal Family.

And then that would truly redound to Markle's public and business credit which relies on her Royal adjacency.

The notion that withholding security was a strategy to compel Harry and Meghan to become full-time royals again demonstrates his paranoia. I would suspect that Meghan put this idea in his head. Harry simply cannot comprehend that, having stepped down as a working royal, he is not entitled to automatic security. RAVEC has said that his security would be judged prior to each visit to the UK. That sounds pretty reasonable. Why should taxpayers support security automatically if there is no threat? He is getting the same treatment as other members of the family who are not working royals, such as Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, and Prince and Princess Michael.

I think that Harry's biggest delusion right now, is that his father and brother still care about him.

I don't think they do. In fact, I think they couldn't care less about him and Meghan.

If either of them did, they would answer his calls.

But at this point, I think that they're so sick of him and his wife, that they are actually glad to be rid of him.

I don't think they miss him, either.

They both have so much going on in their lives, that they don't even give him a second thought.

That's how low he has sunk, as far as the BRF is concerned.

Agree, r62,

I'd give up sweets right now to know what the seating arrangements for King Charles funeral are.

And pearl clutchers out there aghast! that I'd speculate on this because King Charles is alive, spare me any talk of my "wishing" for his death so I can glue myself to the DL threads and TV.

Of course I'll do that.

But if you think Buckingham Palace itself - King Charles and Prince William- haven't already thought about that, if not made firm seating arrangements for the immediate family of King Charles and Camilla, here, let me sell you a ticket to watch me take a running start, flap my arms, and fly over Lake Michigan.

Hell, Buckingham Palace invented seating arrangements and all the diplomacy, delicacy, tact and most of all, signaling, they require.

And I'll make an outlandish prediction right now.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if King William seats the Sussexes right next to Queen Catherine.

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

Besides, KW may want to throw them a bone of public mercy by allowing that before he permanently casts them out.

KW has his own image to look out for and maybe he wants the optics of being generous to his wayward brother and sister-in-law.

A monarch's funeral is an odd mixture of a state event and a family event. They could put Harry among the lesser royals for the coronation of King Charles, which was a state event, but it would be difficult to put him with Beatrice and Eugenie for his own father's funeral. I think he would have to be up front, awkward though it will be.

R64 I think they will be front row but separated by an aisle. They know they can never trust Harry and his consort . There will never be a conversation about anything but the weather between them.

[quote]She won't risk being booed by the British public, and trashed by the British media, ever again.

She LOVES pretending to be a victim. She’ll be there.

I think so, too, R65, but that William will make sure that they are buttressed by handlers. William and Catherine might have made some concessions re Harry and Meghan in deference to the late Queen, but those days are long gone. Catherine made it very clear she will cut a bitch at the end of that last walkabout. She's done with their bullshit and they won't get anywhere near her or the kids.

She’ll be there. They’ll both manage to always be part of a group so they won’t be booed. Or she’ll use the kids as armor; I’m not sure the public would boo with the kids present. Meghan won’t curtsy. She just won’t, it’s not required. She’ll be despised even more but it will feed her victimhood. It will be the kids’ coming out party and they’ll pull the focus from the funeral and from the new king. Megs hopes it happens soon while the kids are still cute and then she can get on with the business of merching them. Harry, well he’s not bringing in the money, is he? Someone has to do it.

They've already been booed. They'll be booed again. We don't boo people very much in this country - it's always a remarked upon event when it happens, even in football matches. That's what they're afraid of.

Who cares where Harry will sit at his father's funeral? He's absent from the UK and so is never seen doing anything that is actually relevant.

Some of the loopy Megxiteers have decided how Charles' funeral will be conducted down to the granular level, and fully expect William's first act as king will be to somehow make Harold and Muggin behave. It's bizarre.

I never get tired of seeing Kate annihilate MM with merely a look R67 ! Message clearly sent and Kate didnt even have to raise an eyebrow. Thats how you do it,Baby !

Whenever Charles' funeral is (it may not be for some years), Harry will have the right to sit at the front, as Charles' son. Meghan might sit in the second row along with their kids, as she is not a working royal and he is not the direct heir. This is nothing to do with optics, it's just the way it's always done. See Andrew, Anne and Edward and their respective spouses and kids at the Queen's funeral.

Harry may walk directly behind Charles' hearse, alongside WIlliam and perhaps also William's kids, depending on how old they are. As the late King's grandchildren, Archie and Lilbet may walk in the procession behind the hearse and they may stand vigil when Charles' body lies-in-state but will they be up to this? Aside from the fact that they barely know Charles and Lilbet may not even have met him, they have absolutely no experience not only of these kinds of public events but also of the UK. They've never even been to Westminster Abbey and have no familiarity with London. They also have no experience of being in public in this way, of royal behaviour and decorum, of being in the presence of prime ministers, presidents, foreign monarchs, dignatories, etc.

In any case, it's mainly Americans who are interested in this, as they have any day-to-day idea of what the royal family does so focus on these kinds of big, public events.

This discussion may be all for naught is KC3 dies anytime soon as it can be assumed his funeral and proceeding activities will be much pared down to befit his brief time in his role. He had a pared down coronation so I cannot imagine he will want to go all out for his funeral. No matter where Harry is included it will be made clear that he is out just as it was during Jubilee, the funerals and the coronation. Who can forget the artfully placed candle or Anne's feather in her cap?

I think also that the Queen's children and grandchildren with spouses were seated in order of age. So, Meghan might get a front row seat next to Harry as his spouse. Her kids might also make the front row perhaps next to George, Charlotte and Louis, depending on how old they are by that time.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter or make any difference.

Charles had a 2025 coronation, r74, not a 1953 coronation. The whole aristocratic system that was part of the 1953 coronation doesn't exist anymore. Similarly, both the Queen's coronation and funeral were pared down compared with those of monarchs of the earlier 20th century when the British empire still existed and Europe had more monarchies and princely families.

There was nothing particularly grandiose about the Queen's funeral and there's no such thing as changing rituals according to time in the role. There will still be a funeral service in Westminster Abbey, the procession, lying in state, etc.

Harry feels he's fighting to expose the injustices he believes his father has perpetrated against him and his precious family. Prince Charles' reaction? Buzz off, I'm fighting cancer.

[QUOTE]Harry’s calls and letters to his father remain unanswered, leaving him in the dark about the King's health.

[QUOTE]The Duke of Sussex is determined to expose injustice, with a ruling on his appeal expected in the coming weeks.

[QUOTE]Sources close to Harry say his calls and letters continue to go unanswered. The estrangement is so profound that Harry learned of his father’s March 27 hospitalization — related to complications from treatment — through the media.

Harry feel a lot, but he fails to think.

[QUOTE]Amid the tumult, Harry feels his father — who serves as the ceremonial head of state — could easily intervene and have his security reinstated, though the palace has consistently denied this.

Spare the ROD, spoil the child!

He’s got a right to be upset that his father clearly doesn’t give a shit if he, his wife or his children live or die. And he’s right to not take the kids to see Charles.

What a trashy family the Royals are, so vindictive their last names should be TRUMP. That's literally what Trump just did to his political enemies, cut off their security. Royal Family = TRUMP

*eyeroll*

at r80 and r81.

The Queen was the only one left that still had class. Cutting off security which is a drop in the bucket to protect family members over a spat is just so very, very tacky and petty. I guess King Charles does not mind washing his dirty knickers in public. But then he's been doing that since Diana so I guess it's no surprise.

Della can roll your eyes all you want but the fact remains the actions of the Royal Family to cut off security is EXACTLY THE SAME as Trump and his ilk doing the same. Brits are more like Americans every day than they thought.

Ok, r84. Give me some examples.

Whose security did that gelatinous agglomeration of shit-cells Trump yank that is analogous to Harry's being cut-off?

And exactly who has the authority in the UK to yank Harry's security?

You're the one making assertions. Support them.

There is this thing you can use Della if you don't believe my statements, it's call Google.

But just to wet your appetite:

You haven't made any statements to support your analogy between King Charles and Trump when it comes to Harry.

So far, you haven't persuaded me that one thing is like the other.

I'm open to it.

The only appetite I have is for you to make a better argument than, "It's called Google".

[quote]his father clearly doesn’t give a shit if he, his wife or his children live or die.

MARY!

R84, the RF does not and cannot order the government to provide security for Harry. It’s not their decision to make.

I will make sure that if Harry and Meghan attend my father's funeral, they will have the most spectacular view of anyone of the funeral procession, from atop the London Eye. I will make sure they're put in one of its cabs and then suspended for hours from the highest point so they can see everything until the funeral is entirely over.

You're a complete idiot, r87. Harry's security hasn't been cut off by his father but by the British government. The reason it's been cut off is because he's not a working royal. Not only that, he doesn't even live in the UK. Harry can of course pay for his private security, but he wants the British taxpayer to pay for it, despite the fact he doesn't perform a state role or even live in the UK. Harry only wants special private security that no one else in the UK gets, i.e. for his private security to carry guns. Failing that, he wants to British taxpayer to pay for his and his family's security, despite the fact he's a private citizen and his wife isn't even a citizen and she has no role in the UK. Nor does he anymore.

If you're going to spout off, at least get the basic facts right. Otherwise you'll give the impression that Sussex stans are motivated by ignorance, hatred and prejudice, rather than by facts and the truth.

I'm an idiot too, for getting the post numbers wrong. The colossal idiot is r83. R80, r81 and r84 are also idiots (probably the same one).

Actually it’s “whet”, in this case, not “wet”, R86.

Harry has the option of staying, as a visitor, at one of a number of properties where there is blanket security and protection for all the residents. However, he's chosen hotels instead because he's paranoid about listening devices or that his mobile communications can be intercepted.

What undermines Harry's contentions about security is his very own behavior and choices. He wants armed security in a country where people cannot own handguns, automatic weapons or anything beyond what's used to hunt. But he's chosen to live in a country that's awash with all sorts of firepower that his armed bodyguards realistically in many situations can't stop with their sidearms.

The very definition of cognitive dissonance R94 .

r91, wtf are you on about with regard to me?

I'm at r87. I'm challenging r84.

Oooops.

