I hope someone posts more about this if there's any possibility it's true. I understood it had something to do with super injunctions but I still don't understand them.
Many people repeat and repeat that the Harkles or even the BRF have a super injuction so that certain things are not talked about.
But they do not understand that to have a super injuction, there must first be a lawsuit. The super injuction is so that the press and the parties cannot talk about the lawsuit and the facts of an ongoing lawsuit. There are no super injuctions if there is no judicial process in progress.
And there is nothing about the Sussex children, no one has filed a lawsuit about it, it could not be filed either without there being some gossip about it, because it would be extremely serious and even unconstitutional if the origin of those children were judicially prevented from knowing, for example. be in the LoS. It would be too scandalous.
That makes sense to me. I'm a US attorney and never understood how they could get one without filing suit. I then don't understand why they bite their tongue unless they're truly just afraid they'll be sued.
Super!!! Someone who is a lawyer!!
The thing is that super injuction is a precautionary measure. And why would a judge order a precautionary measure? To ensure, preserve or anticipate the effectiveness of the estimated resolution that may be issued in the course of a judicial process considered main. A measure of this type cannot be issued if there is not even a trace of a judicial lawsuit. Super injuction is not a prejudicial measure.
Although I swear I would love for Hank to have done something like that, that is, for him to sue so that there was no question about the birth of the Sussex children. That would be the same as confessing that those children were not born with the rights to titles or anything.
Thank you I have been saying this but not nearly as eloquently also a super injuction isn't effective world wide so a UK super injunction has no sway over the media in any other country from printing a story in relation to any research they have done. This super injunction is a piece of comment gossip that has just taken on a life of its own. No lawsuit = no super injunction.... super injunctions when they are granted are not blanketed to the whole world.
Elton knows it. Elton John requested a super injuction. So the British media passed the gossip to the Australian media, and the whole mess about Elton's husband and his sexual affairs still leaked out. The super injuctions are "hey, here's some really good gossip that they want to hide."
Exactly and let me tell you as an Australian we don't like them our media isn't much chop on em either obviously there are a few sugars about but our media given info like this print that was being held cloak and dagger would expose these two woe is me navelgazers for the lying liars they are completely would print it almost as fast as they received it. so would a lot of publications around the world France, Germany so I do not and never have bought the super injunction. Its just not the way things work.
Not just that, but if there were ever a super injunction, it would only stop the UK press from reporting about it. It would not apply to international press or stop them from reporting on the children.
Edit: just saw that someone else said the same earlier.
That's the same, and as Elton had to endure: the British press cannot publish a situation if it is due to super injuction... but journalists have friends in other countries who can publish.
Well, to the extent the lawsuits are about media violating his privacy and the privacy of his wife and by extension his kids, I could see how a good UK lawyer could get an injunction worded in a way that would prohibit speculation about the kids and the wife’s pregnancies.
No. None of Harry's court cases have anything to do with his children. Not even a single one. Megsy spoke for her, only her, in the case of the letter, and Harry has only referred to the years 1998-2011, not later. In fact, Harry wanted to extend his lawsuit against The Sun to cover articles from 2019 referring to Megsy, but the judge did not authorize it because if the affected party were Megsy, then Megsy should sue. The Sussex children have not been named at all in any lawsuit, except in the case against Ravec for "I can't bring my children because they don't have security."
And furthermore, the press has not speculated about his children. Which puts the situation you raise in a problem, because the press has not said anything about the strange case of the Sussex children: the topic is a matter on social networks, forums like this and on youtube. And super injuctions cannot prevent comments in these media, they are only sent to the press. There was a famous case about this, in which nothing was mentioned in the press but everything that happened was known because it was published on Twitter, I think it was from an athlete.
But how would we KNOW there is no lawsuit about the children? One purpose of the super injunction is to keep the very existence of such litigation secret.
That's right, this super order is issued to keep the litigation itself out of the press... but not to keep the super order itself out of the press's knowledge.
Because this is so: the order will be a provisional precautionary measure while the trial is ongoing. That is, first there has to be a lawsuit, and then comes the super injuction. And once the super provisional precautionary measure, the press cannot talk about the case.
But between the presentation of the demand and the measure being issued, there is a period of time. Consider that there are always people from the press in court, there are trials every day, and even when the measure is requested in the same lawsuit, the judge does not decree it immediately after the lawsuit is filed. For it to be granted, the judge must be convinced that there is a justifiable reason with a solid argument. But first, you must file a lawsuit, which must be analyzed to see if it complies with the formalities to be accepted by the court. During that period, the press already found out that there is a lawsuit requesting a super injuction.
And since these types of injunctions only apply in England and Wales, the gossip can be published in Scotland. Or Ireland. Or in Australia. Or in Canada.
And in the specific case of Harry, given that he is in the LoS, and so are his children, even if he sued, and even if there was a super injuction, it would be annulled by something very simple: the Line of Succession itself. That is not a private issue, it is public, it is a matter of Parliament, parliamentarians are not subject to judicial mandates, so they do not face contempt charges. And they would be informed of a lawsuit of this type precisely because they are children in the LoS.
Seriously, there is no super injuction. Not for Harry or anyone at the BRF. It would be a huge scandal if someone from the BRF requested such a measure. Seriously, it is already a big problem that wills are sealed, imagine a court case.
Do you remember the security case, how the Daily Mail found out about 2022?
Harry had kept the matter fairly low profile, his lawyers had filed complaints against the government since June 2021. Harry even managed to file the lawsuit in September 2021, going under the radar of the press because it was presented as an appeal for judicial review , an appeal to the High Court against the decision of a public body or government department... until the Daily Mail found out at the end of that year what the matter was really about, when the admissibility hearing of said "resource" (which is when it is analyzed whether the request meets the formal requirements to analyze the substance of the matter).
And the Mail published in January 2022 that Harry was suing the government for security.
Harry ordered it published that his claim was because Harry was being denied the right to pay bodyguards and got the BBC to publish it. But his lawyers, when they appeared at a hearing on the admissibility of the lawsuit, requested a far-reaching confidentiality order on documents and witness statements surrounding his case against the Government. A kind of super injuction.
Warning! Danger Will Robinson Danger
That request made the Mail find out everything. Including that Harry had never made the offer to pay for his security (gossip thrown at the Mail by the government). And Mail dropped the bomb without the slightest compassion.
It is very difficult to outwit the press.
Now, imagine that in the middle of all that, the Mail or The Sun or the Mirror found out that Harry had a super injuction about the children. Ay no mames güey!!! blood would flow there.
What happens is that you file a lawsuit in court.
But any claim has to meet two requirements: one of form (that it is written correctly following the corresponding legal format) and one of substance (that what you are requesting is really relevant).
For example: if you are going to sue for a crash that someone caused to your vehicle, you cannot sue in criminal court.
So, when you sue, you must first consider whether the claim is admissible for processing. I don't know exactly the name in English, but in Chile it is called "admissibility procedure." That is, the document indicates the plaintiff, his or her information, the lawyer who represents the plaintiff, his or her information, the information of the defendant if there is one, the specific facts that are requested, the right that is invoked (in that case, the legal norm that has been violated or to which it is necessary to resort in case of invoking a right) the means of proof that are going to be presented...
All the requirements must be in writing. If data is missing, such as the name of the lawyer or the full name of the plaintiff, the claim will not be processed.
In other words, the claim is not processed.
Only when the claim goes through this process, that is, when it is verified that it meets the formal requirements, and it is considered that it meets them, is it only then admitted for processing, that is, the claim is processed, and it begins to act. the court. Not before.
And even if a complaint is well drafted, a procedure is not always initiated (which can be ordinary, summary, etc.) Because the defendant can present an incident of prior and special pronouncement. In other words, the lawsuit may be very nice, but it will not be processed until an issue is resolved.
Which is it? The classic: the cause is prescribed. That is, the person can no longer sue because the time to do so has run out. General rule 5 years. Another classic: incompetence of the court. It is not up to the court where the lawsuit was filed to hear the case. Or that the case has already been judged (res judicata, non bis idem)
These incident of prior and special pronouncement mean that they have to be seen before the lawsuit begins to be filed, because it cannot be analyzed and even less dictate a judicial ruling on a case that already has a judicial ruling issued, because that means that the matter has already been resolved. . There is no point in discussing the same issue again when it has already been resolved. Do you understand me?
Attention: this is not just for the UK. This is valid for any legal system with established courts. They are called "general rules of procedure" and it is the same in the USA, in the UK, in Chile, in Argentina, in Indonesia...
So far, we have not left the first station, even the judge has not seen the substance of Harry's complaints against The Sun.
I don’t see how. It might be ticklish for the papers involved, but others have no interest in the suit. But perhaps on all papers because of the ages of the children
Dan Wootton said it a few weeks ago and Lady C said it too.
I do not believe that. The press knows that Harry has a price, so they would pay him and keep him quiet. But it's not like that
There are other ways of remuneration, that’s easy to work around and not a valid argument against the use of a surrogate. Apparently a mortgage was paid. The theory hasn’t been so much about whether the children are real or not. They probably are real children, but do not exist in the way they’ve been described by H and M. I personally believe they are real children but not their biological children, (from both h and m). I don’t believe they live with them nor are in their legal custody either.
If a mortgage has been paid, someone would know about the people living there. The kids are mini Markles.
I don't think one house is enough for for a lifetime of that level of secrecy. Then there's who paid off the medical staff? They'd need something for breaking the line of succession.
I actually think all of the above are true, however I voted for the last:
*He wants IPP status to feel important (and be protected from potential criminal charges)*
I think he wants IPP status to fluff up his fragile ego and protect himself from prosecution .
We heard stories that he was actually quite tight fisted with money. Funny how it all works, careful before just to literally squander it all on some hoe 😂
My comment was more about the overwhelming response to this question being because of his security. Most of the lawsuits aren't about his security so how can it be the reason he's pursuing them?
