Re: Royal Privacy and Security Throughout the Years

[TLLK]

The Duke claims that he didn't know who made the decision to remove his Royal Protection Officers.

https://archive.vn/A9C9s

The Duke of Sussex has complained that he was not given the identities of those behind a decision to deny him police protection when he is in the UK, the High Court has heard.
He is challenging the February 2020 decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) to withdraw the police protection that he and the Duchess of Sussex enjoyed as senior royals.
He has taken legal action against the Government, arguing that the decision made by Ravec, which is comprised of representatives from the police, Home Office and Royal household, was wrong as ?he falls within the immediate line of succession?.
The Duke has also launched a libel action against the Mail on Sunday over its coverage of the case.
At a preliminary hearing on Friday, Mr Justice Swift set out the four grounds that form the basis of the Duke?s legal challenge.
They include the ?over-rigid application? of Ravec policy and a ?failure? to take into account ?relevant considerations?.
The Duke has also argued that the committee?s conclusions were ?unreasonable? and that ?insufficient information? was provided about Ravec policy ?and/or members or those involved in Ravec?s decision?.
Shaheed Fatima QC, the Duke?s barrister, who was accompanied in court by the Sussexes? solicitor, Jenny Afia, handed the judge two letters "on the membership of Ravec".
But she suggested they had struggled to ascertain who sits on the committee.
Ms Fatima told the court they had ?been asking about the membership", later adding that it was in relation to "the relevance of the claimant's knowledge about who he was dealing with and in what capacity".
The court heard that the Duke had been in correspondence with Sir Mark Sedwill, a senior civil servant who served as Cabinet Secretary from April 2018 until September 2020.
?We now know that entity is a member of Ravec,? Ms Fatima said, referring to the Cabinet Office.
He has argued that his private protection team in the US does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad or access to the relevant UK intelligence that is needed to keep his family safe.
He has insisted that he offered to pay for his own protection in January 2020 but that the offer was refused.
However, Robert Palmer QC, for the Home Office, previously told the court that the offer of private funding was ?irrelevant?.
Mr Palmer said in written submissions: ?Personal protective security by the police is not available on a privately financed basis.?
The preliminary hearings, which were largely held in private, concerned an application by the Duke and the Home Office for some information contained in court documents to be kept private.
Mr Justice Swift repeatedly rebuked Ms Fatima over her submissions, at one point telling her: ?This is not a public inquiry into whether the committee reached the right decision or the wrong decision?, adding that it was a discussion about the legal merits of the case.

The judge said he would hand down his ruling at a later date.
Meanwhile, the Duke is embroiled in separate legal proceedings against the publisher of the Mail on Sunday.
A libel action lodged on his behalf on Wednesday is understood to relate to a story that suggested he had tried to keep the legal fight over his police protection secret.
He is also expected to argue that it was false and defamatory to allege that he lied about offering to pay personally for UK police protection for himself and his family in January 2020.
The article claimed that the offer to pay was not made in the Duke?s initial ?pre-action? letters to the Home Office, which it said suggested that he expected British taxpayers to cover it.

[wannable]

He wants (now) to dox the members of the Ravec Executive Committee?!  Let's go as low as possible.

He's not a working royal, hire private UK security when in the UK, get over it.

[PrincessOfPeace]

Pince Harry's lawyers have been given a dressing-down by a High Court judge after a judgment in his police protection claim against the government was leaked.

Mr Justice Swift ruled on Thursday that documents in the Duke of Sussex's legal claim against government could be kept secret.

More: Prince Harry?s lawyers rebuked by High Court judge for ?unacceptable? ruling leak | Evening Standard

[TLLK]

I had a feeling that Ken Warfe would share his thoughts on the Duke of Sussex's security concerns and my hunch was right. Warfe shares his belief that Prince Harry faces a greater risk in The Netherlands at the Invictus Games than he would have faced in London for his grandfather's memorial service. The Dutch security service has not stated if it will provide Prince Harry with armed protection, but Warfe believes that it's likely that they will.

Why does Prince Harry think he's safer in the Netherlands than UK? Ex-royal protection officer says | Daily Mail Online

Former Met Inspector Ken Wharfe, who was protection officer for Princess Diana, William and Harry, has said Invictus' links to the military and former soldiers -  common targets for terrorists including ISIS extremists - means the potential threat to them and Harry is arguably higher there than being in London for Prince Philip's service of thanksgiving on March 29.

The High Court heard the duke did not feel safe in Britain without Scotland Yard officers with him. Harry wants to bring his children to visit from the US, but is 'unable to return to his home' because it is too dangerous, a legal representative previously said.

But he is still jetting across the world to The Hague. Police and security services in the Netherlands have refused to say whether he will get royal protection in Holland, although it is likely because one of the event's partners is the Dutch ministry of defence, which is also in charge of the country's security and terrorism.

Ken Wharfe told MailOnline: 'I'm baffled about why Harry thinks he would be safer in the Netherlands than in the UK. He would have travelled to his grandfather's memorial service with his brother or father and received protection from the Met. It's not like he would have been turning up at Westminster Abbey on a bike'.

He added: 'The Dutch police will be doing their own security assessments and liaising with Harry's private security. But my view it is more of a risk to go to Holland to support a charity with a military link than coming to London last week'

[Curryong]

Of course the Dutch will provide armed security for Harry?s visit.

As for Ken Warne, he hasn?t worked for the RF for over 20 years, and certainly hasn?t seen Harry for more than 25, but like Paul Burrell comes out regularly, for payment of course, to speak about things that no longer concern him.

[PrincessOfPeace]

"Experts fear Prince Andrew's sex abuse case and Prince Harry and Meghan's quitting royal duties are fuelling the surge."

