Prince Harry’s security row was questioned as Prince Andrew still receives “royal security”. Royal commentator Roberta Fiorito said that Prince Har
Prince Harry’s security row was questioned as Prince Andrew still receives “royal security”. Royal commentator Roberta Fiorito said that Prince Harry has to keep himself, his wife, and kids safe during their visit in the UK. As a part of the Royal Family, he has been denied being able to buy Metropolitan police security when in the UK.
Roberta Fiorito, a host of the Royally Obsessed podcast said: “Prince Andrew still has security and again I am not trying to hijack what’s coming next, we’re talking about Prince Andrew.
“Still, this is a really big piece of this.”
“You have little kids that you keep wanna safe; you have your wife, you have yourself. They inherited the security risk so the fact they are being denied is really complicated for me.”
She added: “And Buckingham Palace is like, we have nothing to do with this, this is the Home Office. It’s the Metropolitan Police’s problem. it’s the Thames Valley police’s problem. It’s their decision.”
JUST IN:Kate Middleton’s new title set to be ‘bittersweet moment’ for Prince William
Retired chief superintendent Dai Davies said that Prince Andrew is on a higher threat level than ever before because he is constantly in the news.
He told Daily Mail: “Whether (or not) he continues to use his titles, he remains the Queen’s son. Whether or not he is still afforded specialist protection will be based entirely around how serious intelligence suggests the threat level will be.”
“Home Office advisers, the Queen’s private security and a special committee will decide what the threat level is.”
He further added: “If the threat level is low, then like junior royals and his own daughters he will have to fund protection himself,” he was reported to have said.
READ MORE: ‘Why the f*** did it take so long?!’ Queen told stripping Andrew’s title was ‘too little, too late’
In light of the security request, a legal representative for Harry released a statement: “Prince Harry inherited a security risk at birth, for life. He remains sixth in line to the throne, served two tours of combat duty in Afghanistan, and in recent years his family has been subjected to well-documented neo-Nazi and extremist threats. While his role within the Institution has changed, his profile as a member of the Royal Family has not. Nor has the threat to him and his family.”
It it continued: “The Duke and Duchess of Sussex personally fund a private security team for their family, yet that security cannot replicate the necessary police protection needed whilst in the UK. In the absence of such protection, Prince Harry and his family are unable to return to his home.
“The Duke first offered to pay personally for UK police protection for himself and his family in January of 2020 at Sandringham. That offer was dismissed. He remains willing to cover the cost of security, as not to impose on the British taxpayer. As is widely known, others who have left public office and have an inherent threat risk receive police protection at no cost to them. The goal for Prince Harry has been simple – to ensure the safety of himself and his family while in the UK so his children can know his home country. During his last visit to the UK in July – to unveil a statue in honour of his late mother – his security was compromised due to the absence of police protection, whilst leaving a charity event.
“After another attempt at negotiations was also rejected, he sought a judicial review in September 2021 to challenge the decision-making behind the security procedures, in the hopes that this could be re-evaluated for the obvious and necessary protection required.
“The UK will always be Prince Harry’s home and a country he wants his wife and children to be safe in With the lack of police protection comes too great a personal risk. Prince Harry hopes that his petition –after close to two years of pleas for security in the UK – will resolve this situation. It is due to a leak in a UK tabloid, with surreptitious timing, we feel it necessary to release a statement setting the facts straight.”