I see you now r92.

from AI, when asked to describe the psychological profile of extremely litigious people (like Prince Harry):

Litigious individuals, those prone to excessive litigation, can exhibit a range of psychological traits, often including a strong sense of entitlement, difficulty with emotional regulation, and a tendency towards distrust and paranoia. They may also demonstrate a need for control and a lack of flexibility in resolving conflicts, often viewing disputes as personal attacks.

Here's a more detailed look at potential psychological characteristics:

1. Entitlement and Sense of Victimization:

Litigious individuals may have a strong belief that they are always right and that others are wrong, leading them to feel entitled to compensation or redress, even when their claims are unfounded. They may also have a tendency to view themselves as victims, believing that they have been wronged and deserve special treatment.

2. Difficulty with Emotional Regulation and Emotional Labile:

Litigious individuals may struggle to manage their emotions, often experiencing heightened levels of anger, frustration, and anxiety. They may also exhibit emotional lability, experiencing sudden shifts in mood and behavior.

3. Distrust and Paranoia:

A core feature of some litigious individuals is a deep-seated distrust of others and the system, leading them to feel as though they are being persecuted or wronged. This distrust can manifest as paranoid beliefs and a tendency to attribute negative motives to others.

4. Need for Control and Inflexibility:

Litigious individuals may have a strong need to be in control of situations and may struggle to compromise or accept outcomes that do not align with their desired results. They may also be inflexible in their thinking and resistant to alternative solutions.

5. Personality Traits:

Some research suggests that individuals with certain personality traits, such as narcissism or borderline personality disorder, may be more prone to engaging in litigation.

Prince Harry comes across as a possible family annihilator @R98

R82 roll your eyes all you want babe. Is it your contention that Charles DOES care about Harry or his well-being — at all — or ever has?

Burden of proof’s on you in that case and I wish you good luck in finding it.

Heck, I don’t think Charles has ever even given a damn about Will (in fact I think they hate each other with all their hearts but that’s another thread) but he’s the heir so Chuck doesn’t have the option to cut him off at the knees.

I will always feel sympathy for Harry. He looked the most devastated at his mother's funeral.

That's because he was so young and hadn't learned the ways of the monarchy yet when it came to withholding emotions in public.

[quote] Is it your contention that Charles DOES care about Harry or his well-being — at all — or ever has?

I don't know who Charles does or does not care about. I can only judge Charles by his actions, or inactions.

He acted to have Harry be his son. He walked Harry's bride down the aisle. He watched as Harry and William split. He was reported to have begged his sons to make-up and not make his last days a heartache. He is reported to have told somebody Harry treats him like a bank.

Then Charles endured his son agreeing to be interviewed by Oprah. During that interview, on world-wide TV, with millions watching, his son and daughter-in-law insinuated bigotry on the part of Harry's family.

During that same interview, the enlightened, consciousness-raising feminist Markle re-said those two words "Waity Katie", but she was shrewd to try to cloak doing so in false sympathy. I wasn't fooled.

Now, here's where I will say something about "cares"- I think that Oprah interview is the straw that broke the camel's back for William, not on behalf of himself but on behalf of Kate.

Then Charles remained silent while his son sold-out his family by writing a tell-all book, appearing in a Netflix series where Markle embarrassed herself by mocking the gesture of a curtsy....

To Harry's credit and deep regret, I think age will cause the scales to fall from his eyes and he'll look back on those choices and wish he hadn't done all of that. Maturing has a way of making us appreciate the things that last.

But it will be too late.

Harry does get security when in the UK, decided on a case-by-case basis.

The problem for Harry is that he comes across as a pussy whipped whining little bitch.

Why? Because he’s a pussy whipped lining little bitch.

“Whining” not “lining”.

Seriously Muriel, how about an Edit button? I’ll chip in a couple of bucks.

[quote]However, he's chosen hotels instead because he's paranoid about listening devices or that his mobile communications can be intercepted.

That's rich, considering he's the one who keeps blabbing about his family's private business.

Can William ever forgive Harry? Families have been known to reconcile. But in monarchies people have been known to off family members as well.

Harry is beginning to look like a middle aged redneck with a stupid stare. Maybe neither Charles nor James are his father. Diana was so very needy(her mother did reject her at an early age from which she never did recover) and she did get around, looking for momentary love wherever she could find it. Maybe it was a Buckingham Palace guard. Or a taxi driver.

The Ginger QTip is ascared.

R109., Harry is Charle's son. Look at his nose bridge and how it intersects with his rectangular eye sockets. It's the exact same as Charles and his grandpa Philip. He seems to have inherited his temperament from his mother, though.

You're sweet. "Temperament" is a very nice way to bundle thickness and mental illness.

What exactly does he need security from? Nobody in America gives two shits about useless Harry or his grifter wife. She has to pay the paparazzi to notice her.

I think that right now, the biggest threat against Harry is deportation. The Republican Party has hinted at it.

r83 r84 The security was pulled whilst the Queen was still alive so the factual basis of your argument is weakened and the royal family does not decide this. It is government driven just as it was government home office driven when Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie lost their state paid for security.

Couldn't happen to a nicer dog owner and his bitch.

Grave Revenge from a dead Queen Elizabeth. ‘’Lilibet was my special name’’

They’re not gonna deport him. Jesus.

He's going, and so is the Duchess.

His worst fears-he married the bitch.

I see Megs taking the kids out for the weekend and leaving a handgun on Harry’s nightstand with a note ‘’ just in case-love Meghan’’

Watching their world collapse is the real entertainment and we get to watch for free!

Ditto. Reviews of Megs show are wonderfully scathing on both sides of the Atlantic and Megs ain’t makin no money off of them.

It’s a pleasant escape from ‘’Trump murdering democracy’’ to follow the continuing saga of Meghan and Harry as they provide themselves with just enough rope to hang themselves week after week. I have no empathy for those two especially knowing that at the end of the day they have more than 60 million.

She would never allow kids to U.K. without her for obvious reasons.

R67 that was amazing had never saw that clip. Kate’s stare was unbelievable and it definitely had an effect on Meg-hen. Yet-she may go back for funeral just to create more ‘’calculated’’ drama for the media attention.

She is sad and pathetic but it’s her own selfish controlling choices and I don’t care what happen to those people.Never once let grandpa meet the kids-that’s cruel-that’s Megs.

He definitely should get the same security that other non-working royals get. Just like his Uncle Andrew, the son of the late Queen, and his 2 daughters get. Of course, they get no security other than what they pay for themselves.

[QUOTE]Never once let grandpa meet the kids-that’s cruel-that’s Megs.

Both grandpas! Thomas and Charles. It's as though, Harry, once deprived of Diana, needs to deprive his own children of contact with their own blood relatives, as well.

Technically though, as a neonate, swaddled Archie got to meet QEII and Prince Philip. I assume that Charles also met Archie then, for a brief glimpse.

Whatever one thinks of "Royal privilege'" or what it may entail, that's some damn wicked shivving and twisting the knife from the DoS.

He already misses the security of his glans after being circumcised. Please don't punish him even more!

R130, I would suck his Royal circumcised cock any time he wants:

[quote]Harry's security hasn't been cut off by his father but by the British government. The reason it's been cut off is because he's not a working roya

OH PU-LEASE. If King Charles asked the British government to cover Harry's security you can damn well bet they would. Hiding behind that excuse is no different that Trump saying he cant get that guy back from El Salvador because it's out of his hands while literally sitting with the president of El Salvador.

R132 That isn't how it works, you stupid cunt.

He looks like an underpaid accountant married to a grade school teacher in R36.

R133 Oh, the King of England is has ZERO influence or power? Why bother calling him the King? What you are saying is he is basically no different than the Kardashians since all he has is money and fame but no real power. He's just a nurtured symbol of worship.

R135 No. That isn't what I'm saying. You have ZERO knowledge of how paid security for the Royals works in the UK, and you're a complete idiot.

R135 It’s always entertaining for those of us with half a clue when a clueless American talks about “the King of England”. There is no “King of England”. There is, however, a “King of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.

England is a country in The United Kingdom.

If Charles wants to see his grandkids he can arrange for national security for them to come to the UK or he can fly with his own security to Montecito. He doesn’t seem eager to do either.

R138 Dear Lord, you're a total imbecile.

R132 is obviously an American who has no fucking idea what he's talking about. No wonder the Sugars get so enraged when they believe shit like this.

Lots of bizarre assumptions and misconceptions at R138, the main one being that five-year-old Archie and toddler Lilbet must absolutely have a level of state-sponsored security for a private visit to the UK that Prince George, direct in line to the throne, doesn't get. In any case, if Harry is taking his kids to see their granddad then they'll be covered by Charles' security. Unless r138 is suggesting that Charles' somehow manages to get the government, using taxpayer money, to pay for an armed motorcade for them for the ride from the airport. For a private visit.

Zzzzzzzzz

Mi corazón está contigo, Harry.

R141 as I said, if Charles is all that keen to see his grandchildren then yes, he can pay for security for their transportation.

At some point you may have to accept that he doesn’t do this because he doesn’t actually care if he sees them or not. He rarely spends time outside of formal events with the grandkids that are there now, and barely saw his own kids when they were growing up. I don’t know where you got the idea that family is a priority for Charles.

R141, are you really that dumb? Have you not spent even two minutes making an effort to find out what the issue is? Even if Charles personally paid for Harry's security, that would not be enough security for Harry. Harry wants armed security. Armed security in the UK can only be provided by the government - paid for by UK taxpayer s- and for top-level royals, diplomats, visting state figures. The UK Home Secretary decides on a case-by-case basis who will get such security, not the King. Harry wants to have the same security as a visiting head of state - and on an official visit, not just a private visit - which Charles cannot give and which does not fulfil even the most basic criteria for the UK government to agree to such armed security. In fact, Harry does not necessarily want such security for himself, but for Meghan and the kids, so he claims. He wants Meghan - basically a nobody in the scheme of things - to be given the protection afforded to the President of the United States when visiting the UK.

In fact, Harry's legal battle over the security issue is not with his father but with the British government. He really thinks he can force the British government to provide such armed security for Meghan and the kids before she will deign to step foot in the UK. His sense of entitlement is off the charts. As is his sense of hypocrisy and inconsistency - when he visits the UK he's perfctly happy to stay in high street hotels, where there is no security. So, basically, it's all just for Meghan, who is nobody. Even though, when there was an Invictus event in the UK she was perfectly happy to fly in, with no special security at all. And when they visit other countries they don't get the kind of security he's demanding from the British government.