Royal Family tormented by 170 stalkers - 10 of them at police's 'highest danger level' - Mirror Online

[sara8150]

Man, 20, is charged with trying to injure or alarm the Queen at Windsor Castle | Daily Mail Online

Intruder Armed with Crossbow Charged After Christmas Incident at Windsor Castle | PEOPLE.com

Relief for the Queen following terrifying incident at home | HELLO!

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-berkshire-62396574

A man allegedly found with a crossbow in the grounds of Windsor Castle on Christmas Day has been charged under the Treason Act.

Jaswant Singh Chail, 20, has also been charged with threats to kill and possession of an offensive weapon.

Mr Chail, from Southampton, is in custody and will appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on 17 August.

The charges were brought after an investigation by the Metropolitan Police's Counter Terrorism Command.

He has been charged with an offence under section 2 of the 1842 Treason Act, namely "discharging or aiming firearms, or throwing or using any offensive matter or weapon, with intent to injure or alarm her Majesty", said Scotland Yard.

Under the 1842 Treason Act, it is an offence to assault the Queen, or have a firearm or offensive weapon in her presence with intent to injure or alarm her or to cause a breach of peace.

Under 1842 not since 1981 Marcus Sarjeant was jailed for five years under the section of the Treason Act after he fired blank shots at the Queen while she was riding down The Mall in London during the Trooping the Colour parade.

Man charged with intending to injure or alarm the Queen on Christmas Day at Windsor Castle | UK News | Sky News

An offence under section 2 of the Treason Act, 1842;
- Threats to kill (contrary to section 16 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861);
- Possession of an offensive weapon (contrary to section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953).

He is currently in custody and is due to appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 17 August.

Nick Price, head of the Crown Prosecution's Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division, said it has authorised the Met to charge Chail "after he was arrested in the grounds of Windsor Castle on 25 December 2021 carrying a crossbow".

He added: "Mr Chail, 20, has been charged with making threats to kill, possession of an offensive weapon and an offence under the 1842 Treason Act.

"The Crown Prosecution Service reminds all concerned that criminal proceedings against Mr Chail are active and that he has the right to a fair trial."

?Crossbow intruder? accused of treason bid to harm Queen at Windsor Castle | Royal | News | Express.co.uk

[sara8150]

Man found on Windsor Castle grounds with crossbow charged under treason act - Mirror Online

Jaswant Singh Chail, 20, charged with treason after 'storming into Windsor Castle' on Christmas Day | The Sun

Man charged with treason over Windsor Castle incident ? Royal Central

[TLLK]

Wow! Treason is a very serious charge to add to the obvious ones of Threats to kill and Possession of an offensive weapon.  :eyes:

[Curryong]

Wow! Treason is a very serious charge to add to the obvious ones of Threats to kill and Possession of an offensive weapon.  :eyes:

It is indeed and treason of this sort was usually invoked in previous centuries in Britain when there were plots to kill the sovereign and put another on the throne or to kill members of the royal family en masse when they were gathered together in one place. Of course we don?t know all the details with regard to this man?s plans but it seems he intended to get to the Queen with a weapon and kill her if he could. That has to be taken seriously.

From the ABC here, some interesting titbits.

?Under the 1842 Treason Act it is an offence to assault the Queen or have a firearm or offensive weapon in her presence with intent to injure or alarm her.

In 1981, Marcus Sarjaent was sentenced to five years' imprisonment under this section of the treason act after pleading guilty to firing blank shots at the Queen when she was riding down The Mall in London for Trooping the Colour.

The last person to be convicted under the separate and more serious 1351 Treason Act was William Joyce, also known as Lord Haw Haw, who collaborated with Germany during the Second World War and was hanged in 1946.?

(Haw Haw broadcast doom and gloom radio broadcasts to Britain from Germany throughout the war. He was Irish-American.)   

[sara8150]

https://abcnews.go.com/International/man-charged-threatening-queen-elizabeth-possessing-weapon/story?id=87804467

A man was charged with intending to injure or alarm Queen Elizabeth II following an incident on Christmas Day last year at Windsor Castle, the Metropolitan Police said.

Jaswant Singh Chail, 20, was charged under the Treason Act on Tuesday. He was arrested with a crossbow on the grounds of Windsor Castle, according to the Crown Protection Service.

The charges include making threats to kill, possession of an offensive weapon, and an offense under the 1842 Treason Act. The Treason Act is an offense to assault the queen, or have a firearm or offensive weapon in her presence with intent to injure or alarm her or to cause a breach of peace, according to CPS.

Chail is currently detained and will appear at Westminster Magistrates? Court on Aug. 17, according to police.

Nick Price, head of the CPS Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division, said the initial arrest of Chail happened on Christmas Day in 2021.

Price said the proceedings against Chail now are ?active? and that Chail has ?the right to a fair trial.?

?It is extremely important there should be no reporting,commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings,? Price said in a statement on Tuesday.

[Curryong]

Queen Victoria survived eight assassination attempts in her reign, most of them muddled attempts by mentally troubled men. The first was in 1840, but the second, which led to the 1842 Treason Act being introduced, was a little more serious. She was with Prince Albert for the first attempt.

Eight Assassination Attempts on Queen Victoria - Historic UK

He was John Francis. On May 29th 1842, Prince Albert and the Queen were in a carriage when Prince Albert saw what he called ?a little, swarthy, ill-looking rascal?. Francis lined up his shot and pulled the trigger, but the gun failed to fire. He then left the scene and readied himself for another attempt. Prince Albert alerted the Royal security forces that he had spotted a gunman, however despite this Queen Victoria insisted on leaving the Palace the next evening for a drive in an open barouche. Meanwhile, plain-clothes officers scoured the site for the gunman. A shot rang out abruptly only a few yards away from the carriage. Eventually, Francis was sentenced to death by hanging but Queen Victoria intervened and he was transported instead.