I think it's his way of feeling a sense of purpose. He's pretty much useless, but if he can convince himself that he is a dragon slayer on behalf of his princess, you'll feel like his life has meaning. That's my guess.
Since a lot of the lawsuits deal with privacy issues, I believe he’s using them to highlight how he needs security to protect himself and his family from all of these dangers. If he wins at these lawsuits he will use them as proof that everyone is after them. I really don’t want him to get that IPP status. It’s such a bad idea.
I agree with this!!!!
I also think - he just truly doesn’t get or understand his new status in life. He doesn’t seem very grounded in general but I’m sure Markle didn’t help that AT ALL.
I think he genuinely doesn't understand his change in status. For the first 35 years of his life he had everything handed to him simply because he existed. There were no real consequences for anything and he didn't understand that his privilege was because of his position, not because of him self as an individual. When he stepped out of that position, he just assumed everything would come with him (security, famous friends, high profile engagements, media interest, etc). It never occurred to him that things wouldn't stay the same because he thought it was all FOR HIM, not just a result of his being a prince and in the LOS. They both talked a lot in the Oprah interview about how they were shocked the security was cut back because, in his view, 'I was born into this and the risk hasn't changed'.
Ironically we now know that he hated his former position - he always felt hard done by. Again, because he didn't understand that the difference in treatment was about his POSITION, not about him as an individual. So he's bewildered by the current situation and trying to rectify it. He thinks that if people would just listen while he explains that he hasn't changed, they'll realize they've made a mistake and reinstate his privileges. Add in a little persecution mania and his belief that his family are all eating sour grapes because he escaped that awful life, and he'll be convinced that they're doing it on purpose to hurt him.
He thinks of himself as 'just Harry' and hasn't realized that 'just Harry' had what he had because he was third in line to the throne, and that now he's just...not.
This is probably why William - alledgely - yelled at Harry at the Sandringham Summit. William tried to explain to Harry that he had the perks because of his POSITION and not because of his PERSONALITY. And Harry refused to listen and kept shouting that Meghan Markle had a large following on Instagram.
The irony is if William left - and heaven forbid that - he would probably make a big success of life outside the royal family. Just look at Earthshot.
Imagine if Katherine could make comercial deals, EVERY brand would pay hundreds of millions to have her. She would become a billionaire in 6 months top.
Harry is correct in 1 thing--the risks haven't changed.
But like most of us, if you quit your job you lose your benefits. My husband's job allows us to buy extra life insurance for him, and also a policy for me. But if he quits, both of us have 0 live insurance.
So if you know that you need the benefit--you're at risk because of your birth etc., then you maybe don't quit the job that provides 24/7 security. Unless you have Bill Gates money and can afford the best private security.
He never thinks of himself as " just Harry". I suspect Madam told him to say that. At all times, and many times spoken by him, he is a Prince of the Realm. He still expects all the perks as such, and being of little intelligence, he can't figure out he gave up all the perks when he left. He demands respect but self sabotages every time. He's a nasty dimwit.
I also think that he uses lawsuits as a weapon to beat anyone that disagrees with him. Plus with an astounding sense of entitlement he thinks he can win, and if it doesn't go his way he'll keep asking for a retrial until everyone sees how wonderful he is and just give in. I'm certain that he thinks any costs will just be picked up by the taxpayers because he's *obviously* too good to pay anything himself.
I also thinks he is so used to UK Institutions (The Law, the media, police, government officials) being so deferential to the point of obsequiousness with royalty that he thinks he can push his agenda on them through the courts (and maybe make some money too).
All of the above, along with:
"He knows it goes against the grain with the Royals, but he's the cool one who broke free" ... but still wants special perks to feel like a Royal. Go figure.
Right? You guys are all trapped and I'm free... But since I'm in danger in my freedom you must pay to keep me safe! I wished I could slap his dumb looking face!
Agree. The man is a total moron. If they had left and lived quietly, they would be in no more danger than anyone else. I don't see that any taxpayer either here in the UK or in the USA owes them anything.
“Yes, you guys are trapped being hard-working, stable, responsible representatives of my birth country and I’m free to squander all my privileges and status being a useful idiot”
All of the above but I also think his handlers are pushing him to do this using his title and fame to curb free speech and intimidate the media. while whispering in his ear that he’s fighting the good fight and he’s being so righteous, and he was wronged so he needs to fight back.
He‘s too proud to admit he was wrong with his legal actions.
I also believe he’s intellectually dependent on his attorneys who are having a field day (rather a field year/decade) with their most stupid client ever. They don’t care if they‘ll win or lose as long as Harry finances their lives.
Ooooh, that Sherborne needs to be called out for his highly questionable legal practises. He certainly is filling his bank account with fees and costs gleaned off the HalfWit Prince.
My money (all five bucks of it) is on the IPP to feel important. In America, we don’t have ‘royalty.’ He’s just some dude in a big house in California, and I think he can’t stand being some dude. He claims to want to be ‘Just Harry,’ but that means he has to give up the only thing that makes him even remotely interesting.
And with his openly admitting to drug use, if he gets busted with a few grams of the okayest Colombian booger sugar, he probably thinks IPP means he’ll get off Scot free.
Tell it to Harry. I think his dumb ass believes getting his security back is going to magically confer IPP status. He doesn't dwell in the real world. He orbits Planet Markle and sucks in her toxic fumes all day. He's about 2 IQ points above a drooling goober.
I chose stupid because the fuckwit is so self righteous he probably doesn’t think he needs protection from criminal prosecution. IPP would make him feel important, so I half agree with that one.
Harry IS NOT IPP, WILL NEVER BE IPP AND WAS NEVER IPP
Never.
And if he wants a UK court ruling to grant him protection throughout the galaxy, he has no idea what he's talking about.
Because also, if he were IPP, all his court cases would automatically end, including in the UK. Goodbye to The Sun or the Mail case. An IPP cannot be sued... but neither can it be sued.
The court ruling in Ravec's case only has effect in the UK, and would only allow Harry to complain to Ravec for safety. I wouldn't even guarantee that Ravec will be there for you 24/7. It was already said that it was not going to happen. So the court ruling would not make Harry an IPP, much less make him pay for his security anywhere in the world. If he believes that, it's because he's STUPID!!!!!!!!
None of these. He is on a mission, he thinks he can bring down the press.
I think that they both think it’s the press holding them back and to a certain extent it’s true. However it’s because the press are not fawning all over them and reporting on them in the way they think they deserve. Those two are delusional and think they should be idolised.
If they ever did something admirable, the press could report in the way they want. But they seem willing to try anything except acting like people worthy of positive press coverage.
To me, it's a combo of options 4 and 6. I genuinely think he is dumb enough to think that he'll somehow win this thing. Also, his ego can't handle the idea of not being an IPP and he's spiraling because he's shocked that all the money he's spent on lawyers hasn't done a damned thing to get back his IPP status. He still can't believe that the world has moved on and doesn't think that he and Meghan are as special as they think they are and certainly not special enough to warrant IPP status.
His whole life is structured around resentment. Some of which is understandable (resenting the paparazzi, and the press for their role in his mother's death), some of it isn't (him resenting being the second child, the "spare"). Ultimately, is exists in a state of arrested department and simply can't move on from past all these resentments. At the age of almost 40 he should have made peace with his demons and not unhelpfully dredge up the past, and stop frivolous lawsuits, having a second child complex and feuding with his father. Megsy has him sussed, however, and I think encourages these bad traits. It keeps him in a cycle of ruminating over the past and allows her to tap into his deepest well of insecurity. His arrested development stems from the death of his mother, that's why she does things like wear her perfume and "communicates with her spirit" at her grave.
The various lawsuits can be distinguished though and to an extent the motives likewise.
The two main ones I recall now are 1. For security protection against the Home Office (Ravec) and 2. Against the media, including Mirror Group (decided a couple of months ago in Hazmat's favour) and currently against NGN, all related to 'phone hacking long ago.
The Home Office suit prima facie seems silly as there has never been any move to deny from Hazmat approriate protection. His objection seems to rest on not being automatically granted a high level of protection comparable to a working royal, rather only at such a level if the risk assessment at the time suggests it is needed. The objection extends to claiming any private security Hazmat organized for himself (and note his American bruisers would be obliged to leave their guns behind if operating in the UK ) could not be adequate as there would be no access (at least not in the normal course) to the confidential intelligence information routinely available to royal protetion officers of the British police.
So we are left to ponder on the real motives since too often with the Harkles the real reasons for anything are disguised. It may well be to secure some claim for IPP status and offload his exhorbitant (and unnecessary likely) security costs to the states he visits or, lucky, lucky USA, lives in. I have, however, not seen that even if Hazmat won the security levels he seeks as an automatic right in the UK he would once more enjoy IPP status and then offload his costs.
Accordingly, the Home Office suit is perhaps driven by paranoia, over-weening entitlement, a grossly inflated sense of his own worth and importance, a desire to strike out against supposed enemies and bitterness against his famiily and the UK.
The suits about 'phone hacking are likely driven by Hazmat's hatred of the media for its intrusions into his life and, since becoming a Harkle, unwillingess to present him and his ghastly spouse in the light be prefers. So the root motives might have some reasonable origin but the same characteristics that drive his Home Office suit likely apply. Sad.
They can be changed now by revising or even repealling the Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978 howver any substantial change is unlikely since the Act was designed to "to implement the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1973" per [Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978 (legislation.gov.uk)](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/17)
As noted though, what I have not seen and do not know is whether simply because Hazmat obtained a routine upgrade in his UK security as provided by the UK government it would make any difference to him obtaining IPP status that he could then use to obtain comparable protection in other countries. If not, then, clearly, IPP status is unlikely to be a motive that explains Hazmat's pursuit of the Home Office.