Carry on with your deluded attacks on Charles over this. Each time you say this stuff, it underlines even further what an imbecile you are.

R145 the fact she was willing to fly in herself shows you it’s not herself she’s worried about, it’s the kids.

Two mixed-race children that have received plenty of their own death threats, and whose father is near the top of the Taliban’s kill list, are under special threat. They’re being good parents by keeping them where they can protect them. Charles doesn’t care enough to provide the necessary security to see them. So what are we talking about here? He’s not crying about it.

[quote]Two mixed-race children

The kids are redheads who are about 12% black. Markle always presented as white before she started spray-tanning herself for oppression points.

If they care so much for the children's safety why do they choose to live in a country saturated with firearms?

MMmm did someone say armed motorcade???

Intriguing points, r146. Perhaps you should make them to the UK home secretary in your reasoning as to why she should agree to give a five-year-old and a 3-year-old the same armed security as a visiting head of state.

As for their father being "top of the Taliban's kill list", well, I doubt he's anywhere near the top but if he is a Taliban target in any way then that is entirely his own stupid fault. Besides, the question isn't about them visiting Afghanistan but about them visiting the UK.

For your information, the UK has loads of mixed race kids, and many who actually look mixed race, unlike Archie and Lilbet.

It's obvious that they care so very deeply for those kids who they leave alone constantly.

R150 “his own stupid fault” — you mean…for serving in the UK military?

It’s pretty obvious that you (and others that hold similar opinions) do not like Harry or appreciate anything he did for the UK while he was there, nor do you have any particular fondness for his children so I don’t know why you even want them there.

Remember fehen Meghan rolled down the window of the car she and Harry were riding in during the Queen's jubilee she could wave at the masses? A security no-no, but being the narcissist she is, she could resist the rush of feeling "adored." So concerned about safety...

It was his own stupid fault when he bragged about 25 Taliban kills in his autobiography, r152. That's quite provactive, stupid, and entirely under his control. But since he's stupid, well, he couldn't think of his children's safety and was instead eager to get that macho tidbit in print forever to prove he's better than his brother.

^ "Remember when" not fehen.

They should have made Canada their home. There are are so many beautiful areas they could have moved and betcha nobody would have given them a second look

R155 they tried but you can’t have private armed security in Canada either. That’s why they moved swiftly to the U.S. when the Crown cut security off. Harry can’t even own a gun himself in Canada.

It's kinda funny when Sussex stans like r152 aren't even aware of their idol's stupid pronouncements. Harry received criticism from the Taliban (he's hardly that important that he's their top target) when he boasted in his memoir about killing 25 members of the Taliban, firing at them as though they were pieces on a chessboard. He was criticised by senior members of the British military and the then UK Defence Secretary for this loose talk.

[quote]Unless [R138] is suggesting that Charles' somehow manages to get the government, using taxpayer money, to pay for an armed motorcade for them for the ride from the airport. For a private visit.

Meghan would kill for this; and she'd be sure to have paparazzo lined up along the route to rush the vehicle windows. Anything to feel famous!

[quote]They should have made Canada their home. There are are so many beautiful areas they could have moved and betcha nobody would have given them a second look

That's precisely a key factor as to why they up and moved ... nobody would give them a second look in Canada. They're not working Royals and Canada really couldn't give a shit about 'celebrities' with no merit

Didn't the Taliban laugh and point at Harold when he claimed to kill "25?" The "Legend of Aviation" who has never flown a plane is a liar.

Harry made the UK very proud while spending most of his time in a bunker playing video games

Oh please. Meghan would never have settled for living in Canada. The only reason she lived there before was because someone actually gave her a job on Suits. Her goal from the get go with Harry was to marry him and get back to California and be the star she thinks she was meant to be.

The Sussexes should have a SWAT team just because of the bees.

[quote]Two mixed-race children that have received plenty of their own death threats

I don't recall ever hearing that the Sussex children got death threats. I could be wrong though, my memory is shot. Anyone got receipts?

not that I'm on Team Sussex or anything, but death threats aren't made public, unless the threatened one stupidly blabs

Then it's not likely R146 would know about them either, right?

R164, normally we might not hear about such threats but Harry’s lawsuit is about security. You’d think the issue would have been discussed.

This is an interesting article on the appeal, with a lot of the Harry side's arguments. I read in the DM that even if he somehow wins his appeal, whichever committee and the government still aren't obliged to agree to him being provided with state-backed security.

Harry's appeal seems to rest on the security assessment done for him in April 2019, when he was still a working royal and living in the UK. He seems to think he should be entitled to that same security cover, which is the state-backed, armed cover. But then he was a working royal, doing public events, walkabouts, shaking people's hands, being publicly visible.

He also refuses to be treated like other "VIPs" and have his security requests be assessed each time by the government on a case-by-case basis. Instead, he wants automatic, government-backed and armed security, funded by the taxpayer, each time he visits the UK without having to make a request to the government. Aside from his sense of entitlement being off the charts, why does he need such automatic and permanent government security as a private individual making private visits?

My only conclusion is that he wants to come to the UK to make public appearances - and not just him, but Meghan too. And not just for the occasional Invictus event (he and Meghan managed perfectly fine without government security at the Invictus thing in the UK a couple of years ago), but so he can do the "half-in, half-out, semi-royal" thing he initially envisaged when he first left the UK. He wants himself and Meghan to have their UK charities and organisations, to act like public figures, attend benefits and award nights, even to be a kind of rival (empty) "court" in the UK to his father and William.

The boy is daft! Its like quitting your job but demanding that your pay cheque be continued.

He wants IPP (Internationally Protected Person) status as designated by a UN Treaty. As he’s not a head of state or government, a government minister, or the head of an intergovernmental agency representing that government, he’s not eligible for government-supplied security.. Such a designation would require not only the UK but also the US to provide armed and maybe more importantly, paid security for him. He’s not going to get it.

His sense of importance far exceeds reality.

He's a layabout house husband for gods sakes! Wifey is nothing more a than an Home Shopping Channel grifter.

R169 is correct. And I'm sure IPP status would grant him many other privileges to which he is not entitled. I would love to know which US visa type he has. If he's on a diplomatic visa (which he in no way, shape, or form deserves) he is free to grift from his charities to his heart's content.

Back to his UK security lawsuits. As a resident taxpayer of the UK, I'm not thrilled at the amount of time and money the Crown courts are using on these frivolous lawsuits of Harry's.

[QUOTE]I'm not thrilled at the amount of time and money the Crown courts are using on these frivolous lawsuits of Harry's.

Very good point, r171. This is an angle the tabloids can pick up on. How much does litigious Harry cost the British taxpayer through his numerous legal actions even as he's not a resident?

The Crown can't help but reply and use its personnel and resources to adjudicate the case. Harry's case is probably costing the publicly-funded court system a pretty penny.

I think that what supports Harry is that Meghan had a four car motorcade to see Gypsy and nothing happened to her! It proves that heightened security protected her. Now it didn't protect her from Audra's voice which she has to use in two completely different unconnected registers and what long term damage she may do to it and it didn't protect her from a musical that should be put away for a 100 years and not be done again until everyone alive is now dead(and I love the show but come on) but she came and went safely and we should thank our maker for that. Every time I went to see Sugar I thought I was going to be murdered right at the Majestic entrance.

Harry, doll, your worst fears came true when you married the narcissist Meghan. You don’t matter - you are a stepping stone. She will destroy you. Now grow the fuck up.

Harold will never evolve. He is in Sparkles' cult now, for life.

[quote]It’s always entertaining for those of us with half a clue when a clueless American talks about “the King of England”. There is no “King of England”. There is, however, a “King of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.

Semantics. It's always entertaining when the pompous attitudes of Brits comes out right on cue. Nest you are going to tell us it's just a stereotype about bad teeth. Then explain Richard Quest.

No one would have known that Meghan had gone to the show if she had not announced it and paid the paps to photograph her.

The blonde cop behind Harry has beautiful teeth! Is this in England?

In New York City, celebrities can melt into the crowd and do so all the time. If you want anonymity and to be left alone, New York is the best place to do it. If you want attention, however…

R176 thinks Wales is in Scotland. In any case, I always assume it's Americans who point out that Charles' title isn't King of England. We Brits know this is a mistake foreigners often make and are used to it.

Megan and Harry are like AOC, the more you hate post about them the more famous and popular they ultimately become.

Buck would would never have sung this without irony!

R181 They have long since jumped the shark to infamous and unpopular. With no help from hate posters.

They have only themselves to blame.

Never heard of this guy but he's hot.

^don't click on sussex sugar shit

[quote]They have long since jumped the shark to infamous and unpopular.

You are not living in the real world, apparently her show is doing really well. Her Netflix show ranked tenth on Netflix's global Top 10 Shows Overview list, with 2.6 million views and 12.6 million hours watched

The show fell out of the top 10 after only a few days. It's a flop like everything else she's done.

Court decision on his security case tomorrow, May 2 at 2 PM.. That’s 9 AM on the east coast. I think this is his final appeal.

^ I was wrong, he can still appeal to their Supreme Court if he loses.

r189, please do keep us updated

I'd love to look over their accountants' shoulders to see the balance sheets -- business, charity, and personal. Actually, I'd rather a professional auditor do it. I have a feeling they engage in some "creative" practices.

I hope Harry loses and loses and loses. Fucking entitled self-aggrandizing morons, both he and the lying, narcissistic wife.

He lost.

You lost again!

[quote] his "sense of grievance" did not "translate into a legal argument"

That sums up quite a lot of Harrys problems the last few years.

Halfwit Harry and his harridan want the perks of a job they quit. That's not how life works. Harry stomping his feet, clenching his fists and crying "that's not fair" like a toddler does not change the facts of life.

This was a motion to be able to appeal the original ruling so my first comment was correct. He can not go further with this complaint. Nearly US$2 million. That’s a lotta jam.

So the British courts will never have to hear this cunt whine about security @R198

They could, R199. He can ask the UK's Supreme Court for permission to bring the case to them, but he needs their permission to do so.