[sara8150]

King George I of Greece
Plans were already well underway to celebrate his upcoming Golden Jubilee when, in March 1913, King George I was assassinated whilst out on an afternoon walk in Salonika. His murderer, Alexandros Schinas, shot him in the back at close range and the monarch was killed instantly.

Born to the Danish royal family and christened Christian William Ferdinand Adolf George, George I had been just 17 years of age when, in 1863, he was elected king by the Greek National Assembly. The previous king, Otto, had been overthrown by a coup, so the pressure was on the new young monarch from the start to endear himself to the Greek people. By and large he succeeded, quickly learning the Greek language and supporting a constitutional monarchy that worked hand in hand with the elected Greek Government.

From the start, King George I made a point of appearing accessible by walking freely amongst his people without bodyguards. This policy continued, even after a foiled assassination attempt in 1898, but ultimately it cost him his life.

The motives behind the assassination on that fateful day in March 1913 have never been fully established. The assassin himself, Alexandros Schinas, was dead within a matter of weeks after falling out of a window at the police station where he was being held. Official sources claimed that Schinas was a homeless alcoholic, who bore a grudge against the unfortunate king. The truth may be more complicated, with rumors circulating that Schinas was recruited by a foreign power looking to get rid of the pro-British Greek king at a time of great political unrest in Europe.

Empress Elisabeth of Austria
The popular Empress Elisabeth of Austria was assassinated in Geneva in September 1898, and Mark Twain wrote of the event, ?even the assassination of Caesar himself could not electrify the world as this murder has electrified it?. The upcoming movie Corsage, which provides an interesting modern take on the Empress Elisabeth?s life and death, is sure to revive interest in her tragic story.

Born in December 1837, ?Sisi?, as she became popularly known, was just 16 years of age at the time of her marriage to Emperor Franz Joseph I. She had enjoyed a carefree childhood in the heart of the Bavarian countryside and struggled to adjust to the formality of life at the Hapsburg court, not helped by a difficult relationship with her mother-in-law, Archduchess Sophie.

However, she proved enduringly popular with the Austrian people. Loved for her charitable work and for her ability to empathize with people from all walks of life, Sisi was also renowned for her beauty and became one of the era?s most fashionable trendsetters. In time, this appears to have only increased the pressure on the fragile Empress, who may well have suffered from an eating disorder. Certainly, her unhealthy obsession with maintaining a slender 16-inch waist, even after four pregnancies, is well documented.

Gradually, Sisi started to lead an increasingly nomadic existence, spending little time at court, and instead travelling all over Europe and North Africa, often under an assumed name and without a bodyguard.

On September 10th, 1898, she was about to step on board a steamship on Lake Geneva when an Italian anarchist named Luigi Lucheni stabbed her in the chest with a pointed file. Initially, it appeared that she had only been slightly injured, but within a matter of minutes she collapsed and died of internal bleeding.

According to evidence given at her assassin?s subsequent trial, Lucheni claimed that he "came to Geneva to kill a sovereign?. His first target, the Duke of Orl?ans (the then-pretender to the French throne), had already left Geneva, so he turned his attention to the Empress Elisabeth. Lucheni was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He spent some 12 years in prison before, in October 1910, he was found hanging in his cell, having committed suicide.

King Gustav III of Sweden
King Gustav III proved a divisive figure throughout his reign. Only one year after he succeeded his father to the throne as a 25 year old in 1771, he seized power from the government in a bloodless coup d??tat.

The subsequent Union and Security Act removed most of parliamentary power and meant that Gustav III ruled as an absolute monarch. As this lessened the influence of the Swedish nobility, the move was popular with large sections of the population and the king was also the subject of a concerted propaganda campaign, being portrayed as a patron of the arts and science.

The Swedish aristocracy, however, never forgave him for removing many of their privileges. In early 1792, a conspiracy was formed to assassinate him.

On March 16th, 1792, Gustav III attended a masquerade ball at the Royal Opera House in Stockholm. Despite being attired in a costume, complete with a mask, the king was easy to spot, as he was wearing the star of the Royal Order of the Seraphim. As he walked into the foyer of the theater, one of the conspirators, a Swedish army officer named Jacob Johan Anckarstr?m, shot the king in the lower back.

Gustav did not die instantly, but instead was helped back to the Royal Palace where he survived for nearly another fortnight before eventually succumbing to sepsis. Several of the conspirators were subsequently sent to prison or into exile. The assassin, Anckarstr?m, was the only one to pay the ultimate price, being executed in late April 1792.

William the Silent, Prince of Orange
Born in the German state of Nassau in 1533, William inherited the title Prince of Orange when he was just 11 years old. He had the dubious distinction of becoming, in 1584, the first head of state to be assassinated by handgun (Gustav III of Sweden being the second, 200 years later).

Conflict arose when Philip II of Spain attempted to impose Catholic rule on the predominantly Protestant population of the Low Countries in Northern Europe (present-day Netherlands and Belgium). William, who believed in religious tolerance, became the head of the Protestant cause, a move which inevitably placed him in great danger. In 1580, he was declared an outlaw and the Spanish king offered a reward of 25,000 crowns to anyone who was prepared to kill him.

On July 10th, 1584, William was at home in Delft when he was accosted by a French assassin named Balthasar G?rard. He was shot in the chest at close range and died almost immediately. His assassin fled the scene, but was swiftly apprehended and executed soon afterwards.