The Act states "*“a protected person” means, in relation to an alleged offence, any of the following, namely—*
*(a)a person who at the time of the alleged offence is a Head of State, a member of a body which performs the functions of Head of State under the constitution of the State, a Head of Government or a Minister for Foreign Affairs and is outside the territory of the State in which he holds office;*
*(b)a person who at the time of the alleged offence is a representative or an offical of a State or an offical or agent of an international organisation of an intergovernmental character, is entitled under international law to special protection from attack on his person, freedom or dignity and does not fall within the preceding paragraph;*
*(c)a person who at the time of the alleged offence is a member of the family of another person mentioned in either of the preceding paragraphs and—*
*(i)if the other person is mentioned in paragraph (a) above, is accompanying him,*
*(ii)if the other person is mentioned in paragraph (b) above, is a member of his household;"*
There might be two possibilities for Hazmat to claim he falls within the definition but those apply at present and so the Home Office suit would not seem relevant. The one possibility is Hazmat qualifies as being per (a) "*a member of a body which performs the functions of Head of State under the constitution of the State*" and his position as a Counsellor of State was held to allow him to fall within the definition. The other possibility is that he could somehow claim per the final clause (c)(ii) to be "*a member of his household*", being family. I think that unlikely though as he is too remote, especially now he lives overseas.
As noted though, those possibilities apply in present circusmtances but as far as we know Hazmat does not enjoy IPP status. Accordingly, I do not support the view often enough expressed that the pursuit by Hazmat of the Home Office is about restoring IPP status. I also od not know whether if he obatined the security status he seeks as routine in the UK whether foreign states would be obliged or wish to extend any or some security to him that they might not at present.
Sorry, but you are wrong
No, you cannot change the conditions of an IPP at all.
Because the Convention takes precedence over internal law. The only thing the internal law can do is assimilate the Convention, not modify the conditions. And even, in the eventual case that the UK did not have legislation incorporating the Convention into its domestic law, surprise! Because it is an International Convention ratified by the UK, which it is, its compliance and respect remains mandatory.
Let's get to your other mistake: a person IS NOT IPP in their own country.
What does it mean to be IPP? I, Jane Smith, have been appointed ambassador of Chile to the UK. The second that I, as Chile's ambassador to the UK, set foot in the UK, I am an IPP. UK must be responsible for my safety. But if I return to Chile, I will stop being IPP. I become Jane Smith, citizen.
Harry cannot demand that the UK be an IPP in the UK because he is British, so in the UK he is not an IPP. He would be VIP, but not IPP
And the one outside the UK will never be an IPP, because he does not have a state position. And IPPs are specific people, with specific positions, with a specific role, fulfilling specific functions in a country that is not their own. Being CoS is NOT one of the ranges to be IPP.
And finally. I, Jane Smith, travel as ambassador from Chile to the UK. And I travel with my children and my husband. They, because I am an ambassador, then they are IPP too, because I am IPP in the UK.
But if I, Jane Smith, did not travel to the UK, but my husband did, my husband is not an IPP for that reason. As long as I, Jane Smith, am not holding one of the specifically indicated positions that are considered IPP, no one in my family is. Harry can't use "I'm Charles's son" to be safe anywhere in the world. He may be Charles's son, but he is no one to demand that security. That out of COURTESY you are given a certain level of protection is that, COURTESY, not obligation. And Harry cannot demand that protection, because he is a private citizen.
Thanks for your corrections.
I hoped I noted the UK Act could be amended but since it was implemeting an international convention that would be unlikely in any substantial way. It would be possible for the UK to withdraw from the international conventiion I assume, although I cannot envisage the circumstances where it would.
Certainly I should have been clear IPP status applies internationally and not in one's home country. I am obliged to you for your explanation that IPP status will not be conferred on Hazmat.
The problem with Conventions of this type is that it is irrelevant, for purposes, whether the UK agrees or not. Because basically, it was capturing in a document a practice of millennia. So either the UK accept it or the UK accept it. There were precisely no alternatives because the UK was still going to be tied to the Convention at the risk of having a serious international conflict with many countries. Imagine that the UK did not consider any ambassador to the UK IPP or that no one considered any British ambassador IPP. You see? It is not that the UK in this case has an alternative.
The only difference with the ancient practice of not attacking ambassadors and consuls, and the current legislation on IPP, is that the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, of 1973, included the Secretary General of the UN and people with that level of representation. That was following the death of Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld, in 1961, in what turned out to be an attack. Until then, the UN Secretary General did not have IPP status. Since 1973 it has.
I don't remember why the IPP thing came up. I guess it's because Harry wants to be paid for his security. But Harry has a total mess with his security issue. Because he wants to be an exception, that is, he wants to be treated as the most special of the special. There isn't even such a category.
I understand, thank you again.
The IPP matter relating to Hazmat came up originally I think because on the short-lived Sussex Royal site, as I recall, there were some words by the ghastly duo to the effect "we shall always be internationally protected persons". As you make clear, that is a wrong statement, then and now.
Then in attempts to explain Hazmat's motives in his curious pursuit of the Home Office it was oft suggested here, as you no doubt have seen, that IPP status and costs layoff were the reasons. I had never seen any explanation that showed whether or not that could be a reason until your earlier post that showed it could not be. As noted, I am obliged and I hope the IPP matter now ceases to be used to explain Hazmat's antics.
This needs to be pinned. Everywhere. For all time. You explained very nicely. I think about making an actual post like this every day. You may want to… too many people around here think he can magically attain that status by suing RAVEC and it’s just… not possible. It does not work that way, as you beautifully stated.
I voted for the IPP status because having that would mean he was treated as a true royal when he travels with all the flashing lights, SUVs and security, in other words, the important man he believes himself to be. Plus, he would be saving a ton of money as he wouldn't be paying for it. However, I think there's a touch of all the other choices in his thinking, too.
Let's see: HARRY IS NOT AN IPP, HE WAS NEVER AN IPP AND WILL NEVER BE AN IPP
An Internationally Protected Person is a Head of State, a Head of Government, a President of a country, an ambassador, a consul, the Secretary General of the UN, the Secretary General of the OAS and the EU, the Secretary General of the NATO...
That's an IPP. That is in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, of 1973.
It is a select number of people, restricted, exhaustive. And Harry doesn't qualify in any of those cases. In none.
He has never been IPP. Never. The joy of status when he traveled because he represented the Queen. In that circumstance, the enjoyment of status in the name of the Queen. But that is achieved with an OFFICIAL TRIP. That is, organized by the constitutional monarchical State of the UK. Not going on a world tour just because.
Harry is not IPP because he is Charles's son, nor because he is a prince, nor for anything. He is NOT, he has not been, nor will he be.
He's too stupid to ever understand this. I'm sure it was explained to him at the Sandringham Summit, but he probably covered his ears with his hands and sang: "La la la, I can't hear you."
I can't tell you that you're wrong, because Judge Lane's ruling on the Ravec case is, I think, 51 pages, or 55, of which at least 40 are "what Harry doesn't want to understand even though they explained it to him very slowly." Yes, Harry is doing "La la la, I can't hear you."
Meghan wants/demands the IPP status. She's nagging him to pursue it so he does as she commands. MM does not accept NO for an answer when she wants something. And if the answer is NO, expect revenge.
Thank you for putting this down so clearly here. It needs repeating that none of these cases result in some Judge waving a wand and granting this status. No ruling from RAVEC about his security status when in the UK can make him an IPP.
No judicial resolution can do it.
And let it be clear: NO ONE is IPP in their own country. NOBODY. To be IPP, Harry would have to be appointed UK ambassador to the USA. In other words, it would be in the USA that Harry would be IPP. The obligation to protect an IPP is that of the country where that person is located, not in their own country.
So that it is understood: this is the messenger arriving before Leonidas in 300. The messenger was sent by Xerxes. So, because he was an official envoy of Xerxes, what was the messenger? An IPP. That's why he tells Leonidas that he can't hurt him (although Leonidas didn't care, how nice Leonidas). The same as Lucerys Velaryon when she went to see Lord Borros Baratheon and Aemond wanted to attack him. What did Borros say? Not in my living room, because the child was sent from Rhaenyra. That's an IPP.
In the UK, the most Harry can be is a VIP. In fact, the treatment that Ravec now gives him is that of a minor celebrity, but within the VIP range. Harry doesn't accept that. Because in the UK there cannot be armed bodyguards, and Harry demands that they be armed. Because? Paranoia. But Harry cannot be an IPP in the UK, nor anywhere in this galaxy.
Maybe if we send Harry as a messenger to Alderaan before Vader captures Princess Leia... But on this planet Earth, Harry is not an IPP.
HM The King of Canada (and the rest of the Canadian politicians and public): That won’t be necessary.
Does Harry have any idea what it would look like being “Viceroy” in one of the old Dominions?. If you want Empire 2.0 this is about as close as you can get!! It is beyond absurd. The boy is clinically insane.
But Harry and Meghan are manifesting taking over from William and Catherine as next King and Queen. So "head of state" status is the first step to usurp them - in their minds, probably.
I'm not going to get into the Harkles' delusions, really, I had enough reading the court ruling in the Ravec case, Harry's delusions are tremendous. What Harry and Megsy believe has nothing to do with reality.
Exactly. But unlike your average deluded Joe and Jane, they have money, connections, and elevated status in society, which makes them more dangerous.
They will NEVER become what they truly want, but it looks like they won't stop trying, one way or another.
That they don't stop trying is true
But whether their connections can help them achieve this is more doubtful. It's not that they don't have certain connections, but if those people have supported them it is because Harry is a link to the BRF. It's not because of Harry's intelligence. If Harry doesn't serve as a link, what's the point of Harry?
Yes, but there are flaws in the matter. After all, Constantine was king, and he was overthrown and his wife was Anne Mary of Denmark, who was actually Queen of Greece. And his son Paul of Greece is the Crown Prince of Greece, Duke of Sparta and Prince of Denmark. Whether the Greeks want to have a monarch again is another matter, but not all of Anne Mary's children are from the Greek Royal Family, and not all of them travel with diplomatic passports. I think the issue comes down to Pablo and his family, and I don't think that will continue in future generations.