From the BBC:

"As we've just reported, Prince Harry still has one option if he wants his security status restored to what it was when he was a full-time working royal - he could take his case to the Supreme Court.

But what does that mean?

The Supreme Court is the UK's highest court for appeals in both criminal and civil cases

It hears appeals "on arguable points of law of general public importance"

As an appeal court, it can't consider a case unless a lower court has already made a relevant order

So, Harry can keep challenging the security committee Ravec's decision, but he needs permission to do so.

If that's refused, he could still write to the Supreme Court to ask for permission to take his case further."

He’s going to be broke if he keeps pursuing this

[quote] ... apparently her show is doing really well. Her Netflix show ranked tenth on Netflix's global Top 10 Shows Overview list, with 2.6 million views and 12.6 million hours watched

I wonder how much of that is hate-watching. I was shocked when her show came up recently on one of my bro-ish political podcasts. Apparently the teenage daughter of one of the hosts had made him sit through a few episodes for laughs and she knew all the laugh lines ("I'm Sussex now").

As for Harry, yikes, 1.5 million pounds! Will he have to pen "Still Spare" to keep the lights on and the wife's vanity project going?

Doesn't almost everything make it into the Netflix global top ten for a brief moment, especially when first released?

I'M STILL SPECIAL!!

[quote] Why Princess Lilibet and Prince Archie Will Likely Never Go to the U.K. Again

Prince Harry has lost his bid to reinstate his security on visits to the U.K., a judge ruled today—which marks the end of the Duke of Sussex’s legal challenge to a 2020 decision by the U.K. government that denied Harry, wife Meghan Markle, and kids Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet automatic taxpayer-funded security while in Harry’s home country after Harry and Meghan stepped back from their roles as working members of the royal family five years ago.

The 21-page decision came down on May 2 in a no doubt devastating blow to Harry; as he previously told People about this court case, “This one has always mattered the most.” Harry was in the U.K. just last month for an appeal on the original ruling, and that decision was made public Friday.

Though Harry will occasionally travel to the U.K. for engagements (and sometimes for court cases), the Duke of Sussex has previously expressed that, without security, he does not feel comfortable bringing Meghan, Archie, and Lilibet to his home country for fears of their safety.

Judge Sir Geoffrey Vos dismissed Harry’s appeal, adding that two other judges agreed with his opinion, per People. As he delivered the verdict, Vos said, “The Duke was, in effect, stepping in and out of the cohort of protection provided by RAVEC (the Royal and VIP Executive Committee).

Outside the U.K., he was outside the cohort, but when in the U.K., his security would be considered as appropriate depending on the circumstances. It was impossible, I said in my judgment, to say that this reasoning was illogical or inappropriate. Indeed, it seemed sensible.”

As Harry left court April 9 after fighting for the appeal, he told People he was “exhausted and overwhelmed.” Harry has, per his legal team, described his fight for his and his family’s security as a fight for his life, and this ruling will likely mean that Harry’s visits to the U.K. will continue to be limited, and that Meghan, Archie, and Lilibet’s visits will likely be nonexistent.

After the appeal hearing on April 8 and 9, Harry said that his “worst fears have been confirmed by the whole legal disclosure in this case—and that’s really sad.”

Harry has long argued that RAVEC failed to assess the risks that Harry and his family uniquely face, and RAVEC’s case-by-case arrangement was something Harry’s team has called “inadequate, inappropriate, and ineffective.”

In December 2023, Harry told the High Court that “the U.K. is central to the heritage of my children and a place I want them to feel at home as much as where they live at the moment in the U.S. That cannot happen if it's not possible to keep them safe when they are on U.K. soil.”

per Sky:

The duke also said "this all was initiated under a previous government" and said he would ask Sir Keir Starmer and the home secretary to "step in".

MAKE IT STAAAAHP!

he's such a twit!

Well, assuming she outlives King Charles, there's Markle's ready-made, flimsy excuse to not attend the funeral.

She should attend for her own position, optics, wallet and, most of all, for her children, but we'll see if she does or not.

I'm leaning towards her attending. It never hurts to show the world how Royal-adjacent you are.

Great news!

However, Harry will likely appeal to the UK's Supreme Court.

Hope he looses that one to finally end this nonsense.

Team Sussex still but Harry should not go back to the UK nor should he take his children there. Enjoy life in Montecito and move on.

Chuckles won’t get to see the kids before he dies but that’s just too bad for him.

[quote] Chuckles won’t get to see the kids before he dies but that’s just too bad for him.

The assumption here is that he pines for that. Maybe he does, but then again, maybe he doesn't.

For an infinite number of reasons, lots of grandparents don't have a relationship with their grandchildren. I'm not saying that's good or bad, but it's reality.

[quote]The duke also said "this all was initiated under a previous government" and said he would ask Sir Keir Starmer and the home secretary to "step in".

He can't possibly think a Labour government would be more likely to give him what he wants.

R211 Oh I doubt he cares much at all. I was just saying that for the crowd that are always crying crocodile tears about how Harry is keeping Charles from the kids.

Asking the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister to "step in" to a legal case?

This is how stupid and deluded he is.

[italic] Asked whether he had asked the King to intervene in the dispute over security, Prince Harry said: "I never asked him to intervene - I asked him to step out of the way and let the experts do their jobs."

Telling your father who is the king to get out of the way…

And it sounds like “the experts” HAVE done their jobs.

Not as bad as Andrew’s interview but pretty bad.

I swear I formatted it correctly

He can have security but needs to give 28 days notice.

He makes it all sound like he's allowed no security at all.

In his book he says the firm already had decided to push them out when they met for talks, yet now he claims they used the threat of withdrawing security to manipulate them into staying. Both can't be true, Henry.

I wish more people would read the court documents. Harry misrepresents reality to such an extent I now question his truthfulness on any manner.

[quote] I asked him to step out of the way and let the experts do their jobs.

Experts in what? Its a debate on whether the UK government wanted and was required to grant access to heavily armed security. Was he planning to spring Taylor Swifts head of security as a surprise witness?

[quote]I asked him to step out of the way and let the experts do their jobs.

He's such a little bitch.

He doesn't want to give 28 days' notice, r218, because he wants to be able to fly in and out of the country, bringing Meghan and the kids with him as required, so he can appear at events, do PR charity gigs, the occasional sports thing and basically set himself and Meghan up as an alternative royal family.

He still has the right to ask for state-supplied armed security but he needs to apply for that and his request be assessed. What he wants is the ability to fly in and out of the country at will to take part in his faux royal PR events, all covered by on-tap, taxpayer-funded, state supplied armed security. He even wants Meghan to have that right if she has an event on her own in the UK. He's nuts and a gobsmackingly entitled grifter who thinks we all owe him something because he's "prince".

r214 Harry is the royal most into the mindset of royal privilege, vastly more than any other family member by far despite all his false posing as being modern and enlightened.

Lest we all forget, he willingly and proudly bragged about killing 25 Taliban in his autobiography "Spare." How could the enemy have known where the kill shots came from unless the Prince Harry bragged? He's truly this imbecilic.

He's just that stupid: to center himself in Islamic cross hairs then point the finger away to his distant family that had nothing to do with it.

So the PEDOPHILE Prince Andrew gets full paid security? Wow, the royals really do have their priorities in order.

[QUOTE] Harry is the royal most into the mindset of royal privilege, vastly more than any other family member

More than Andrew? Fuck off, Surviving Klan Granny. Pedophile supporter.

Where did you get that from, r223?

Andrew doesn't get security. Neither does Anne, only whens she's doing engagements.

Jesus what a whiny bitch

Buck up buttercup, you’re in Murica now and your supposed to pull yourself up by your bootstraps

Need security? Pay for it yourself

Because security means that he’s IMPORTANT!

Meanwhile Uncle Edward has been seen traveling to engagements on the Tube. Anne flies commercial and always insists on carrying her own bags. The Gloucesters and the Duke of Kent continue to work well past retirement age without whingeing and demanding additional security while the Duchess of Kent retired then rebadged herself as “Mrs Kent” and anonymously taught music for free to underprivileged kids in South London for years.

He should shut the fuck up and if he really feels the need for Protected Person security - skim some more funds from one of their charities (again) and pay for it himself.

I swear, if the average potential assassin saw him and his deluded jam-peddling wife on Kensington High Street, the most response that they’d give is a giggle, an eyebrow raise or a stifled yawn, and go back to their shopping.

Hi KGT R224! If anyone is surviving it’s you - the rest of your chorus of idiots vanished long ago.

Now, where did I put that handy FF?

He’s a little cunt - talking in a post judgement interview about how he forgives his family - for what? - and speculating on his father’s inevitable demise.

He doesn’t realise that with every comment / book / podcast / interview like this, he ensures that they will never want to see him ever again.

What I don't understand is why the interviewer doesn't press him on any of his reiterated talking points. The press never does when they interview the Sussexes--they treat them with kid gloves, as if the Palace still protects them.

It’s possible the interviewer gave him free rein to see what else he’d blurt out. It’s a technique. Pushing back on various points might shut him up.

What a shocker - the interview was released on the day that Princess Charlotte’s 10th birthday photo was released. They can’t help themselves, can they?

[quote] He doesn’t realise that with every comment / book / podcast / interview like this, he ensures that they will never want to see him ever again.

This right here^ by r230.

He doesn't get it, does he? And I'm observing this from the premise that he's sincere about reconciling.

SHADDUP.

As it is, I'm sure William and Kate won't exchange any spoken words with either of them, privately or in public unless they agree to be strip-searched, frisked, and then required to pass through the equivalent of a walk-through airport metal detectors where you have to raise your hands over your head, assuring no recording devices.

Yes, I'm deliberately exaggerating to make the following point-

The Sussexes assumed the risk of silence towards them from KC, Camilla, William and Kate the moment they opened their mouths to Oprah on world-wide TV, opened their mouths to Netflix and Harry released "Spare".

They risked it all and The House NEVER pays back what you gamble.

Rachel doesn't want to bring the children to England because she doesn't want Anne plucking out strands of their hair and running maternity and paternity tests on them.