King James I of Scotland
James I was just 11 years old when, in 1406, he became king of Scotland.  At least one of his older brothers had died in suspicious circumstances, so plans were made to send James to safety in France, only for his ship to be captured on the way. For much of his remaining childhood he was imprisoned in the Tower of London, until around 1420 when his standing at the English court appeared to have improved dramatically.

Following his 1424 marriage to Joan Beaufort, the cousin of the English king, he was allowed to return to rule in Scotland, albeit after agreeing to pay a hefty ransom of ?40,000 (equivalent to around ?25 million or $29.9 million today) in installments.

When he did finally make it home, James I proved to be an unpopular king. He was viewed as being too authoritarian and attracted much criticism for his extravagant lifestyle at court, particularly as, after the first two installments, he stopped paying the ransom. This put in grave danger the lives of some two dozen Scottish noblemen who were being held hostage by the English until the ransom was fully paid.

During the winter of 1437, some of the hostages? relatives, together with the king?s own uncle, the Earl of Atholl, plotted to kill the monarch.

On February 21st, 1437, James I and his wife Joan were staying in Perth, at lodgings in the Blackfriars Monastery, when the conspirators entered the building. James was warned and had time to hide in a sewer, but was discovered and murdered. Joan was wounded, but managed to escape.

Despite the king?s unpopularity, the assassination was widely condemned and most of the Scottish nobility rallied round the Queen and her young son, James. The main conspirators, including the Earl of Atholl, were subsequently arrested, tortured, and executed.

5 Royal Figures Who Were Assassinated

https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/celebrity/article/3186245/6-british-royals-who-survived-attempted-assassinations

1.Prince Charles
The view of the royals in Australia has always been slightly complicated, but things took a frightening turn back in 1994 when Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, was giving a speech at an Australia Day ceremony. David Kang, who was 23 at the time, leapt over a fence at the event being held in Sydney and fired two shots at the heir to the throne.

Although the weapon was later shown to be a starting pistol loaded with blank bullets, security leapt into action immediately. Security and politicians alike were quick to tackle Kang as the guest of honour was swiftly taken away from the speaker?s podium.

2.King James I
Although the attempted assassination of King James I (aka King James VI of Scotland) was made over 400 years ago, the occasion is remembered almost the entire world over on November 5, as Guy Fawkes Day.

Conceived as a way to fight back against the Protestant government and monarch of the United Kingdom, Catholic Fawkes was the frontman of a plot to blow up the British Houses of Parliament while King James was there, loading the cellars of the buildings with an estimated 36 barrels of gunpowder ready to be lit. It was at around midnight the night before that Fawkes was found lurking around the cellar and was caught, tortured before being sentenced to death.

3.King Edward VIII They now Duke of Windsor
Although best known as the monarch who abdicated to be with the love of his life, Wallis Simpson, an attempt was made on the life of the short-reigned King Edward VIII in 1936, per The Guardian. While riding in his carriage in London?s Hyde Park, an assailant by the name of George McMahon appeared among the crowd on the route of the royal procession.

By dropping the firearm, members of the crowd realised McMahon?s intentions. In the scuffle with him, McMahon then was said to have picked up the gun to fling it at the monarch ? missing him entirely. It later emerged that the name McMahon was an alias, and that the would-be assassin, Jerome Bannigan, was actually an individual with known ties to the Nazis. That, however, was never fully established.

4.Queen Victoria
In another carriage ride that almost ended in tragedy, Queen Victoria, arguably one of the most famous monarchs in the world, also faced a threat to her life ? while four months pregnant, no less. In June of 1840, the queen and her husband, Prince Albert, were at Constitution Hill in London on a carriage rider when they passed a man among the audience named Edward Oxford.

In possession of two pistols, he fired at the sovereign, with both projectiles missing her. Again, bystanders intervened. Accounts report that Oxford said immediately upon his apprehension, ?It was I, it was me that did it.? He was declared mentally unfit to stand trial, and detained. He was one of seven people who attempted to assassinate Queen Victoria.

5.Princess Anne
Princess Anne, the princess royal, was the subject of a frightening attack in 1974 while travelling back to Buckingham Palace after an event, accompanied by her husband at the time, Captain Mark Phillips. After a car blocked off the one she was travelling in, a man named Ian Ball approached Princess Anne?s vehicle with a gun drawn. The attacker shot the driver and the princess?s security guard, before physically trying to wrestle Anne out of the car.

Refusing to budge, Anne uttered words that would later become famous: ?Not bloody likely!? A passer-by intervened at that point, allowing time for the princess royal to be removed from the scene.

6.Queen Elizabeth
Queen Elizabeth has faced no fewer than three attempts on her life. First, in 1970, while on a tour of Australia, an attempt was made to derail a train she and the late Prince Philip were on while travelling from Sydney to Orange in New South Wales, according to former Detective Superintendent Cliff McHardy. No one was ever charged with the crime.

Then, during the Trooping the Colour celebrations in London in 1981, Marcus Sarjeant fired blanks at the queen, saying he had been inspired by the 1980 shooting of John Lennon, according to The Times.

The queen again faced another assassination attempt during a visit to New Zealand in 1981 (just months of the Trooping the Colour incident) while visiting a museum in Dunedin. Christopher John Lewis, 17, was waiting in a nearby building and fired at the monarch as the queen was exiting a vehicle. He missed, and was arrested eight days later and served three years, partly in a psychiatric facility.