Harry had a diplomatic passport when he acted on behalf of the Queen, that is, when he was a member of the Firm and had an active role representing the Queen. Only then could Harry use that document. He didn't have it because he was a prince, but he had it when he worked for the Queen. He renounced his duties. He resigned from working for the Queen.
Harry has never had special treatment for being him, for being Harry. Not even he had special treatment because he was the grandson of or son of. The special treatment he had was while he worked for the Firm.
https://preview.redd.it/3ohosh1h2k9d1.png?width=567&format=png&auto=webp&s=3420e4a078e11012ef0082b2b7f0965337520e0c
And Marie Chantal is the wife of Paul.
I went with the last one, IPP status. It makes them
1. feel very important and gives them status in their minds
2. save a ton of money at home
3. be able to travel the world with visiting countries having to pay for security, even if it's just a vacation and not a faux royal tour
Until proven otherwise, I firmly believe the 25 kill isn't true but was put in the book to help with getting IPP status, as was the fake car chase
There's a huge contingent--including me--that believe the paps **share responsibility** for what happened. They *did not kill Diana.* But the have responsibility.
Consider this: when I worked retail, if we chased a shoplifter out of the store who then got in an accident, we could be held responsible, because we were chasing them. Obviously chasing people is dangerous, and in many respects paps acted more safely after Diana's death, at least in UK.
Otherwise...put it this way. If H (and M) were good people, keeping media/tabloids from destroying people's lives by lawsuits is truly a way to do good. If -I- was suing all these papers, it would be to do good and effect change. It takes years and risks too much money.
But H and M have shown they are petty and vindictive etc. etc. so it's not really going to end up doing good for people, just for themselves.
If it is true that he has been abusing a Diplomatic Visa because he was born to be Prince and is in the LOS even after: quitting his RF role, exiting his home country, publicly breaking away, doing no diplomatic duty for the British foreign ministry or for his father or brother, having no official employment for diplomatic posts, not in the communication channels or chain of command for British diplomats, is handing out medals like his family, is protected in some form by US Homeland Security department, then he is still living a privileged and spoilt prince lifestyle filled with nepotism even though he hypocritically calls himself Just Harry. He is suing because he wants that nepotism to continue and get treated as above the peasants because his mother was Diana and his father is the King. He might also get access to insider government information about Britain, their ally countries and politicians which might fetch a lot of millions if sold to a foreign prince on a yacht or a Russian oligarch (again on a yacht).
he might get briefings but he's not getting classified info he could sell. By now M would have 'accidentally on purpose' let it slip for those $$$$$s. Homeland Security isn't protecting him, he's got private security.
No doubt he's got a special type of visa, but it's possible that was issued before H quit as a working royal.
That honestly doesn't bother me as some countries have 50 princes and I'm sure they get the same visa even if they are just here to live in a penthouse and be a playboy prince. If you quit your job at the embassy you won't have a diplomatic visa anymore, but there's some wiggle room for hereditary royals, I think.
If US taxpayers aren't paying for his bodyguards/security, I don't care that he has a special visa that a person can get even if they admit drug use. I'm far, far more upset that tax loopholes allow the richest to pay far less than their share of taxes, to where they're taking 25 paid firefighters away from the stations near me b/c of budget problems.
Harry will lose his visa if he's convicted of a felony, I'm sure, so I'm content to let him slip into obscurity and penury.
I think it’s because subconsciously he’s fighting his father. As soon as the court cases end, his connection to the UK is pretty much gone, the bridge has been burnt and the ashes are compost on the high grove strawberry patch.
Most of the above but I think he’s really doing something for his mother. He wants to be remembered as her true son and one defender. Also.hoping for money
If he really wanted to honour his mother and bring meaning to her death, he would have thrown his efforts into, and lent his name to, road safety awareness campaigns. Raising awareness of the dangers of drink-driving and excessive speed and the importance of seatbelts would have achieved more good than all his whining and raging about the media and how his image compares with other members of his family.
I agree with you Otherwise-engaged, but endorsing accident prevention campaigns would be what most sane, healthy people would do if in his situation. However, IMO we have a supremely dumb, self-centred perpetual victim who cannot accept Diana’s own contribution to her untimely death. As he is not intelligent we get his ’waaghing’ instead.
H&M think they will get millions and millions in settlement money. Their egos and self importance are so inflated. They feel they can beat down and punish anyone who gets in their way and keep beating it even after it's a dead issue.
I chose the IPP status option because there was no option for him needing securitaay to feel important and as a status symbol. (I don't know much about the IPP issue, but from what I've read from different Sinners who seem to understand these matters, he's not going to get it no matter what.)
yeah, Ravec could decide he's in enough danger he needs the security on his next UK visit \[which is the current situation, Harry must give notice and Ravec decides on a case by case basis, which is more than fair, IMO\].
BUT that wouldn't make Harry an IPP, and he's not going to be an IPP ever again, as he's a private citizen and doesn't represent King/UK.
I don't believe Harry wants the security to feel important/status symbol. I think Harry's genuinely convinced his family (and himself to an extent) are in danger. One key thing to remember is that Harry's private security can carry guns (with restrictions in some jurisdictions) in US, but not in UK. Like many of us, if the bad guys show up he'd like someone to protect him with more than Kung Fu.
As an American, the idea that you're being attacked and you call the police and \*\*\*they don't even have guns when they come\*\*\* in UK, I've no doubt Meghan is rightly scared about that. I am in NO way a gun supporter. But -if- I needed the police to come save my life, or -if- I was high profile to need security, I would 'nope' out of leaving the house ETA if they weren't armed.
Of course being Meghan, she took it a step way too far and I'm certain both to influence the UK court as well as continually trigger Harry's issues about protecting his family, I believe Meghan orchestrated the 'catastrophic car chase'. It's clear you can see that Meghan, also Doria, are pretty chill--but Harry looks truly upset. 100% my belief M set that up and H did not know.
So as with most of Harry's behavior--H genuinely wanted an 'out' from being a working Royal/trapped, he's equally as responsible, but Harry is also a victim of abuse. I think they call M's type of abuse 'coercive control' in the UK and you'd consider it emotional/psychological abuse, isolation, etc. type of domestic violence in US.
As far as the lawsuits, it's within that framework of H having mental health issues to begin, being abused by M, and manipulation/horrible advice from people he trusts \[recalling that 'people he trusts' are now also 'people that Meghan allows him to trust'\]. Obviously, a neutral advisor would spell out EXACTLY how high ballpark range H's legal costs would be even if he WINS--that's why Hugh Grant settled his hacking lawsuit.
Harry wants his IPP status back. But that is not determined by the courts, but by the Home Office. Harry is no longer representing the State or the Crown, hence no IPP status.
Not sure Harry understands this, and he is for sure thinking it is special for him. However, a lot of blame has to be laid at the feet of Meghan Markle, Elton John, Hugh Grant and Harry´s lawyer Sherbourne. Most of these cases are fighting old stuff that has been changed a long time ago in the UK.
I'd leave off Hugh Grant. He had genuine harm from hacking, he wasn't involved in the whole 'visiting Elton in France' lawyer meeting w/Sherbourne.
Also, Hugh Grant -could- have continued his case to trial, but plainly said that would cost him 10 million pounds so he wasn't doing it.
Harry managed to make a huge fool of himself (worst.witness.ever) in hacking case. Hugh Grant didn't as far as I can tell. I'm sure Sherbourne is pacing his office swearing he'll never take on a client who's as big an idiot as Harry again. Just preparing Harry for his time on the stand must have made him into an alcoholic.
Other: goaded on by Meghan Markle, which will be described in her one-tear-left-eye-go tell-all interviews and book when they split as Harry's obsessive and delusional behaviour. She tried to stop him, really she did, but he wouldn't listen (sob!)
This is all about IPP status which he won't get because HE FREAKING LEFT!!! his sense of entitlement won't let him give up even if he goes broke. "it's my birth right!! I was born a prince through no fault of my own!!". Then you should have kept your fu king head down, do the job at waving, shaking hands and looking mildly interested in the little people and you wouldn't be where you are now, you idiot!!
If he were to get IPP status again, any country he visited or stayed in (like the US) would be legally required to provide him with taxpayer-funded security. He wouldn't have to pay for it himself anymore, which is probably the biggest reason he's suing the UK government.
Agree with all the comments. On Oprah, Meghan believed Archie was entitled to security, which is crazy due to his lack of proximity to the throne. They are both delusional about their status.
I think He is using the court to force his narrative. This way, later in time, he can use his own court-statement to do a doc with "his truth" with the premissa of being truth because it was taken to court. Plus it gives him and Rachel timeline and a reason/material to write puff-pieces that puts their names on the same line as the Royals. It's the "being cool by association" of Rachel's high school times.
He wants free security. He believes he is entitled to it. He has a messiah complex and feels william has let him and mummy down by being a responsible adult and settling. Fighting makes him a "better" son than William.IMO.
Can’t remember where I read this but there was a theory that the lawsuits keep the press at bay about publishing research on the alleged children.
I hope someone posts more about this if there's any possibility it's true. I understood it had something to do with super injunctions but I still don't understand them.
Many people repeat and repeat that the Harkles or even the BRF have a super injuction so that certain things are not talked about. But they do not understand that to have a super injuction, there must first be a lawsuit. The super injuction is so that the press and the parties cannot talk about the lawsuit and the facts of an ongoing lawsuit. There are no super injuctions if there is no judicial process in progress. And there is nothing about the Sussex children, no one has filed a lawsuit about it, it could not be filed either without there being some gossip about it, because it would be extremely serious and even unconstitutional if the origin of those children were judicially prevented from knowing, for example. be in the LoS. It would be too scandalous.
That makes sense to me. I'm a US attorney and never understood how they could get one without filing suit. I then don't understand why they bite their tongue unless they're truly just afraid they'll be sued.