I was stunned when he said that about Charles . Thats not any of his fucking business to speculate on. Shows how little respect he has for his father . I predict in 10 years he'll be flat broke and an embarrassment ala Fergie . Megs will be long gone by then.

If Markle doesn't file for divorce within 12 to 18 months after King Charles death, I'll own up to being wrong in a post right here in River City.

I have not an ounce of evidence to base this on, but I believe it anyway- she would like to divorce him now but she's smart enough to hang on until after KC kicks the royal bucket.

Yes, I think she's that much of a phony and talks a good bullshit game about the blissful sate of her marriage.

sate - state^

They're so dull they're rarely even worth mocking anymore.

R237 She skinwalks Diana so the only thing she would get out of hanging around after Charles passes would be Princess of Wales. Charles would most likely have long since cut Harry and Rachel out of his will by now. He might leave Archie and Lili trust funds but nothing else.

No, R240 - that’s not how it works. The next Prince of Wales will be the current Prince George of Wales when he is heir to his father King William.

They don’t hand these titles out like party favours or to the highest bidder. And especially to wives who married in - they get nothing.

Meghan has risen as high as she will go and with each marriage of the Wales offspring and their production of kids, Harry will be pushed even further into the periphery - like the worthy but unknown Dukes of Gloucester and Kent x but without the respect.

As the (almost certainly) ex wife of the possibly tenth in line or more she’ll be nothing more than an embarrassing footnote in the family tree. Think Fergie if she hadn’t glommed on to Andrew after the divorce and refused to move out of the family house. The kids will have trust funds iron solid against her having access, Haz will be looked after as son of the monarch and she’ll get whatever she can leech out of Haz and obviously the proceeds from her global lifestyle empire.

Maybe Fergie can be her role model, actually. Her Former Royal Succubus.

I loved hearing Mrs Sussex’s well rehearsed words coming out of hubby’s mouth in the interview - he may as well have been sitting on her knee with her hand up the back of his shirt, working the dummy’s mouth.

^ Yeah, I skimmed the statement he released on their Sussex website and it was all the same wording. He stayed on message, I'll give him that.

[quote] What I don't understand is why the interviewer doesn't press him on any of his reiterated talking points.

The interviewer did push back some. She asked a few times if the reason his status changed was because he was no longer a working royal and had moved overseas. She also tried to get him to name the person who "wants history to repeat itself". In any case, letting him do the talking was fine--he hung himself.

He didn't do anything in the army. He was in Iraq playing video games.

He seemed less dumb in that interview than others I've seen. He's either not quite the dimwit I thought he was or ot was very well rehearsed. I wish that the interviewer would ask him why he thinks he's entitled to government sponsored security when other non-working royals are not. His Uncle Andrew no longer has security supplied nor do either of his daughters (Beatrice and Eugenie). It's not like he was singled out. I would certainly imagine Prince Andrew would be at risk and have had treats against him.

Are you dense, r223? Aside from the fact that Andrew has only ever been known to have sex with people above the age of consent, he does not get full, state-provided armed security. Unlike his dimwit nephew, he lives in the UK.

As R245 points out, nor do Beatrice and Eugenie get state-supplied armed security.

R245, he said some of the most entitled, malicious, manipulative things he's ever said publicly in that interview. It did his cause no good. In that sense, it was a very dumb interview.

R247 I agree with you and I am no fan of his. I simply meant that he didn't stumble over words or come across as uneducated as he usually does. I'm sure he was well prepped for that interview.

R248, he was trained from birth to be in public, speak publicly. He went to a top public ("private") school, was surrounded by interesting and fascinating people all his life until his departure from the UK, has had all sorts of life experiences - of course he can "speak well". The only problem is that he talks shit, but, thanks to his breeding, he talks shit eloquently.

R249 It's too bad that his uncle, Prince Andrew, didn't have those advantages. He certainly didn't speak so well during the BBC interview regarding Jeffery Epstein.

Edward and Sophie only have security when they do public engagements, not on their private time. Their children, one of whom is an Earl, don't have security.

Princesses of blood Beatrice and Eugenie's security was yanked years ago.

We are not amused.....well actually we are.....quite a bit.

In yesterday's interview, he kept vaguely alluding to the "truth", but he didn't say what it was. Is he threatening Charles?

Andrew was as "well spoken" as Harry, r250, the main differences being Andrew was accused of something far more serious and had a sharp interviewer who was actually challenging him.

Nonetheless, Harry still dug a huge hole for himself.

R241 Thank you. In a split second I forgot about the kids and the LoS. I stand corrected.

Harry is very limited in his mental capacity...

R256 As is Rachel.

Hopefully Kate and Charles will be dead soon.

R258 Fuck off.

Meghan will still never be Queen, r258.

Ignore it, r259, it's deliberately trying to provoke. A sign of great stupidity.

I wonder if the writers of "The Crown" had Harry in mind when they wrote this scene...

I can just hear Charles telling his son, "No, you are not suffering. We are all suffering from having to put up with this."

R246 is a pedophile.

Kate will die of her metastatic bowel cancer long before she becomes queen.

Meghan and Harry will still be living it up in Montecito forty years after cancerous Charles is dead.

R258 is a psychotic drunk and best ignored.

Meg will go back to escorting in 5 years and Harry will run back to the England @R264

R263 go away from here and do some research about what a pedophile actually is. If you still can’t understand ask a grown up to explain it to you.

R263 doesn't know what pedophile means.

R264 obviously missed Harry's emotional interview about how much he misses the UK. I doubt he's living it up anywhere. Who seems like a broken man with nowhere left to turn. His own fault, of course.

The amount of absolute lies that Harry and Meghan spew, and people willingly accept, is quite remarkable. A quick internet search shows, not misunderstandings, but total untruths. The rubbish regarding Archie initially not being HRH and a prince as "not being protocol". It is absolutely protocol for a great-grandchild of the monarch not to be titled. HRH and prince/cess of the UK is limited to children and male-line grandchildren of the monarch as well as the oldest living son of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales (Letters patent 1917 by King George V). In 2012, Queen Elizabeth II had to make a special letters patent to make all of William's children HRH and prince/ess as the UK and other commonwealth countries were moving from male preference primogeniture to absolute primogeniture. Once QEII died and Charles became king, Archie and Lillibet got the titles as they were then grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line. QEII's cousin, Prince Michael of Kent, is a grandson of King George V in the male line (George V was also the late queen's grandfather). His children are neither HRH or prince/cess as they are great-grandchildren rather than grandchildren of the monarch. Prince Michael's son will inherit the title of Duke of Kent on his father's death, but will never be HRH or a prince.

"With this ruling, George V restricted the usage of the style HRH and the title of Prince or Princess to:

the children of the monarch the children of the sons of the monarch the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales only "

Thanks R270 for explaining it all yet again.

Slight clarification - the Duke of Kent’s son the Earl of St Andrews will inherit his father’s title when he - the current Duke - dies. The Duke’s brother Prince Michael’s son Lord Frederick Windsor will only ever be Lord Frederick Windsor as Prince Michael has no title to pass on.

R270 has it almost right, but he is confusing Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, with his brother, Prince Michael of Kent. When Prince Edward dies, his son will inherit the Dukedom of Kent (he is not and will not be an HRH). Prince Michael's son, Lord Frederick Windsor, will remain Lord Frederick Windsor on Prince Michael's death. He is not and will not be an HRH.

So did he lose the case or did he actually get security as long as he asks for it 30 days in advance? The Harry haters in this thread are confusing me.

He always had security if he applied in advance and it was reviewed. That was never the issue . He was suing to get it automatically and in all circumstances for himself and his immediate family.

R270, Archie and Lilbet did not become prince/princess once the late Queen died/Charles became king. It took six months for that to happen and I suspect the original plan was for them not to be titled prince/princess, as Edward's children aren't, despite them actually being born the grandchildren of the monarch through the male line so they would have been entitled to the title from birth. Sounds like something Harry insisted on, as seen in his statement about it being their birthright, even though it wasn't actually their right from birth.

No, it took six months for the website to be updated—gee maybe they were kinda busy with a new monarch and all—but the titles were automatic.

Funny how everyone else was updated immediately except for Master Archie and Miss Lilbet, r277. The King was updated almost immediately to King, William was updated to Prince of Wales, Catherine to Princess of Wales, their kids to Prince/Princess of Wales, and everyone moved up a notch in the line of succession.

Archie's and Lilbet's titles were only "updated" once Meghan had announced the christening of "Princes Lilbet Diana" (as though her first name was Princess) in People magazine, which implies there was stuff going on behind the scenes. Perhaps this is what Meghan had been complaining about.

"A spokesperson for Prince Harry and Meghan said: "The children's titles have been a birthright since their grandfather became monarch."

"This matter has been settled for some time in alignment with Buckingham Palace."

Every reference I can find online (BBC, MSNBC, CNN, etc) all state they were Prince and Princess from the time their grandfather became sovereign. The Royal website was not updated for several months. It's very hard for me to believe Harry's "insistence" would have the slightest sway with the King. I'm sure he doesn't give a shit what Harry thinks or wants. He simply followed protocol.

R274 seems to have a problem reading and comprehending the news, which is par for the course for someone who uses a term like "Harry haters".

Harry and his family have and always have had state-sanctioned security, the exact conditions of which are decided case by case, with a simple advance application. What Harry wants is something no one else in the world has, which is for automatic, full security, state-provided and taxpayer-funded, with no application, simply automatically provided whenever he decides to whizz into the UK. And not just for him, but for Meghan if she's visiting without him, and the kids too. He's demanding the level of security of a head of state when on an official visit. Not even Anne or Edward and the spouses and kids have what he's demanding and they live in the UK and are working royals.

Moreover, this would be for Harry's private visits to the UK, not just if he has an "event" to appear at. But it does raise the suspicion that he wants this type of unheard-of security so that he - and Meghan - can jet in and out of the UK at will to appear at "events" and set up some kind of alternative "royal" court.

As I said, r278, Harry's statement claimed it was a birthright, which means something one has from birth, not something someone aqcuires later on in life. Except, that title was not something they had since birth. It is a title that Edward and Sophie's kids had from birth as their grandmother was monarch at the time, but they (or their parents) have chosen not to use those terms. Furthermore, Letters Patent were issued for William's kids even before they were born to ensure that they would automatically be prince/princess at birth, even though their grandfather was not yet king.