[sara8150]

Prince Charles went to Australia in 1994 and David Kang tried to shooting the Prince Charles thankfully for police and security protection of Prince Charles and arrested immediately but Prince Charles wouldn?t says anything about that it?s private matters but Prince Charles have security with him 24/7 During tours in UK,Wales,Ireland,Scotland,Canada and overseas trips

The IRA Assassination of Lord Mountbatten: Facts and Fallout - HISTORY

[Curryong]

 The blindness of some of Charles?s comments on this documentary are truly astounding. Republicanism in Australia only seems to have impacted on him when he began official visits here. In fact there has been a vociferous Republican movement in Australia since the last quarter of the 19th century. He seems to regard the republican movement as deluded because they regard the Windsors as, in his words, ?foreign ?.or something?. Well, they certainly aren?t Australian!

Later in the doco Charles goes into martyrdom mode when apparently an offer to become GG was brought up for consideration. Hardly surprisingly the Labor Govt weren?t enthusiastic (and if the offer had been accepted the Australian population  would in fact have exploded in protest, something that doesn?t seem to have entered Charles?s mind.) He goes on to moan ?How are you supposed to feel when you want to help but you are told you aren?t wanted?? Er, perhaps it would have been better to have realised (a) he wasn?t wanted by the majority of Aussies as a GG and (b) how he felt doesn?t matter, and (C) Exactly how him being GG of Australia would ?help? the Australian population.

I wouldn?t be surprised if this is the kind of strange reactionary bubble the BRF are still surrounded by (with Charles especially) which again explains the shock and sheer surprise the latest members of the Windsor brigade suffered on their recent Caribbean excursions.

[sara8150]

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's claim that they are entitled to their own protection was exposed to criticism today after it emerged royals such as Princess Anne, Prince Edward and Sophie, Countess of Wessex, who quietly carry out hundreds of engagements each year, live most of their lives without taxpayer-funded security.

The Queen, Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Charles, Camilla, Prince William and Kate all get round-the-clock protection - while Princess Anne, Prince Edward and Sophie are guarded only on official duties and engagements.

Other royals including the Queen's granddaughters Zara Tindall, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie do not have state-funded security, while Prince Andrew lost his after stepping down from royal duties in November 2019

Princess Diana also famously jettisoned her police protection team in 1993 after her divorce from Charles - despite the Metropolitan Police making efforts to get her to change her mind before she died in Paris in August 1997.

Scotland Yard provides automatic protection to only the most senior royals and members of the Government, but the force will also give protection for any individual who faces a big enough risk, according to the newspaper.

Simon Morgan, a former royal protection officer, told MailOnline today how decisions on what publically-funded security is given to individual royals are made by Ravec, which controls the security budget for the Royal Household.

'They basically decree what RaSP (Royalty and Specialist Protection, the Metropolitan Police Service's dedicated protection teams) as the delivery agent will give to various members of the royal family, the Government and anyone coming to the UK - if there's a presidential visit, or if there's a G20 summit.'

He said they will consult with parties including the Royal Household, the intelligence services, the Foreign Office and the Home Office and then subsequently decision 'who's going to get what'.

Mr Morgan, who worked for members of the Royal Family between 2007 and 2013 in the UK and overseas and who now runs Mayfair-based private security company Trojan Consultancy, added: 'The Queen gets a full package as you would naturally expect, that's actually on the statute books.

'By law the Metropolitan Police Service will look after the throne and the heir to the throne, so that's how you start to cascade back with who gets what.

'The Queen has her package along with the Duke of Edinburgh, then you have the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall as the heir to throne, then you have the heir's heir to the throne, as with the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and their children.

Speaking about Harry and Meghan, he continued: 'They are no longer working members of the British Royal Family, they now live in America, which deals with a different set of legislation with regards to you operating as a UK police officer.

'You also have to consider the welfare of those police officers - ultimately they are London-based. While you accept you will be away from home in the UK or overseas on a royal tour, you certainly don't expect to be posted permanently away from home.'

He added: 'The key thing about the protection is it's just not the Queen's gift to give or take away, it's been very much quoted that protection (for Harry and Meghan) was withdrawn by the Royal Family or Household, but Ravec is an independent body that sits to make sure protection is accountable.'

And John O'Connell, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, told MailOnline: 'The Duke and Duchess of Sussex can't have it both ways: either they're working royals with the obligations which that entails, or they're private citizens seeking independence.'

Meghan claimed in the bombshell interview that she was told her son Archie would not receive security because he would not be a prince.

Harry also told Oprah: 'I never thought that I would have my security removed, because I was born into this position. I inherited the risk. So that was a shock to me. That was what completely changed the whole plan.'

But those familiar with royal protection have criticised both claims, with one police source telling The Times: 'If you cease to be a royal, you lose your HRH and you go to another country like America, your threat level is going to reduce quite considerably because basically, who wants to kill you?

'You're not a royal. It still will exist - there still will be a threat against Meghan and Harry but it won't be high. And the threat against their children is non-existent so the notion that her son should get protection just because they were born to Meghan and Harry is nonsense, really.' 

Dai Davies, a former chief superintendent who led the Metropolitan Police's royalty protection unit, said that Harry and Meghan's plans for royal protection after they moved to North America were 'utterly unrealistic' and could have put British police officers at risk.


Meghan Markle wrote to ITV's boss to complain about Piers Morgan hours before the Good Morning Britain co-host quit on the day the show scored its highest ever ratings and beat BBC Breakfast, it was revealed today.

The Duchess of Sussex insists she was not upset that Mr Morgan said he 'didn't believe a word she said' in her Oprah interview - but was worried about how his comments could affect people attempting to deal with their own mental health problems, an insider told the Press Association.

Standing firm today, Mr Morgan told reporters outside his West London home: 'If I have to fall on my sword for expressing an honestly held opinion about Meghan Markle and that diatribe of bilge that she came out with in that interview, so be it.'

On Monday Meghan went directly to ITV's CEO Dame Carolyn McCall, the former boss of the left-wing Guardian newspaper, who signed off on the broadcaster's ?1million deal to show the Oprah interview and said yesterday they were 'dealing with' the GMB host.