Super!!! Someone who is a lawyer!! The thing is that super injuction is a precautionary measure. And why would a judge order a precautionary measure? To ensure, preserve or anticipate the effectiveness of the estimated resolution that may be issued in the course of a judicial process considered main. A measure of this type cannot be issued if there is not even a trace of a judicial lawsuit. Super injuction is not a prejudicial measure. Although I swear I would love for Hank to have done something like that, that is, for him to sue so that there was no question about the birth of the Sussex children. That would be the same as confessing that those children were not born with the rights to titles or anything.
Thank you I have been saying this but not nearly as eloquently also a super injuction isn't effective world wide so a UK super injunction has no sway over the media in any other country from printing a story in relation to any research they have done. This super injunction is a piece of comment gossip that has just taken on a life of its own. No lawsuit = no super injunction.... super injunctions when they are granted are not blanketed to the whole world.
Elton knows it. Elton John requested a super injuction. So the British media passed the gossip to the Australian media, and the whole mess about Elton's husband and his sexual affairs still leaked out. The super injuctions are "hey, here's some really good gossip that they want to hide."
Exactly and let me tell you as an Australian we don't like them our media isn't much chop on em either obviously there are a few sugars about but our media given info like this print that was being held cloak and dagger would expose these two woe is me navelgazers for the lying liars they are completely would print it almost as fast as they received it. so would a lot of publications around the world France, Germany so I do not and never have bought the super injunction. Its just not the way things work.
That's it
Not just that, but if there were ever a super injunction, it would only stop the UK press from reporting about it. It would not apply to international press or stop them from reporting on the children. Edit: just saw that someone else said the same earlier.
That's the same, and as Elton had to endure: the British press cannot publish a situation if it is due to super injuction... but journalists have friends in other countries who can publish.
Part of his security lawsuit was behind closed doors if I remember correctly. Maybe it was brought up there?
Well, to the extent the lawsuits are about media violating his privacy and the privacy of his wife and by extension his kids, I could see how a good UK lawyer could get an injunction worded in a way that would prohibit speculation about the kids and the wife’s pregnancies.
No. None of Harry's court cases have anything to do with his children. Not even a single one. Megsy spoke for her, only her, in the case of the letter, and Harry has only referred to the years 1998-2011, not later. In fact, Harry wanted to extend his lawsuit against The Sun to cover articles from 2019 referring to Megsy, but the judge did not authorize it because if the affected party were Megsy, then Megsy should sue. The Sussex children have not been named at all in any lawsuit, except in the case against Ravec for "I can't bring my children because they don't have security." And furthermore, the press has not speculated about his children. Which puts the situation you raise in a problem, because the press has not said anything about the strange case of the Sussex children: the topic is a matter on social networks, forums like this and on youtube. And super injuctions cannot prevent comments in these media, they are only sent to the press. There was a famous case about this, in which nothing was mentioned in the press but everything that happened was known because it was published on Twitter, I think it was from an athlete.
But how would we KNOW there is no lawsuit about the children? One purpose of the super injunction is to keep the very existence of such litigation secret.
That's right, this super order is issued to keep the litigation itself out of the press... but not to keep the super order itself out of the press's knowledge. Because this is so: the order will be a provisional precautionary measure while the trial is ongoing. That is, first there has to be a lawsuit, and then comes the super injuction. And once the super provisional precautionary measure, the press cannot talk about the case. But between the presentation of the demand and the measure being issued, there is a period of time. Consider that there are always people from the press in court, there are trials every day, and even when the measure is requested in the same lawsuit, the judge does not decree it immediately after the lawsuit is filed. For it to be granted, the judge must be convinced that there is a justifiable reason with a solid argument. But first, you must file a lawsuit, which must be analyzed to see if it complies with the formalities to be accepted by the court. During that period, the press already found out that there is a lawsuit requesting a super injuction. And since these types of injunctions only apply in England and Wales, the gossip can be published in Scotland. Or Ireland. Or in Australia. Or in Canada. And in the specific case of Harry, given that he is in the LoS, and so are his children, even if he sued, and even if there was a super injuction, it would be annulled by something very simple: the Line of Succession itself. That is not a private issue, it is public, it is a matter of Parliament, parliamentarians are not subject to judicial mandates, so they do not face contempt charges. And they would be informed of a lawsuit of this type precisely because they are children in the LoS. Seriously, there is no super injuction. Not for Harry or anyone at the BRF. It would be a huge scandal if someone from the BRF requested such a measure. Seriously, it is already a big problem that wills are sealed, imagine a court case.
That all is very logical. Thank you.
Do you remember the security case, how the Daily Mail found out about 2022? Harry had kept the matter fairly low profile, his lawyers had filed complaints against the government since June 2021. Harry even managed to file the lawsuit in September 2021, going under the radar of the press because it was presented as an appeal for judicial review , an appeal to the High Court against the decision of a public body or government department... until the Daily Mail found out at the end of that year what the matter was really about, when the admissibility hearing of said "resource" (which is when it is analyzed whether the request meets the formal requirements to analyze the substance of the matter). And the Mail published in January 2022 that Harry was suing the government for security. Harry ordered it published that his claim was because Harry was being denied the right to pay bodyguards and got the BBC to publish it. But his lawyers, when they appeared at a hearing on the admissibility of the lawsuit, requested a far-reaching confidentiality order on documents and witness statements surrounding his case against the Government. A kind of super injuction. Warning! Danger Will Robinson Danger That request made the Mail find out everything. Including that Harry had never made the offer to pay for his security (gossip thrown at the Mail by the government). And Mail dropped the bomb without the slightest compassion. It is very difficult to outwit the press. Now, imagine that in the middle of all that, the Mail or The Sun or the Mirror found out that Harry had a super injuction about the children. Ay no mames güey!!! blood would flow there.
Are lawsuits not “judicial proceedings in progress” in the UK? American here so I apologize for being ignorant.
What happens is that you file a lawsuit in court. But any claim has to meet two requirements: one of form (that it is written correctly following the corresponding legal format) and one of substance (that what you are requesting is really relevant). For example: if you are going to sue for a crash that someone caused to your vehicle, you cannot sue in criminal court. So, when you sue, you must first consider whether the claim is admissible for processing. I don't know exactly the name in English, but in Chile it is called "admissibility procedure." That is, the document indicates the plaintiff, his or her information, the lawyer who represents the plaintiff, his or her information, the information of the defendant if there is one, the specific facts that are requested, the right that is invoked (in that case, the legal norm that has been violated or to which it is necessary to resort in case of invoking a right) the means of proof that are going to be presented... All the requirements must be in writing. If data is missing, such as the name of the lawyer or the full name of the plaintiff, the claim will not be processed. In other words, the claim is not processed. Only when the claim goes through this process, that is, when it is verified that it meets the formal requirements, and it is considered that it meets them, is it only then admitted for processing, that is, the claim is processed, and it begins to act. the court. Not before. And even if a complaint is well drafted, a procedure is not always initiated (which can be ordinary, summary, etc.) Because the defendant can present an incident of prior and special pronouncement. In other words, the lawsuit may be very nice, but it will not be processed until an issue is resolved. Which is it? The classic: the cause is prescribed. That is, the person can no longer sue because the time to do so has run out. General rule 5 years. Another classic: incompetence of the court. It is not up to the court where the lawsuit was filed to hear the case. Or that the case has already been judged (res judicata, non bis idem) These incident of prior and special pronouncement mean that they have to be seen before the lawsuit begins to be filed, because it cannot be analyzed and even less dictate a judicial ruling on a case that already has a judicial ruling issued, because that means that the matter has already been resolved. . There is no point in discussing the same issue again when it has already been resolved. Do you understand me? Attention: this is not just for the UK. This is valid for any legal system with established courts. They are called "general rules of procedure" and it is the same in the USA, in the UK, in Chile, in Argentina, in Indonesia... So far, we have not left the first station, even the judge has not seen the substance of Harry's complaints against The Sun.
I don’t see how. It might be ticklish for the papers involved, but others have no interest in the suit. But perhaps on all papers because of the ages of the children
Dan Wootton said it a few weeks ago and Lady C said it too. I do not believe that. The press knows that Harry has a price, so they would pay him and keep him quiet. But it's not like that
Makes sense
I also read there is an injunction that will be lifted in 2025
Twitter isn't an accurate source and thats where that started
Why would they stop the media? If anything they publish more on him. And yes the children are real. Surrogacy is illegal for cash in the UK.
There are other ways of remuneration, that’s easy to work around and not a valid argument against the use of a surrogate. Apparently a mortgage was paid. The theory hasn’t been so much about whether the children are real or not. They probably are real children, but do not exist in the way they’ve been described by H and M. I personally believe they are real children but not their biological children, (from both h and m). I don’t believe they live with them nor are in their legal custody either.
If a mortgage has been paid, someone would know about the people living there. The kids are mini Markles. I don't think one house is enough for for a lifetime of that level of secrecy. Then there's who paid off the medical staff? They'd need something for breaking the line of succession.
I actually think all of the above are true, however I voted for the last: *He wants IPP status to feel important (and be protected from potential criminal charges)* I think he wants IPP status to fluff up his fragile ego and protect himself from prosecution .
Absolutely all of the above but he wants the validation of the ipp status and the access to information that comes with it. He's as awful as she is
And to save millions he's already paying for security. Don't forget that part!
Yes, he’s a cheap little fuck.
We heard stories that he was actually quite tight fisted with money. Funny how it all works, careful before just to literally squander it all on some hoe 😂
He’s never bought Markle any important jewelry, other than her engagement ring, which was not all that impressive.
I've never seen a diamond ring that didn't sparkle. Her main diamond is so cloudy it's unreal
Agree, he can’t afford security long term. Unless ARO makes lots of $$ the well is running dry.
I have a better chance at making money than those two can. They have zero work ethic.
Ah yes,ARO, Arsefail Robbers Organisation.