By the way, you forgot the rest of that statement: "This matter has been settled for some time in alignment with Buckingham Palace." In other words, it's a matter that was not automatic but had to be agreed upon with the palace.

You must have a very short memory if you don't remember what the royal family website looked like just a couple of years ago. Everyone was updated automatically and almost immediately, except Master Archie and Miss Lilbet. They were only updated after the christening of "Princess", as Meghan's illiterate statement to People magazine put it.

As for the titles/styles used by the children of the current Duke of Edinburgh:

The Countess told the Sunday Times in 2020: ‘We try to bring them up with the understanding that they are very likely to have to work for a living… Hence we made the decision not to use HRH titles. They have them and can decide to use them from 18, but it’s highly unlikely.’

[quote]Funny how everyone else was updated immediately except for Master Archie and Miss Lilbet

The Sussexes are not working members of the royal family. And given their behaviour, it seems reasonable to assume nobody was in any grand rush to satisfy their need for written confirmation of their ranking in a system they damage for income.

The birthright was that upon the elevation of their grandfather to the throne, they would become a prince and a princess. They did. That is wasn't on the website right away is a loss with which the world will have to learn to cope.

"Following the death of the Queen, Harry and Meghan’s children have become His Royal Highness Prince Archie of Sussex and Her Royal Highness Princess Lilibet of Sussex.

The change is a result of conventions created over a century ago. Under rules set out by George V in 1917, the grandchildren of the monarch automatically receive royal titles."

...but you're right...Harry twisted the King's arm and made it so...

His worst fears were confirmed after he married Meager Muckle His life was over

He’s a fucking loser who has done very little with all his privileges and money.

He married a viper who has dragged him down further

I give zero fucks she’s half black. Bitch looks white anyway.

I heard that Archie and Lillibet had to pass the "brown paper bag test" and the "fine tooth comb test" before the Royal website could be updated.

↑ That's what my husband was told.

Please call HR at your earliest convenience, Princess Meghan. We want to know if you're OK.

R289, perhaps you are unaware that a cadre of Palace volunteers has been placing calls six times a day since her fateful complaint, to California or whatever dictator's hell hole the Susseces are skimming attention from, to ensure that the duchess is, in fact, in her own words, at that moment, okay.

No matter how many times she changes her telephone number.

Her Late Majesty insisted on it.

R264 is KGT. Still psychotic As Ever. 🤣

FYI, James, Earl of Wessex, becomes legal this December.

[quote] Meghan Markle Makes Subtle Statement with Photo of Prince Harry and Their Kids 1 Day After He Lost Court Appeal

Meghan Markle is sharing a new family photo of Prince Harry and their children following his latest legal setback.

On Saturday, May 3, the Duchess of Sussex, 43, posted a photo on Instagram of Harry, 40, with their son Prince Archie, 5, and their daughter Princess Lilibet, 3, in what seemed to be a statement of solidarity, a day after the dismissal of Harry’s appeal to reinstate his security.

The captionless black-and-white image showed Prince Harry with his back toward the camera as he walked hand-in-hand with Archie, while Lilibet is sitting on his shoulders in what appeared to be the garden of the family's Montecito home.

The Duchess of Sussex’s post comes after Prince Harry lost his appeal to reinstate his state-funded U.K. security on Friday, May 2. He attended the hearing at the Royal Court of Justice in London on April 8 and 9.

Speaking to the BBC after losing his legal appeal on Friday, May 2, the Prince said of his children returning to the U.K.,“I can’t see a world in which I would be bringing my wife and children back to the U.K. at this point.”

“The things that they’re going to miss is, well, everything,” he continued. “I love my country. I always have done. Despite what some people in that country have done.”

Harry said of the impact this has had on his children, “I miss the U.K., I miss parts of the U.K., of course I do,” before adding, “I think that it’s really quite sad that I won’t be able to show my children my homeland.”

Following the judges' decision over his appeal on Friday, Prince Harry said in a statement, "The U.K. is my birthplace and will always be part of who I am. It is a place I love, and the country where my son was born.

"I've only ever wanted to continue my charitable work in supporting the causes and people that mean so much to me, and for my children to know the beauty of my homeland," he added. "I remain committed to a life of public service."

Archie is tall for a 5 year old.

Subtle Statement?

How about daddy just got home after a long and disheartening junket and just walked in to the house the kids ran to hime, he grabs them and takes them outside because that's what dad's do; also, he doesn't want to have to deal with the Mrs. right away...

Those kids really are gingers. No one would ever guess they had a Black grandmother.

Markle doesn’t have a subtle bone in her body.

can't he hire private security like everyone else

R298 two of his ex girlfriends said he was cheap. After a lifetime of freeloading it must be confronting to have to pay your own way.

Poor Haz - it’s a hard life - people just don’t understand.

FYI, he's already "legal", r292.

But is he legal legal?

That picture is creepy. It looks like a still from a horror movie.

[quote] The captionless black-and-white image showed Prince Harry with his back toward the camera as he walked hand-in-hand with Archie, while Lilibet is sitting on his shoulders in what appeared to be the garden of the family's Montecito home.

Meghan captured their only good side.

The Battle of the Shady Pix Champion remains undisputed.

Remember that pic Catherine, Princess of Wales issued on what would have been Q E II's 97th birthday? It showed her with all of her grandchildren except those of the Sussexes and Beatrice and Eugenie.

She Got Game. I told you bitches Kate wields a stealthy, silent stiletto. I would not want to cross her.

Probably because that was the only photo taken by Catherine with almost all of the late Queen's grandchildren and great-grandchildren, r304. There's really nothing more, and if you think there is, then you haven't understood what the royal family is about in Britain.

[quote] There's really nothing more, and if you think there is, then you haven't understood what the royal family is about in Britain.

Oooh, throw down, queen!

Now we're pulling out the big guns!

Beatrice and Eugenie's kids were visible in the framed pictures behind the present grandkids. The only kids 'missing' were Meghan and Harry and that is most likely because they prohibited the royals from using any of their pictures without their permission. So, it's all on Harry and Meghan if they were upset at being left out of the photo.

R304, I'd like to think your theory is true because it's a lot funnier that way. But the Sussexes never brought their kids to any family events, so there was no way to have them in a photo.

I'll cut a btich.

[quote] Prince Harry Sparks Outrage After Hinting At King Charles' Health In New Interview: 'Unhelpful'

Prince Harry's interview sparked backlash after he referenced King Charles' health in a bombshell interview amid the British monarch's cancer battle.

The Duke of Sussex also admitted that he and his father are not speaking, and expressed fears about his family's security in the UK.

Critics, including royal insiders and commentators, have now slammed Prince Harry's remarks as "unhelpful" and "confusing," especially amid King Charles' cancer treatment.

Harry is under fire following remarks about Charles's health made during a revealing BBC interview.

In the interview, the prince opened up about the deepening rift between him and the royal family and expressed a desire to heal old wounds, despite revealing that his father, the 76-year-old monarch, is not currently speaking to him.

He also mentioned he doesn't know "how much longer" his father has to live. The interview comes after Harry lost his legal appeal over personal security arrangements in the UK.

While he may choose to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court, the decision has added another layer of tension to his already fractured ties with the royals.

"There have been so many disagreements between myself and some of my family," Harry admitted, per the Daily Mail. "Of course, they will never forgive me for lots of things, but... there's no point in continuing to fight anymore."

He added, "Life is precious. I don't know how much longer my father has; he won't speak to me because of this security stuff. It would be nice to reconcile."

Following the interview, critics accused Harry of fueling unnecessary speculation about Charles's health.

Alisa Anderson, former press secretary to the late queen, criticized the duke's remarks as "unhelpful," especially given the king's ongoing treatment for an undisclosed form of cancer.

Speaking to Sky News, Anderson remarked that the royal family is likely "raising their eyes heavenwards" over Harry's public comments, warning that such statements will only "cause real concern and more speculation in the media and the wider public about what his diagnosis is, which is incredibly unhelpful going forward."

She noted, "What you don't want to do is have your private life played out in the media. So if you truly want reconciliation, you'll do it in private, not in a BBC News interview."

Royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams echoed Anderson's sentiment, as he branded Harry's interview "confusing."

Fitzwilliams suggested Harry appeared to imply that Charles, in his capacity as monarch, had the power to resolve the ongoing security dispute but chose not to intervene.

"He didn't say that exactly, because he said that his father would step aside and let the experts decide. But then, on the other hand, that implied that his father was part of the process that was against him," Fitzwilliams explained.

The royal commentator added, "I think people will find it confusing, because, in my opinion, it was confused."

[quote]"Of course, they will never forgive me for lots of things, but... there's no point in continuing to fight anymore....Life is precious. I don't know how much longer my father has; he won't speak to me because of this security stuff. It would be nice to reconcile."

Guessing he's going to someday look back on this time in his life with profound regrets.

I think he's having profound regrets right now R311

Meet the Whiners

I am not sure that Harry has any regrets about his own behaviour whatsoever. Otherwise he would have had a self-reflective moment before his disastrous BBC interview and not done it. I think his only regret is that he wasn't able to find a better way to bamboozle the government into giving him his security.

I keep having this feeling that the security thing is really about something else for Harry. Whether it's that it's just part of his "I'm so hard done by. Everyone else gets treated better than me" victim narrative. Or just not wanting to spend money, or something else entirely, I'm not sure. But I keep having this sense that this issue is about something much, much deeper that hasn't been revealed. Maybe Harry himself doesn't even know.

Harry is an idiot if he thinks anyone in the Royal Family will eventually give in to him. Does he remember the history of his grandmother's Uncle David, the Duke of Windsor? He was stunned until the bitter end. He won't be welcomed back into the family until he is being buried.

The kids aren't brown at all.

All that for nothing.

R316 They just light-skinded.

Harry wanted IPP status because that would force whichever nation he is in to foot the bill for his security, regardless of his claims that he would pay for such security as he and his counsel knew no such arrangement would ever be approved. Those claims were mere put forth so he could claim that he wasn't trying to burden the taxpayer. Paying for security is costing him an arm and a leg and he can scarce afford it now as his fortunes are dwindling. Additionally, every time he goes anywhere on behalf of one of his business partners or patronages, a cut of the money that he believes would otherwise would have gone to him goes to security. Thus the tantrum as he is screwed.