Mr Morgan is understood to have been ordered to apologise - but he refused and quit instead saying he had the right to tell viewers his 'honestly held opinions' and declaring: 'Freedom of speech is a hill I'm happy to die on'.

His departure from ITV's breakfast show, which he helped transform into a ratings hit that beat its BBC rival for the first time yesterday, came amid the fallout from the extraordinary Oprah interview that has caused the Royal Family's worst crisis since Edward VIII's abdication in 1936.

Hours after it was broadcast Mr Morgan branded Meghan 'Princess Pinocchio' after the Duchess said she was suicidal while five months pregnant but was denied any help by the palace. She also accused the Royal Family of being concerned Archie's skin would be too 'dark' and denying him the title of prince because he is mixed race, with Mr Morgan demanding the Sussexes back up their claims with evidence.

His views, and his refusal to back down in the row, sparked more than 41,000 complaints made to Ofcom, fuelled by an orchestrated social media campaign spearheaded by his critics including several Labour MPs. But despite Mr Morgan's years of successful skewering of ministers on the show, which led to a Government boycotts if GMB during the pandemic, Transport Secretary Grant Shapps said he 'would miss him'.

The Duchess of Sussex's decision to intervene in the row came as Mr Morgan doubled down today after leaving GMB, calling Meghan's incendiary claims to Oprah about the Royal Family 'contemptible' and declaring: 'I don't believe almost anything that comes out of her mouth'.

He added: 'I think the damage she's done to the British monarchy and to the Queen at a time when Prince Philip is lying in hospital is enormous and frankly contemptible', before revealing that he left on the day more people watched GMB than its BBC rival, five years after Piers transformed the ITV ratings flop. He tweeted later: 'Good Morning Britain beat BBC Breakfast in the ratings yesterday for the first time. My work is done'.

Mr Morgan described his departure from the programme he helped transform into a ratings hit as 'amicable', saying: 'I had a good chat with ITV and we agreed to disagree.' He added: 'I'm just going to take it easy and see how we go. I believe in freedom of speech, I believe in the right to be allowed to have an opinion. If people want to believe Meghan Markle, that's entirely their right'.


Donald Trump, the then US president, made it clear they would have no US-funded secret service bodyguards shortly after the couple moved to California from Canada last March.

He tweeted: 'Now they have left Canada for the U.S. however, the US will not pay for their security protection. They must pay!'

Russell Stuart, a former California State Guard officer turned celebrity bodyguard, pointed out that Harry and Meghan had increased their threat level by moving from Vancouver: 'This is America. We're a nation of gun owners, we've got a lot of weapons. We're ten times the population of Canada. California is a much bigger place, it's more dangerous, you have a lot more potential threats than back in Vancouver.'

Initially when they went to Canada, the couple's royal protection officers were given assistance by Canadian mounties, but this was only ever intended as an interim measure until other arrangements could be made.

Harry said they were told on 'short notice' that their Met police security detail would be cut off. 'Their justification was a change in status,' the Duke said, which he 'pushed back' at.

But effectively when their senior royal status officially ended at the end of March last year, they were on their own.

The Canadian Government confirmed it would stop providing security assistance to the family 'in keeping with their change in status'.

This week Mr Davies, said he was 'gobsmacked' the couple expected British taxpayers to pick up the bill. Aside from the legal and practical difficulties of protecting a royal living abroad, the financial burden would have been huge.

The cost of a close protection team and static security at events was estimated at more than ?1million a year when officers' salary, overtime payments, overseas allowance, pensions, flights and accommodation costs were added up.

An armed team made up of at least six people including a principal personal protection officer and back up close protection officers accompanied the family at all times.

They work in pairs and if the couple travelled separately or attended separate engagements it required at least four of them to do the job as they work on relay shift patterns.

Many of the Scotland Yard officers who protected them had families in the UK and it would have been unfair to expect them to travel back and forth.

Such a vast expense would have been untenable at a time when Scotland Yard had already nearly doubled its flight budget to cover the escalating cost of protecting of globe-trotting Royals on official visits and holidays in 2019.

When Harry and Meghan first announced they were breaking from the Royal Family, a statement appeared on their website saying they were classified as 'internationally protected people which mandates this level of security.'

But hours later, the phrase 'internationally protected people' disappeared as it quickly transpired that would never be the case.

Following their move, a joint committee made up of the Home Secretary, the Metropolitan Police's royalty protection command chief, and palace officials decided their 24-hour protection could not continue now they were no longer working royals living in the UK.

On Monday, Mr Davies said: 'It shows you their naivety and sense of entitlement. 'It was utterly unrealistic to think they could continue to have their royal protection team working in America, in fact it would have put their lives at risk.

'There is a reciprocal agreement in place with the US for occasions like official state visits, but British officers couldn't just carry on working there, unable to bear firearms and with no access to integrated intelligence from the security services. It was unworkable.

'Other royals and their children do without protection. They aren't working members of the Royal Family, why should they have it? It was simply arrogant to presume they and their baby would get protection..'   

Meghan said she and Harry wanted Archie to be a prince so he would have security and be protected, and she suggested he was not given the title because of his race.

But Archie, who is seventh in line to the throne, is not entitled to be an HRH or a prince due to rules set out more than 100 years ago by King George V.

He will be entitled to be an HRH or a prince when the Prince of Wales accedes to the throne.

At the time of his birth, a royal source said Harry and Meghan had decided he should be a regular Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor. But Meghan told Oprah this was not correct, adding: 'It was not our decision to make.'

Yet Harry had always previously stressed the importance of wanting to be seen as normal, and he was thought to have wanted to give his baby the opportunities of an ordinary life that he never had, without the burden of being a prince.