Agree! He wants IPP status so they get government funded security in the US and everywhere else they go.
The "worldwide privacy free tour"
But only ONE lawsuit directly affects his security. Why is he pursuing the others?
Because he's pissed off at the world for not being mesmerized with his witch like he is.
My comment was more about the overwhelming response to this question being because of his security. Most of the lawsuits aren't about his security so how can it be the reason he's pursuing them?
Exactly right!
I think it's his way of feeling a sense of purpose. He's pretty much useless, but if he can convince himself that he is a dragon slayer on behalf of his princess, you'll feel like his life has meaning. That's my guess.
I agree. It’s pathetic, but it tracks with His Royal Useful Idiot’s childish thinking.
Yes and avenging mummy.
Since a lot of the lawsuits deal with privacy issues, I believe he’s using them to highlight how he needs security to protect himself and his family from all of these dangers. If he wins at these lawsuits he will use them as proof that everyone is after them. I really don’t want him to get that IPP status. It’s such a bad idea.
Perhaps because it gives him visibility, keeps his sour face in the news.
Yes, but I think it’s only a residual benefit and not the main objective.
I agree with this!!!! I also think - he just truly doesn’t get or understand his new status in life. He doesn’t seem very grounded in general but I’m sure Markle didn’t help that AT ALL.
I think he genuinely doesn't understand his change in status. For the first 35 years of his life he had everything handed to him simply because he existed. There were no real consequences for anything and he didn't understand that his privilege was because of his position, not because of him self as an individual. When he stepped out of that position, he just assumed everything would come with him (security, famous friends, high profile engagements, media interest, etc). It never occurred to him that things wouldn't stay the same because he thought it was all FOR HIM, not just a result of his being a prince and in the LOS. They both talked a lot in the Oprah interview about how they were shocked the security was cut back because, in his view, 'I was born into this and the risk hasn't changed'. Ironically we now know that he hated his former position - he always felt hard done by. Again, because he didn't understand that the difference in treatment was about his POSITION, not about him as an individual. So he's bewildered by the current situation and trying to rectify it. He thinks that if people would just listen while he explains that he hasn't changed, they'll realize they've made a mistake and reinstate his privileges. Add in a little persecution mania and his belief that his family are all eating sour grapes because he escaped that awful life, and he'll be convinced that they're doing it on purpose to hurt him. He thinks of himself as 'just Harry' and hasn't realized that 'just Harry' had what he had because he was third in line to the throne, and that now he's just...not.
This is probably why William - alledgely - yelled at Harry at the Sandringham Summit. William tried to explain to Harry that he had the perks because of his POSITION and not because of his PERSONALITY. And Harry refused to listen and kept shouting that Meghan Markle had a large following on Instagram. The irony is if William left - and heaven forbid that - he would probably make a big success of life outside the royal family. Just look at Earthshot.
Imagine if Katherine could make comercial deals, EVERY brand would pay hundreds of millions to have her. She would become a billionaire in 6 months top.
Brilliant analysis!
I agree that he doesn't understand why nobody is impressed by him anymore.
He’s as thick as shit in the neck of a bottle. He doesn’t understand anything.
No he sure does not.
🎯🎯🎯
Harry is correct in 1 thing--the risks haven't changed. But like most of us, if you quit your job you lose your benefits. My husband's job allows us to buy extra life insurance for him, and also a policy for me. But if he quits, both of us have 0 live insurance. So if you know that you need the benefit--you're at risk because of your birth etc., then you maybe don't quit the job that provides 24/7 security. Unless you have Bill Gates money and can afford the best private security.
He never thinks of himself as " just Harry". I suspect Madam told him to say that. At all times, and many times spoken by him, he is a Prince of the Realm. He still expects all the perks as such, and being of little intelligence, he can't figure out he gave up all the perks when he left. He demands respect but self sabotages every time. He's a nasty dimwit.
Brava! 👏
I agree with everything you said & it really shows just how very unintelligent he is.
You can't fix stupid.
He feels persecuted, constantly. And it's a way to claim his IPP status, it's victim syndrome for over privileged people.
I also think that he uses lawsuits as a weapon to beat anyone that disagrees with him. Plus with an astounding sense of entitlement he thinks he can win, and if it doesn't go his way he'll keep asking for a retrial until everyone sees how wonderful he is and just give in. I'm certain that he thinks any costs will just be picked up by the taxpayers because he's *obviously* too good to pay anything himself.
I also thinks he is so used to UK Institutions (The Law, the media, police, government officials) being so deferential to the point of obsequiousness with royalty that he thinks he can push his agenda on them through the courts (and maybe make some money too).
Yup this too. His "I'm Prince Harry" excuse isn't playing anymore.
“You can call me Sir”.
No, Plank. You're just harry now
Oh absolutely he does!
All of the above, along with: "He knows it goes against the grain with the Royals, but he's the cool one who broke free" ... but still wants special perks to feel like a Royal. Go figure.
Right? You guys are all trapped and I'm free... But since I'm in danger in my freedom you must pay to keep me safe! I wished I could slap his dumb looking face!
Oh that feels good!!! 😊
Agree. The man is a total moron. If they had left and lived quietly, they would be in no more danger than anyone else. I don't see that any taxpayer either here in the UK or in the USA owes them anything.
“Yes, you guys are trapped being hard-working, stable, responsible representatives of my birth country and I’m free to squander all my privileges and status being a useful idiot”
Cool in his own head. I never saw him as cool. But whatever he needs to tell himself to sleep at night.
All of the above but I also think his handlers are pushing him to do this using his title and fame to curb free speech and intimidate the media. while whispering in his ear that he’s fighting the good fight and he’s being so righteous, and he was wronged so he needs to fight back.
His handler, AKA evil Meghan Markle?
And that institute thing that their foundation is teamed up with. It’s a narcissists dream.
Definitely!
He‘s too proud to admit he was wrong with his legal actions. I also believe he’s intellectually dependent on his attorneys who are having a field day (rather a field year/decade) with their most stupid client ever. They don’t care if they‘ll win or lose as long as Harry finances their lives.
Ooooh, that Sherborne needs to be called out for his highly questionable legal practises. He certainly is filling his bank account with fees and costs gleaned off the HalfWit Prince.
He may finally strongly advise Harry to stop when it becomes clear that he will soon no longer be able to pay his bills.
My money (all five bucks of it) is on the IPP to feel important. In America, we don’t have ‘royalty.’ He’s just some dude in a big house in California, and I think he can’t stand being some dude. He claims to want to be ‘Just Harry,’ but that means he has to give up the only thing that makes him even remotely interesting. And with his openly admitting to drug use, if he gets busted with a few grams of the okayest Colombian booger sugar, he probably thinks IPP means he’ll get off Scot free.
None of these cases result in this magical “IPP” status. Even the security one.
Tell it to Harry. I think his dumb ass believes getting his security back is going to magically confer IPP status. He doesn't dwell in the real world. He orbits Planet Markle and sucks in her toxic fumes all day. He's about 2 IQ points above a drooling goober.
Yes, Just Harry has always been a virtue signal, just like barefoot ripped jeans is for The Meg.
I chose stupid because the fuckwit is so self righteous he probably doesn’t think he needs protection from criminal prosecution. IPP would make him feel important, so I half agree with that one.
Harry IS NOT IPP, WILL NEVER BE IPP AND WAS NEVER IPP Never. And if he wants a UK court ruling to grant him protection throughout the galaxy, he has no idea what he's talking about. Because also, if he were IPP, all his court cases would automatically end, including in the UK. Goodbye to The Sun or the Mail case. An IPP cannot be sued... but neither can it be sued. The court ruling in Ravec's case only has effect in the UK, and would only allow Harry to complain to Ravec for safety. I wouldn't even guarantee that Ravec will be there for you 24/7. It was already said that it was not going to happen. So the court ruling would not make Harry an IPP, much less make him pay for his security anywhere in the world. If he believes that, it's because he's STUPID!!!!!!!!
I voted for that one too. How does a lawsuit against a newspaper get him more security?
Have you ever known a gambling addict? His life in general seems to be about chasing losses.
Doesn't it though?
None of these. He is on a mission, he thinks he can bring down the press. I think that they both think it’s the press holding them back and to a certain extent it’s true. However it’s because the press are not fawning all over them and reporting on them in the way they think they deserve. Those two are delusional and think they should be idolised.
If they ever did something admirable, the press could report in the way they want. But they seem willing to try anything except acting like people worthy of positive press coverage.
To me, it's a combo of options 4 and 6. I genuinely think he is dumb enough to think that he'll somehow win this thing. Also, his ego can't handle the idea of not being an IPP and he's spiraling because he's shocked that all the money he's spent on lawyers hasn't done a damned thing to get back his IPP status. He still can't believe that the world has moved on and doesn't think that he and Meghan are as special as they think they are and certainly not special enough to warrant IPP status.
His whole life is structured around resentment. Some of which is understandable (resenting the paparazzi, and the press for their role in his mother's death), some of it isn't (him resenting being the second child, the "spare"). Ultimately, is exists in a state of arrested department and simply can't move on from past all these resentments. At the age of almost 40 he should have made peace with his demons and not unhelpfully dredge up the past, and stop frivolous lawsuits, having a second child complex and feuding with his father. Megsy has him sussed, however, and I think encourages these bad traits. It keeps him in a cycle of ruminating over the past and allows her to tap into his deepest well of insecurity. His arrested development stems from the death of his mother, that's why she does things like wear her perfume and "communicates with her spirit" at her grave.
Maybe he and Lili can do therapy together over second child syndrome.
Yes he's addicted to his mindset now.
That’s it exactly.
There should be a way to vote “All of the above.” 😊
I agree. I couldn’t put in anymore options.
I agree.
He will never get IPP status even though that’s what he wants.