Plus, he would get diplomatic immunity with IPP status which would have left him free to do as he pleases. Now he has to be careful with bringing his stash into other countries because the calvary will no longer ride in to save him.

Finally, IPP status gives him access to a broad range of information - such as always knowing the whereabouts of his father and brother. This would have been very valuable information that Harry could have sold to the highest bidder or just foolishly divulged as he is an idiot. For this reason alone, he was never going to get such a status.

R314, I think the reason for his badgering on about security is partly due to what r318 says but, from what I can tell, mostly because he wants to be able to fly in and out of the UK at will - and not just him, but Meghan and the kids too, even without him - with automatic, state-backed armed security so that he can appear at events, do walkabouts, and fake being a working royal.

Currently, he has to apply in advance for such security on a case-by-case basis and will presumably have to give a reason as to why he needs state-backed armed security. That, of course, would mean that he would have to give his reasons for requiring such security, and the government isn't going to agree to him having it if his aim is to stage faux royal events to set up a rival to the official monarchy and head of state.

Basically, I think he wants this extremely advanced level of security that is mainly for heads of state so that he can come and go at leisure, to perform faux royal events.

I have no doubt that Harry and Meghan would love to set up a rival royal court, hence them testing the waters with their "tours" of Nigeria and Colombia. IMO, this security issue for Harry is driven by his deep-seated resentment, jealousy and entitlement. He simply wants what his brother has and hates being told no.

R320, Harry said it himself - he wants what he himself had from birth and what he's become accustomed to. He just doesn't get that he is no longer in that role, however. Moreover, his "equivalents" - Anne, Edward and Andrew too - don't get what he's demanding, and Anne and Edward are working royals.

I do think there's a practical reason, however, and it's that he wants to be able to enter the UK whenever and "work" as a faux royal without any limits on what he says and does. If he really cared about seeing his father he could easily do that with the type of security he has on his lightning visits to the UK and even the royal security he would get from being in that environment. If there really is a credible threat to his kids then the UK authorities would be able to assess that and provide security as needed on an ad hoc basis.

If he really wanted to visit the UK and was concerned about security, there are several options available to him.

I think he's trying to establish another point of principle here, and that's his ability - and Meghan's and the kids' ability too - to be able to enter the UK at any moment and do whatever he wants in the country, with no limits being imposed on him.

But, if any Royal needs protecting, then Harry does too; and not for his own sake....Why? Security is needed more for the countrys protection than the individual Royals. A senior Royal is a good kidnapping target for terrorist groups to use as leverage to make demands? If Harry was taken hostage, it would probably be as big a deal as any senior Royal, and its a given that they need protection for this very reason. So, unless they would treat Harrys kidnapping differently ( or his assassination) in retaliation for something Britain does, or to get terrorists released, then they need to keep him safe. I dont see how its an individual matter for Harry.

In addition to the prestige and pomp and circumstance that comes with IPP status, halfwit Harry and his harridan also very much wanted the security briefings that come with IPP status I.e. info on his family.

Which he never will be able to do again because his own behavior has made him a risk to the royal family. He is so dim that he cannot understand why they will not let him stay in Windsor (near the Wales') when he has exposed private information about them via various outlets. Like, duh, dumbass, of course they want extended notice before you come to the country. Most of them tend to find a reason to leave the country whenever he appears.

Harry is not a senior royal, R322. He quit. Still, he gets the same protection as Anne or Edward. That he raised his own profile by doing asinine things like bragging about his kill count is on his dime.

R322, that's a decision for the British government to make.

R322, Harry has security in the UK. He just wants the highest-level security of a head of state on tap. He even still has the right to apply for the most top-level security and it will be assessed on a case-by-case basis, but he doesn't want to have to do that.

He has so many security options, but when he rejects them all in favour of some astonishingly privileged option that will be unique to him, you have to wonder what he's playing at, because security doesn't seem to be his real concern.

In the meantime, on his fleeting visits to the UK, he cares so little about his security that he stays in public hotels, when he could easily stay in a high-security royal residence, and he even ordered food to be delivered through the Deliveroo app when visiting the house of one of his friends in London.

R327 He can't stay at a Royal residence as he's not welcome there. No-one wants him.

I see many posts that claim if RAVEC agreed to provide the kind of security he wants, that it would be a step to getting IPP status wherever he goes. Has that ever been substantiated?

He harps on and on about protecting “muh family and muh children” when the UK is one of the safer places he visits so he comes off disingenuous because it’s really that he’s angry having to ask permission.

R329, because he doesn’t represent the government, he isn’t eligible for IPP status no matter what. It is possible that Harry and Meghan hoped that if they were seen being given extravagant taxpayer funded security while they were in UK then other countries would assume that they needed to provide extravagant taxpayer funded security as well.

On at least one of his trips, Charles offered him Buckingham Palace but Harry turned it down.

Agree with r318 and r319

Harry’s reason for turning down Buckingham Palace was “then everyone will see him coming and going and that will be daaangerous”. Whatever.

There is nothing to stop Mr and Mrs Sussex and the kids from jumping on the next BA flight to Heathrow today - this whole “month’s notice” concept is giving the UK government notice to assess whether he and family should get PP security.

He’s not being held in exile by the UK Government.

Harry should discuss his options with Jussie Smollet. Perhaps he could help him "arrange" a kidnapping or apparent assassination attempt to help prove his point.

What did he do?

He seems like a dumb, spoiled brat who publicly airs feelings about his family that should remain private. That's why his family doesn't want to give into his spoiled tantrum whims.

He's a private citizen now, he can earn money and pay for his own California security. They're very used to having bodyguards out there in LA. He's not travelling around the world worrying about being bombed in Mumbai or Cairo or London or wherever. He doesn't need the M6 Queen level anymore.

Even with that there are no guarantees. Someone evil could toss a Molotov cocktail at him or gun him down, like our Presidents have been. Really he picked an interesting country to live in if he wants safety. Might be better suited for Canada or Australia.

R336 he’s in much greater danger of being laughed at rather than having a Molotov cocktail thrown at him. He’s simply not that important, except in his own tiny mind.

The inevitable next step will be a faux assassination attempt to go with the faux car chase through Manhattan, the faux being followed on the highway in their Netflix special, Meghan’s faux miscarriage etc etc.

Meghan attracts a lot of vitriol, mostly of her own doing. I wonder if he’ll ever figure that out?

R337 "The inevitable next step will be a faux assassination attempt to go with the faux car chase through Manhattan, the faux being followed on the highway in their Netflix special, Meghan’s faux miscarriage etc etc."

I am available for collaboration!

Maybe he can hire Jennifer Aniston security. They seemed to have done a good job stopping her stalker

[QUOTE][R327] He can't stay at a Royal residence as he's not welcome there.

Incorrect. He has been offered rooms at Buckingham, as noted above. Heads of state stay there on official visits, but Harry refuses because he believes his electronic communication will be monitored and the rooms outfitted with listening devices... Because he's so important and enviable.

I am sure other accommodations can be made if Buck Palace is unsuitable.

R327

Typical stoner move. I bet he opened the door in boxers and a t-shirt sprinkeled in cheeto dust and ice cream staines

[quote]I keep having this feeling that the security thing is really about something else for Harry. +

[quote]He has so many security options, but when he rejects them all in favor of some astonishingly privileged option that will be unique to him, you have to wonder what he's playing at, because security doesn't seem to be his real concern.

Oh please, this all comes down to what the wife wants - which is the aura of sublime status and prestige - to be considered 'untouchable' - the ability to leapfrog over the Hollywood star/celebrity ilk. She's in it for the street closures, the motorcades, the men wearing wires with pistols in their bullet proof vests, the crowds, the superficial 'niceness'. That's what she wants, the aura of supreme importance.

It all comes down to "happy wife, happy life".

R341 I know that Heads of State stay at Buckingham Palace. I'm British. Heads of State are invited by the government. Harry is nowhere near being a Head of State. Buckingham Palace isn't a hotel, which is why Harry always stays in a hotel or with a friend, because he's unwelcome everywhere else. His family aren't lacking in spare bedrooms, but he's not staying with them. Why did you think that is?

R345, it seems likely that offers were extended with the understanding that no one in the family would see or speak to him.

This is BS r345. His father offered him accommodations at the palaces, with some advance notice. Not BP, but probably St James (when in London), Windsor or Sandringham/Balmoral, the latter two which are owned by the monarch outright. He would of course have full protection when he stayed at these locations, and probably private protection when he went outside of them.

None of this was good enough for him. He keeps wanting the full court press his brother has, while not doing a lick of work for the UK or even living there. His Uncles and Aunt Anne do not have any publicly paid security unless they are at royal events or working as royals; they otherwise go without security of pay for their own. None of his cousins have publicly funded guards.

R347 When did this happen? When did Charles or anyone else say to Harry "you're welcome to stay in any of these places when you come to the UK?"

You're just making things up. He can't just get on a flight to Heathrow and say "oh btw I need a palace to stay in and also a load of RPOs". That isn't how things work.

R345, he is offered BP because no other royals are in residence. No one wants to be arounds him. He is also a security risk because he divulges private information. Finding Freedom, which Meghan collaborated on, gave explicit details regarding the Wales' country home - were talking # of steps from point A to point B, the layout, etc. Harry cannot be trusted with any information because he will tell his wife or even put it in his own book.

FFS r348, it was widely reported earlier this year. It was discussed in royal-related threads here on DL as well. No confirmation on the veracity of the story from BP, of course, but it wasn't widely denied via "sources" either.

The word was if he gave enough notice in advance to his father and his staff, he could easily stay at one of the palaces. That I find perfectly believable and obvious. The stories state he would also be given "limited protection" outside of them, while in the UK, and that may be more debatable but still doable.

[QUOTE]Oh please, this all comes down to what the wife wants - which is the aura of sublime status and prestige - to be considered 'untouchable'... That's what she wants, the aura of supreme importance.

Funny how this aligns so seamlessly with DSM-V diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder:

1. Grandiose sense of self-importance: Has an inflated sense of their own importance, believes they are unique or special, and expects to be recognized without commensurate achievements.

2. Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love: Dwells on fantasies of achieving great wealth, fame, or recognition, believing they are destined for extraordinary success.

3. Belief that they are special and unique: Feels entitled to special treatment and believes they can only be understood by others of high status or exceptional abilities.

4. Need for excessive admiration: Requires constant admiration and attention, and feels slighted when not receiving it.

5. Sense of entitlement: Feels entitled to special favors and privileges, and expects others to fulfill their wishes without question.

Remember when Megs cleared the whole section at Wimbledon? Unbelievable. I have seen many famous people at Wimbledon both in the Royal Box and in regular seating. Not a one of them "cleared the area".

R531, thank you for the criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder. It fits Meghan perfectly. No so much, Harry. Still looking for his diagnosis.

Harry does not have the pick of royal residence. Last year he requested to stay at Windsor Castle during his multi-day appearance for one of his lawsuits and was denied. He was offered Buck Palace, which makes logical sense as it is in London. There is no way he will ever be allowed to stay in close proximity to William and Camilla sure as hell doesn't want him at Clarence House.

After his latest tantrum and accusing the royals of a 'stitch up" and wanting harm to come to him, I will be surprised if he is offered anything.

R351 I have NPD but I keep my fantasies private. A girl can dream, can't she?

I recently read a fairly detailed description of his court case.

But Harry in his interviews seems to be furious "at one person" who he appears to blame for many of the result in the court case.

The person who described the case wondered if Harry really was angry at the person, rather than the issues.

My guess it’s either the late Queen’s Private Secretary (now retired) or Charles’ Private Secretary who has been in this position since 2015. There are three senior members of the Royal household on the committee as well as police, Home Office, and Foreign Office personnel.

What’s your guess r356 on who that is?

Charles? William?

Very good guess, r357. The Monarch's private secretary is his gatekeeper and it sounds like he has an awful lot of sway.

[QUOTE]Alderton has been a trusted and much-loved adviser to the King and Queen Camilla since 2006, a year after their marriage in 2005. He is technically a diplomat who is on secondment to the Royal Household from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but apart from a three-year stint serving as the UK’s ambassador to Morocco, he has been with the King.

As the most important member of the Royal Household, the Private Secretary is responsible for supporting the King in his duties as Head of State. Described by the Royal Family as ‘the channel of communication between the Head of State and the Government’, he also liaises with the Armed Forces, the Church and the many organisations of which His Majesty is patron. Alderton is also part of the ‘golden triangle’, which includes the cabinet secretary (Simon Case) and the prime minister’s principal private secretary (Elizabeth Perelman).

Reportedly the man behind the notorious phrase ‘some recollections may vary’ after the Duchess of Sussex’s accusations of racism in the Firm, Alderton is known for his love of culture, his sense of humour and his fierce intelligence. A source in the Times describes him as ‘one of the most, if not the most, intelligent people I’ve ever met. He didn’t go to university, he got fast-tracked into the Foreign Office. He broke a record and was Britain’s youngest ambassador. He was the definition of a high flyer.’

R359, in Spare Harry demeaningly called Alderton “The Wasp.” He was an insect. Certain courtiers Harry regarded with absolute contempt, apparently because they did not defer to him.

So, the Bee (Edward Young) and the Wasp.

“Recollections may vary” was first attributed to the queen, then more recently to Kate. Didn’t really sound like something Kate would say but I could believe it from the queen. Or this guy.

He’s actually legally married to that cunt.

[quote]I am not sure that Harry has any regrets about his own behaviour whatsoever.

He gives every appearance of being happy with being unhappy. As jobs go, he's quite good at it.

He seems to be self aware enough to realize hes done things they wont forgive him for . Talk about throwing away the world with both hands . For what ? His "freedom" ? Hes miserable and the world sees it . So much for that freedom he wanted so badly . Even with the royal connection hes a fucking nobody now .

"A source told The Mirror that Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley has agreed to provide Prince Harry with armed officers from the Royalty and Specialist Protection Command on his trip. They also reported Prince Harry was offered a place to stay at Buckingham Palace, but turned it down."

[quote]and in recent years his family has been subjected to well-documented neo-Nazi and extremist threats.

Seems an odd thing for neo Nazis to be fussed about.

[quote] Finding Freedom, which Meghan collaborated on, gave explicit details regarding the Wales' country home - were talking # of steps from point A to point B, the layout, etc. Harry cannot be trusted with any information because he will tell his wife or even put it in his own book.

r349, I did not know that because I didn't read it.

If in fact, Meghan was so reckless as to report that to the author, the Sussexes have shit on themselves.

Both of them bear far greater fault than Charles and William for permanent rift.

Sussex Stans are idiots. Yeah, I said it.

Well no one here is disputing that.

When in Vancouver, Harry and Meghan also stayed gratis in a mansion most likely tied to a Russian oligarch. The article linked discusses the connection.

Their naked greed and blatant hostility towards the royal family makes them easy prey (or willing collaborators) for individuals and states with nefarious intentions. Even if their acceptance of this favor was completely innocent, their lack of prudence in finding less problematic accommodations makes them a security risk alone. Who knows what other favors they've accepted or information they have divulged. That they will never have nor never should have any solitary contact with the King or William goes well beyond any 'feelings' or 'feuds' in tabloid fodder.

I've yet to read anything positive about Harry's interview in the world's press. Even if there is something somewhere, the rest of his press for it has been overwhelmingly negative, He seems to have really shot himself in the foot again.

Just, R379, as the Duke and Duchess of Windsor behaved after he abdicated by visiting Germany and Hitler. They could bless his odious (even in 1937) regime by their presence for the price of a good dinner.

Harry's really a dolt and she's NPD. No wonder the rest of the family shuns them. As they should.

Here's "scared-for-his-life" dimwit knocking on random doors in London.

Even Diana said Harry was dim like herself. And she went at it with a vengeance possibly causing her death by giving up her security. Though she was possibly tricked into it by the Broadcasting British Crap network.

Remember Harry was protected his entire life by the Royal family and their courtiers. Covering for his nastiness, lying and cheating his way through school by having teachers fired if they didn't do his schoolwork for him. Now his stupidity and nastiness are showing themselves in full flower with no filters. He is hopeless in every way as a human being. Except financially. His mother left him many millions. His great grandmother left him many millions and God knows how many millions his father will leave him. Even if Charles never sees him again I really doubt he will cut him out of his will. Harry lied continually throughout that BBC interview. If she had pushed back the interviewer would have had to push back on every single word. And he would have left. So she let him ramble on displaying to the world how incoherent and contradictory his thinking was. I love England! Uh, Harry, what about the time you said you didn't like England very much?

Meghan's former husband keeps his mouth shut because he knows Meghan's and Harry's fans are insane. Imagine the book deal he could get? But he needs to keep his wife and children safe.

Harry is now Meghan's trained poodle and as her half brother says she carries Harry's ginger nuts around in a jar in her purse.

Omg is that for real?! lol

He can’t function in the real world. What a dumb fuck

He sho getting ugly

Indeed, the man just doesn’t get the message. Think of the very rich, very famous, and in their cases, very accomplished, men with children who safely travel the world. When they feel they need security, they make arrangements. They do not expect their governments to pay for their private security.

Harry left his born-duty, his family, his country. As such he does not qualify for state-funded security in the UK. He feels otherwise, the Duke failed in his appeal against the dismissal of his High Court claim against the Home Office, over the decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) that he should receive a different degree of protection when in the UK. Ravec says No. End of issue.

Harry can whine now all he wants, but a Royal spokesman said: “All of these issues have been examined repeatedly and meticulously by the courts, with the same conclusion reached on each occasion.”

It's just wild that a prince of the UK walked up to random doors and knocked not knowing exactly where he was supposed to be. According to the article, he even knocked on a couple of houses on opposite ends of the half mile street. Could it be he's been so sheltered and so dim that he doesn't know how to follow addresses? Was he not aware of the existence of Ring cameras that could capture his follies?

And where TF was his security? Shouldn't they be flanking him if he's a high value target? There's no security whatsoever in that frame. Shouldn't they have had the address prepared and just driven him up to the door? And couldn't one of them have been dispatched to pick up the food instead of Deliveroos? I recall their security in Canada complained that they were used more for errands like dry cleaning and shopping than protection.

Which all makes me wonder if he didn't have any around him that evening. Is he trying to go on the cheap without security and by staying with a friend? Hotels, the good ones at least, provide some cursory security on the exterior and limit public access to VIP areas and suites. Gotta wonder if the cash is dwindling. So many questions.

R377, it looks like he was trying to remember where he was the night before. Maybe he left his wallet and tie there. And now he’s been caught on a doorbell camera, like a raccoon stealing a Chewy box.

He feels he deserves state-funded security because of the family he was born into. What about the children of billionaires, who are also targets for kidnapping? Their families pay for their security, not the state. When he quite the royal family, he stopped working for the state. He says that others get state-funded security for life; sure, former prime ministers who carry state secrets in their heads. He carries very little in his head, as is apparent to all of us.

R379 Exactly. He never really had much of a state function other than ribbon cutting. He should compare himself to other non-working royals rather than elected officials.

‘’Don’t pull that trigger Harry’’ you have a wife and- go ahead pull the trigger.

Oh me granny didn't let me girlfriend wear the tiara of her choosing! I'm sooo oppressed! They didn't give whatever we wanted all the time!! Boo hoo!

Now I got me Montecito mansion but I miss me shit treating family!

[QUOTE]And now he’s been caught on a doorbell camera, like a raccoon stealing a Chewy box.

😂

As he convinces us more each day of his complete incompetence, it’s hard to imagine him as an asset worth protecting with top security. Let him bumble around on the tube, he’ll find his way to the airport eventually.

Harry, stop whining.

Looking for a dealer or hook up I suspect. Or, as was stated earlier in the thread, looking for the party house he was at the night before. It would be interesting to know the time of day of these photos. And if there's any audio.

Harry may have some explaining to do back in Montecito as to what exactly was going on here.

Doesn't he have Google maps?

He's got a big sore on his nose at R372. I wonder if somebody gave him a (probably richly deserved) pop in the face.