He once said he was always more comfortable being Captain Wales in the Army than being Prince Harry.

As the first-born son of a duke, Archie was actually entitled to have become Earl of Dumbarton - one of Harry's subsidiary titles - or have been Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor.

But a source said after Archie was born in May 2019: 'They have chosen not to use a courtesy title.'

Being a prince or princess does not automatically mean royals have police protection. But as a full-time working royal, Harry and his family would have been entitled to 24-hour security by Metropolitan Police protection officers.

Final decisions are taken by the Home Office, in consultation with Buckingham Palace. In recent years, the royal family has shifted towards a slimmed-down monarchy, focusing on those at the top of the line of succession.

Archie, who will move down the succession list if the Cambridge children have their own families, was never expected to be playing a key role in royal duties when older.

When Harry and Meghan quit as senior working royals and moved to the US, it changed the situation.

The prospect of the couple and their son living permanently in the US and not carrying out royal duties, but also having Metropolitan Police protection officers, paid for by British taxpayers, at their side was untenable.

But the royal family could have agreed to foot their security bill privately, and used a private firm.

Royal Family members who DON'T get police protection despite Meghan and Harry claims | Daily Mail Online
Articles says HM Queen Elizabeth II,Prince Charles,Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridges have police protection and security 24/7

[Nightowl]

A very detailed and informative article all about *Protection for the Royal Family* and the trouble is the way I see it is that neither Harry or Meghan want to hear that nor will they accept that.  All these lawsuits are about them getting their own way with what they want when they want it.  NOTHING is ever going to make them see that they are wrong period.....one lawsuit after another again..boy the money for lawyers must be in the tens of thousands and Thank you Netflix for paying them. 

If this isn't arrogant, selfish and egos full of entitlement, I don't know what is....their attitude sounds so much like a former president still wanting the oval office.  Bet this will go on for the rest of their lives....they just refuse to accept the truth!  Time to take away those titles and HRH's for good now.

[TLLK]

@sara8150 -Yes the article is correct that only the Queen, the PoW/DssoC, and the five Cambridges currently receive around the clock protection. All other members of the family might have had full time RPOs during some point in their life but now just have protection when on their official royal duties. However I do expect that even though they no longer have full time protection, likely  there's electronic surveillance installed in their homes and on the grounds. 

[wannable]

He's probably making all this brouhaha to bend his dad to pay his ''private'' security.  Embarrassing family member who manipulates until the rest of the family want the individual to shut up with moneys (everything is a cost, nothing is for free). BUT so far they let Harry hang himself with his own shameful shenanigans. 

Honestly Harry (and Meghan) saga will end in tears. (IF they don't get what they want, as the NY Times latest article says about the divided USA; the microaggressions (until halfway Gen Millenial change the word for spoiled brat being denied, now a days microaggressions) of being denied and said NO, baby throwing toys out of the pram is IF not finger pointing cancelled via social media ordered by them to their army of trolls, they will use classifiers; sexist, racist and other classes 'st').

[sara8150]

He's probably making all this brouhaha to bend his dad to pay his ''private'' security.  Embarrassing family member who manipulates until the rest of the family want the individual to shut up with moneys (everything is a cost, nothing is for free). BUT so far they let Harry hang himself with his own shameful shenanigans. 

Honestly Harry (and Meghan) saga will end in tears. (IF they don't get what they want, as the NY Times latest article says about the divided USA; the microaggressions (until halfway Gen Millenial change the word for spoiled brat being denied, now a days microaggressions) of being denied and said NO, baby throwing toys out of the pram is IF not finger pointing cancelled via social media ordered by them to their army of trolls, they will use classifiers; sexist, racist and other classes 'st').

You have informed about NY times articles on Sussex or NOT!!

[wannable]

It's another article in the NY Times about half of the millennial onward to Gen Z (worst spoilt brats_ who use ''classification'' of the different ''st'' words to fault, maniupulate, try to obtain from someone else without a care of collateral damage or loss of employment.  In the past 2 years the word racist, sexist, misogynist and 'other' classes of classifying have incremented 400% to these group of generational people who don't take responsibility of their spoilt brat attitude.

Harry suing for security and insisting making another case is the above. Although rumours today are heavily inclining to a serious mental health situation, which I will not say more. And will only discuss IF the crap hits the wall.

[Nightowl]

@sara8150 -Yes the article is correct that only the Queen, the PoW/DssoC, and the five Cambridges currently receive around the clock protection. All other members of the family might have had full time RPOs during some point in their life but now just have protection when on their official royal duties. However I do expect that even though they no longer have full time protection, likely  there's electronic surveillance installed in their homes and on the grounds.

And I bet that the Sussex's also have electronic surveillances installed around their home and property also.  In fact that is a given in today's world, I had that in my home and yard when I lived in Houston, alarms went off even if an animal came on the property.  Most homeowners today do the same...nothing new to me as that was many decades ago and in fact in the building I live in now has installed security outside and cameras all over the first floor and doors with alarms.  All around my area where I live are condos, and single family homes with security and lights go on if you walk by even on the street to let people know someone is out there. Just a way of life in this violent world we live in today...very sad because as a child our doors were never locked and we could walk down the street without fear of a bullet, not in today's world can we do that anymore.

I really don't get these lawsuits unless it is a way of blackmailing the royal family into getting what they want....they live in the US and what do they think that the British security by whomever is coming here to protect them?  Harry is shouting angrily at the royal family anyway he can and I think these lawsuits are part of the way he is shouting back at them for the world to see. Both he and Meghan are in for a very rude awakening someday when they hit bottom.....we all make decisions in life and some take us to places we don't really think about until it is tooooooooo damn late.....that is what will happen to the Sussex's someday...sooner than later I bet!  Just a fact of life when our lives are out of control and anger runs the decisions we make....boy do I know that yet learned those lessons the hard way and put anger where it belongs, in the garbage can with a locked lid....LOL Thank you my dear sister  for teaching me that.