The various lawsuits can be distinguished though and to an extent the motives likewise. The two main ones I recall now are 1. For security protection against the Home Office (Ravec) and 2. Against the media, including Mirror Group (decided a couple of months ago in Hazmat's favour) and currently against NGN, all related to 'phone hacking long ago. The Home Office suit prima facie seems silly as there has never been any move to deny from Hazmat approriate protection. His objection seems to rest on not being automatically granted a high level of protection comparable to a working royal, rather only at such a level if the risk assessment at the time suggests it is needed. The objection extends to claiming any private security Hazmat organized for himself (and note his American bruisers would be obliged to leave their guns behind if operating in the UK ) could not be adequate as there would be no access (at least not in the normal course) to the confidential intelligence information routinely available to royal protetion officers of the British police. So we are left to ponder on the real motives since too often with the Harkles the real reasons for anything are disguised. It may well be to secure some claim for IPP status and offload his exhorbitant (and unnecessary likely) security costs to the states he visits or, lucky, lucky USA, lives in. I have, however, not seen that even if Hazmat won the security levels he seeks as an automatic right in the UK he would once more enjoy IPP status and then offload his costs. Accordingly, the Home Office suit is perhaps driven by paranoia, over-weening entitlement, a grossly inflated sense of his own worth and importance, a desire to strike out against supposed enemies and bitterness against his famiily and the UK. The suits about 'phone hacking are likely driven by Hazmat's hatred of the media for its intrusions into his life and, since becoming a Harkle, unwillingess to present him and his ghastly spouse in the light be prefers. So the root motives might have some reasonable origin but the same characteristics that drive his Home Office suit likely apply. Sad.
Can any of the IPP rules be changed once William becomes King?! 👑
They can be changed now by revising or even repealling the Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978 howver any substantial change is unlikely since the Act was designed to "to implement the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1973" per [Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978 (legislation.gov.uk)](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/17) As noted though, what I have not seen and do not know is whether simply because Hazmat obtained a routine upgrade in his UK security as provided by the UK government it would make any difference to him obtaining IPP status that he could then use to obtain comparable protection in other countries. If not, then, clearly, IPP status is unlikely to be a motive that explains Hazmat's pursuit of the Home Office. The Act states "*“a protected person” means, in relation to an alleged offence, any of the following, namely—* *(a)a person who at the time of the alleged offence is a Head of State, a member of a body which performs the functions of Head of State under the constitution of the State, a Head of Government or a Minister for Foreign Affairs and is outside the territory of the State in which he holds office;* *(b)a person who at the time of the alleged offence is a representative or an offical of a State or an offical or agent of an international organisation of an intergovernmental character, is entitled under international law to special protection from attack on his person, freedom or dignity and does not fall within the preceding paragraph;* *(c)a person who at the time of the alleged offence is a member of the family of another person mentioned in either of the preceding paragraphs and—* *(i)if the other person is mentioned in paragraph (a) above, is accompanying him,* *(ii)if the other person is mentioned in paragraph (b) above, is a member of his household;"* There might be two possibilities for Hazmat to claim he falls within the definition but those apply at present and so the Home Office suit would not seem relevant. The one possibility is Hazmat qualifies as being per (a) "*a member of a body which performs the functions of Head of State under the constitution of the State*" and his position as a Counsellor of State was held to allow him to fall within the definition. The other possibility is that he could somehow claim per the final clause (c)(ii) to be "*a member of his household*", being family. I think that unlikely though as he is too remote, especially now he lives overseas. As noted though, those possibilities apply in present circusmtances but as far as we know Hazmat does not enjoy IPP status. Accordingly, I do not support the view often enough expressed that the pursuit by Hazmat of the Home Office is about restoring IPP status. I also od not know whether if he obatined the security status he seeks as routine in the UK whether foreign states would be obliged or wish to extend any or some security to him that they might not at present.
Sorry, but you are wrong No, you cannot change the conditions of an IPP at all. Because the Convention takes precedence over internal law. The only thing the internal law can do is assimilate the Convention, not modify the conditions. And even, in the eventual case that the UK did not have legislation incorporating the Convention into its domestic law, surprise! Because it is an International Convention ratified by the UK, which it is, its compliance and respect remains mandatory. Let's get to your other mistake: a person IS NOT IPP in their own country. What does it mean to be IPP? I, Jane Smith, have been appointed ambassador of Chile to the UK. The second that I, as Chile's ambassador to the UK, set foot in the UK, I am an IPP. UK must be responsible for my safety. But if I return to Chile, I will stop being IPP. I become Jane Smith, citizen. Harry cannot demand that the UK be an IPP in the UK because he is British, so in the UK he is not an IPP. He would be VIP, but not IPP And the one outside the UK will never be an IPP, because he does not have a state position. And IPPs are specific people, with specific positions, with a specific role, fulfilling specific functions in a country that is not their own. Being CoS is NOT one of the ranges to be IPP. And finally. I, Jane Smith, travel as ambassador from Chile to the UK. And I travel with my children and my husband. They, because I am an ambassador, then they are IPP too, because I am IPP in the UK. But if I, Jane Smith, did not travel to the UK, but my husband did, my husband is not an IPP for that reason. As long as I, Jane Smith, am not holding one of the specifically indicated positions that are considered IPP, no one in my family is. Harry can't use "I'm Charles's son" to be safe anywhere in the world. He may be Charles's son, but he is no one to demand that security. That out of COURTESY you are given a certain level of protection is that, COURTESY, not obligation. And Harry cannot demand that protection, because he is a private citizen.
Excellent explanation! TY!
Thanks for your corrections. I hoped I noted the UK Act could be amended but since it was implemeting an international convention that would be unlikely in any substantial way. It would be possible for the UK to withdraw from the international conventiion I assume, although I cannot envisage the circumstances where it would. Certainly I should have been clear IPP status applies internationally and not in one's home country. I am obliged to you for your explanation that IPP status will not be conferred on Hazmat.
The problem with Conventions of this type is that it is irrelevant, for purposes, whether the UK agrees or not. Because basically, it was capturing in a document a practice of millennia. So either the UK accept it or the UK accept it. There were precisely no alternatives because the UK was still going to be tied to the Convention at the risk of having a serious international conflict with many countries. Imagine that the UK did not consider any ambassador to the UK IPP or that no one considered any British ambassador IPP. You see? It is not that the UK in this case has an alternative. The only difference with the ancient practice of not attacking ambassadors and consuls, and the current legislation on IPP, is that the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, of 1973, included the Secretary General of the UN and people with that level of representation. That was following the death of Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld, in 1961, in what turned out to be an attack. Until then, the UN Secretary General did not have IPP status. Since 1973 it has. I don't remember why the IPP thing came up. I guess it's because Harry wants to be paid for his security. But Harry has a total mess with his security issue. Because he wants to be an exception, that is, he wants to be treated as the most special of the special. There isn't even such a category.
I understand, thank you again. The IPP matter relating to Hazmat came up originally I think because on the short-lived Sussex Royal site, as I recall, there were some words by the ghastly duo to the effect "we shall always be internationally protected persons". As you make clear, that is a wrong statement, then and now. Then in attempts to explain Hazmat's motives in his curious pursuit of the Home Office it was oft suggested here, as you no doubt have seen, that IPP status and costs layoff were the reasons. I had never seen any explanation that showed whether or not that could be a reason until your earlier post that showed it could not be. As noted, I am obliged and I hope the IPP matter now ceases to be used to explain Hazmat's antics.
This needs to be pinned. Everywhere. For all time. You explained very nicely. I think about making an actual post like this every day. You may want to… too many people around here think he can magically attain that status by suing RAVEC and it’s just… not possible. It does not work that way, as you beautifully stated.
I'm glad it helps you because the Harkles and the press already make too much noise with confusing nonsense.
We will never know the full extent since his RAVEC suit is partially held behind closed doors.
Your second-to-last paragraph sums it up rather neatly.
What else is he gonna do? Work?
I voted for the IPP status because having that would mean he was treated as a true royal when he travels with all the flashing lights, SUVs and security, in other words, the important man he believes himself to be. Plus, he would be saving a ton of money as he wouldn't be paying for it. However, I think there's a touch of all the other choices in his thinking, too.
Let's see: HARRY IS NOT AN IPP, HE WAS NEVER AN IPP AND WILL NEVER BE AN IPP An Internationally Protected Person is a Head of State, a Head of Government, a President of a country, an ambassador, a consul, the Secretary General of the UN, the Secretary General of the OAS and the EU, the Secretary General of the NATO... That's an IPP. That is in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, of 1973. It is a select number of people, restricted, exhaustive. And Harry doesn't qualify in any of those cases. In none. He has never been IPP. Never. The joy of status when he traveled because he represented the Queen. In that circumstance, the enjoyment of status in the name of the Queen. But that is achieved with an OFFICIAL TRIP. That is, organized by the constitutional monarchical State of the UK. Not going on a world tour just because. Harry is not IPP because he is Charles's son, nor because he is a prince, nor for anything. He is NOT, he has not been, nor will he be.
He's too stupid to ever understand this. I'm sure it was explained to him at the Sandringham Summit, but he probably covered his ears with his hands and sang: "La la la, I can't hear you."
I can't tell you that you're wrong, because Judge Lane's ruling on the Ravec case is, I think, 51 pages, or 55, of which at least 40 are "what Harry doesn't want to understand even though they explained it to him very slowly." Yes, Harry is doing "La la la, I can't hear you."
Meghan wants/demands the IPP status. She's nagging him to pursue it so he does as she commands. MM does not accept NO for an answer when she wants something. And if the answer is NO, expect revenge.
Thank you for putting this down so clearly here. It needs repeating that none of these cases result in some Judge waving a wand and granting this status. No ruling from RAVEC about his security status when in the UK can make him an IPP.