[TLLK]

And I bet that the Sussex's also have electronic surveillances installed around their home and property also.  In fact that is a given in today's world, I had that in my home and yard when I lived in Houston, alarms went off even if an animal came on the property.  Most homeowners today do the same...nothing new to me as that was many decades ago and in fact in the building I live in now has installed security outside and cameras all over the first floor and doors with alarms.  All around my area where I live are condos, and single family homes with security and lights go on if you walk by even on the street to let people know someone is out there. Just a way of life in this violent world we live in today...very sad because as a child our doors were never locked and we could walk down the street without fear of a bullet, not in today's world can we do that anymore.

I really don't get these lawsuits unless it is a way of blackmailing the royal family into getting what they want....they live in the US and what do they think that the British security by whomever is coming here to protect them?  Harry is shouting angrily at the royal family anyway he can and I think these lawsuits are part of the way he is shouting back at them for the world to see. Both he and Meghan are in for a very rude awakening someday when they hit bottom.....we all make decisions in life and some take us to places we don't really think about until it is tooooooooo damn late.....that is what will happen to the Sussex's someday...sooner than later I bet!  Just a fact of life when our lives are out of control and anger runs the decisions we make....boy do I know that yet learned those lessons the hard way and put anger where it belongs, in the garbage can with a locked lid....LOL Thank you my dear sister  for teaching me that.

@Nightowl-Yes the Sussexes' property as well as their neighbors would have surveillance security to help protect themselves and their property. With today's technology it allows the homeowners the opportunity to keep track of who is coming on to their property and could be used to aid the police in investigating any breaches.

I am on the house corporation board for my college sorority chapter and having surveillance cameras are a must to keep our collegiate members safe. The footage goes directly to the house director's phone/computer and she can keep tabs on who is coming onto the property.

As to the Sussexes' continued lawsuits against the Home Office/Metropolitan Police and Prince Harry's offer to pay for armed Met Police while in the UK on private business, I do believe that their ultimate aim is to achieve the 24/7 security status that they had prior to their departure from the UK and senior royal duties.

[Nightowl]

Thank you for the information.  :wink:  As for the Sussex's, somehow I think there is more to this then just wanting the police to protect them when they visit the UK, and even if they do visit which is highly unlikely for they are no longer working members of the royal family, just who and what events would they be at?   

I really believe Harry is just a very angry man who did not get his own way when he left the family, (he did not nor did Meghan think or realize that the Firm would take away things they were used to in the beginning like the Bank of Dad, security)I strongly believe they still want the half in and half out deal that they tried to get when leaving, that would give them *everything* they want without the Firm or BP telling them what to do or not do.  I think that is their main goal in life right now and Harry is fighting mad to do whatever to get that, even blackmailing the family with his book or Meghan's book or Omid's book, all those books to me appear to be threats to the royal family. 

This is not working for them so they are doing everything and anything to get what they want.....pushing all the buttons of the Family/Firm.....and to think they could care less about the family, look at how they did that Oprah interview while Harry's grandfather lay dying in a hospital, to me that was cruel and hateful and mean spirited as they put themselves first instead of his grandfather, that showed me Harry had NO feelings of compassion, love or respect for his grandfather or grandmother and neither did Meghan, it all had to be about what the Sussex's want and that is one of many situations that they have created on their own to get what they want.....and the thing is even if they had everything they want from the royal family, they still would not be happy or content with life....it always has to be about the Sussex's period as they have shown us.  Security be damned as that is an excuse to me as to why they are so angry at the royal family and the world.

Harry all his life before Meghan has the Family/Firm and everyone cleaning up after him in whatever he wanted or did.......EVERYTHING was about Harry's wants and needs when he wanted it.......and gosh, he quite the Family/Firm and a bombshell  hit  him, all his cleaning up left and all the perks gone......a very big *awakening* happened and he finds now he has to take care of himself and clean up after himself.....so that makes him a very angry man today....security is a very small part of his anger and just one of many things he is furious at the family for, so he writes a book to threaten them into giving him whatever he wants.

[Curryong]

What book has Meghan written that criticises the RF? Link to it please, because I have never seen it.

Harry has said nothing about the RF for months. The Oprah interview is receding into the past. And the Sussexes had nothing to do with when the interview was scheduled to be shown. The Queen knew it and the Palace knew it. Harry would have been told not to attend Philip?s funeral if that had not been so.

This lawsuit is aimed directly at the consultative Committee which decides such things as royal security and is packed with Home Office officials (civil servants) and some senior courtiers. No royal sits on it, so how Harry?s lawsuit is aimed at the Queen or BRF I don?t know. Even the tabloids aren?t reporting on the court proceedings regularly at the moment.

As for Harry ?always having to be cleaned up? after anything by Court officials that certainly wasn?t so in his teens and early twenties. If ever William drank heavily at the Rattlebones Inn near Highgrove or anywhere else (and drugs were on the premises) the Palace would direct the media to the fact that his brother was there too. The media often would refer to Harry as the ?playboy Prince? when he and Chelsy were in London clubs and drank too much, regardless of the fact that William and Kate were often in the same clubs drinking heavily as well. It?s just that the media ignored them.

And what ?cleaning up? did the Palace have to do for Harry when he was twice in Afghanistan, having been refused service in Iraq? I have his schedule in bios and he came under fire on his first tour of service there at a remote hill fort at least twice.