No judicial resolution can do it. And let it be clear: NO ONE is IPP in their own country. NOBODY. To be IPP, Harry would have to be appointed UK ambassador to the USA. In other words, it would be in the USA that Harry would be IPP. The obligation to protect an IPP is that of the country where that person is located, not in their own country. So that it is understood: this is the messenger arriving before Leonidas in 300. The messenger was sent by Xerxes. So, because he was an official envoy of Xerxes, what was the messenger? An IPP. That's why he tells Leonidas that he can't hurt him (although Leonidas didn't care, how nice Leonidas). The same as Lucerys Velaryon when she went to see Lord Borros Baratheon and Aemond wanted to attack him. What did Borros say? Not in my living room, because the child was sent from Rhaenyra. That's an IPP. In the UK, the most Harry can be is a VIP. In fact, the treatment that Ravec now gives him is that of a minor celebrity, but within the VIP range. Harry doesn't accept that. Because in the UK there cannot be armed bodyguards, and Harry demands that they be armed. Because? Paranoia. But Harry cannot be an IPP in the UK, nor anywhere in this galaxy. Maybe if we send Harry as a messenger to Alderaan before Vader captures Princess Leia... But on this planet Earth, Harry is not an IPP.
lol there were rumours that Harry wanted the Grifter Gardens declared part of the UK embassy to the US. Harry also wants to be a Viceroy.
HM The King of Canada (and the rest of the Canadian politicians and public): That won’t be necessary. Does Harry have any idea what it would look like being “Viceroy” in one of the old Dominions?. If you want Empire 2.0 this is about as close as you can get!! It is beyond absurd. The boy is clinically insane.
He should be Governor of Bahamas like Princess Anne suggested (as a joke since Duke of Windsor was one for a time)
But Harry and Meghan are manifesting taking over from William and Catherine as next King and Queen. So "head of state" status is the first step to usurp them - in their minds, probably.
I'm not going to get into the Harkles' delusions, really, I had enough reading the court ruling in the Ravec case, Harry's delusions are tremendous. What Harry and Megsy believe has nothing to do with reality.
Exactly. But unlike your average deluded Joe and Jane, they have money, connections, and elevated status in society, which makes them more dangerous. They will NEVER become what they truly want, but it looks like they won't stop trying, one way or another.
That they don't stop trying is true But whether their connections can help them achieve this is more doubtful. It's not that they don't have certain connections, but if those people have supported them it is because Harry is a link to the BRF. It's not because of Harry's intelligence. If Harry doesn't serve as a link, what's the point of Harry?
Well I recently learned that the "Greek royal family" (🙄) travels under Danish Diplomatic Passports, so he could have very well had one at one time.
Yes, but there are flaws in the matter. After all, Constantine was king, and he was overthrown and his wife was Anne Mary of Denmark, who was actually Queen of Greece. And his son Paul of Greece is the Crown Prince of Greece, Duke of Sparta and Prince of Denmark. Whether the Greeks want to have a monarch again is another matter, but not all of Anne Mary's children are from the Greek Royal Family, and not all of them travel with diplomatic passports. I think the issue comes down to Pablo and his family, and I don't think that will continue in future generations. Harry had a diplomatic passport when he acted on behalf of the Queen, that is, when he was a member of the Firm and had an active role representing the Queen. Only then could Harry use that document. He didn't have it because he was a prince, but he had it when he worked for the Queen. He renounced his duties. He resigned from working for the Queen. Harry has never had special treatment for being him, for being Harry. Not even he had special treatment because he was the grandson of or son of. The special treatment he had was while he worked for the Firm.
No, I'm talking about Marie Chantal and the kids.
https://preview.redd.it/3ohosh1h2k9d1.png?width=567&format=png&auto=webp&s=3420e4a078e11012ef0082b2b7f0965337520e0c And Marie Chantal is the wife of Paul.
Pavlos
Yep. Just wrote the same.
Yes he doesn't understand why people aren't impressed by him anymore.
Anymore? 😂😂😂 Were people ever really impressed by this numbskull?
No, but they treated him with kindness
I went with the last one, IPP status. It makes them 1. feel very important and gives them status in their minds 2. save a ton of money at home 3. be able to travel the world with visiting countries having to pay for security, even if it's just a vacation and not a faux royal tour Until proven otherwise, I firmly believe the 25 kill isn't true but was put in the book to help with getting IPP status, as was the fake car chase
None of the above. He is stupid and thinks this is truly a way to do good. He is crazy and delulu and still thinks the paps killed his mum.
There's a huge contingent--including me--that believe the paps **share responsibility** for what happened. They *did not kill Diana.* But the have responsibility. Consider this: when I worked retail, if we chased a shoplifter out of the store who then got in an accident, we could be held responsible, because we were chasing them. Obviously chasing people is dangerous, and in many respects paps acted more safely after Diana's death, at least in UK. Otherwise...put it this way. If H (and M) were good people, keeping media/tabloids from destroying people's lives by lawsuits is truly a way to do good. If -I- was suing all these papers, it would be to do good and effect change. It takes years and risks too much money. But H and M have shown they are petty and vindictive etc. etc. so it's not really going to end up doing good for people, just for themselves.
I’d add that he gets talked into lawsuits by others and just goes against his own, true best interests. In other words, he’s easily led.
If it is true that he has been abusing a Diplomatic Visa because he was born to be Prince and is in the LOS even after: quitting his RF role, exiting his home country, publicly breaking away, doing no diplomatic duty for the British foreign ministry or for his father or brother, having no official employment for diplomatic posts, not in the communication channels or chain of command for British diplomats, is handing out medals like his family, is protected in some form by US Homeland Security department, then he is still living a privileged and spoilt prince lifestyle filled with nepotism even though he hypocritically calls himself Just Harry. He is suing because he wants that nepotism to continue and get treated as above the peasants because his mother was Diana and his father is the King. He might also get access to insider government information about Britain, their ally countries and politicians which might fetch a lot of millions if sold to a foreign prince on a yacht or a Russian oligarch (again on a yacht).
he might get briefings but he's not getting classified info he could sell. By now M would have 'accidentally on purpose' let it slip for those $$$$$s. Homeland Security isn't protecting him, he's got private security. No doubt he's got a special type of visa, but it's possible that was issued before H quit as a working royal. That honestly doesn't bother me as some countries have 50 princes and I'm sure they get the same visa even if they are just here to live in a penthouse and be a playboy prince. If you quit your job at the embassy you won't have a diplomatic visa anymore, but there's some wiggle room for hereditary royals, I think. If US taxpayers aren't paying for his bodyguards/security, I don't care that he has a special visa that a person can get even if they admit drug use. I'm far, far more upset that tax loopholes allow the richest to pay far less than their share of taxes, to where they're taking 25 paid firefighters away from the stations near me b/c of budget problems. Harry will lose his visa if he's convicted of a felony, I'm sure, so I'm content to let him slip into obscurity and penury.
0 - **TO AVENGE MOMMY** AND **TO SHOW DADDY** HOW A REAL MANLY MAN DEFENDS HIS WIFE (no matter what she does) .
I think it’s because subconsciously he’s fighting his father. As soon as the court cases end, his connection to the UK is pretty much gone, the bridge has been burnt and the ashes are compost on the high grove strawberry patch.
Most of the above but I think he’s really doing something for his mother. He wants to be remembered as her true son and one defender. Also.hoping for money
If he really wanted to honour his mother and bring meaning to her death, he would have thrown his efforts into, and lent his name to, road safety awareness campaigns. Raising awareness of the dangers of drink-driving and excessive speed and the importance of seatbelts would have achieved more good than all his whining and raging about the media and how his image compares with other members of his family.
I agree with you Otherwise-engaged, but endorsing accident prevention campaigns would be what most sane, healthy people would do if in his situation. However, IMO we have a supremely dumb, self-centred perpetual victim who cannot accept Diana’s own contribution to her untimely death. As he is not intelligent we get his ’waaghing’ instead.
I can't decide - All of the above!
Entitlement
H&M think they will get millions and millions in settlement money. Their egos and self importance are so inflated. They feel they can beat down and punish anyone who gets in their way and keep beating it even after it's a dead issue.
I chose the IPP status option because there was no option for him needing securitaay to feel important and as a status symbol. (I don't know much about the IPP issue, but from what I've read from different Sinners who seem to understand these matters, he's not going to get it no matter what.)
yeah, Ravec could decide he's in enough danger he needs the security on his next UK visit \[which is the current situation, Harry must give notice and Ravec decides on a case by case basis, which is more than fair, IMO\]. BUT that wouldn't make Harry an IPP, and he's not going to be an IPP ever again, as he's a private citizen and doesn't represent King/UK. I don't believe Harry wants the security to feel important/status symbol. I think Harry's genuinely convinced his family (and himself to an extent) are in danger. One key thing to remember is that Harry's private security can carry guns (with restrictions in some jurisdictions) in US, but not in UK. Like many of us, if the bad guys show up he'd like someone to protect him with more than Kung Fu. As an American, the idea that you're being attacked and you call the police and \*\*\*they don't even have guns when they come\*\*\* in UK, I've no doubt Meghan is rightly scared about that. I am in NO way a gun supporter. But -if- I needed the police to come save my life, or -if- I was high profile to need security, I would 'nope' out of leaving the house ETA if they weren't armed. Of course being Meghan, she took it a step way too far and I'm certain both to influence the UK court as well as continually trigger Harry's issues about protecting his family, I believe Meghan orchestrated the 'catastrophic car chase'. It's clear you can see that Meghan, also Doria, are pretty chill--but Harry looks truly upset. 100% my belief M set that up and H did not know. So as with most of Harry's behavior--H genuinely wanted an 'out' from being a working Royal/trapped, he's equally as responsible, but Harry is also a victim of abuse. I think they call M's type of abuse 'coercive control' in the UK and you'd consider it emotional/psychological abuse, isolation, etc. type of domestic violence in US. As far as the lawsuits, it's within that framework of H having mental health issues to begin, being abused by M, and manipulation/horrible advice from people he trusts \[recalling that 'people he trusts' are now also 'people that Meghan allows him to trust'\]. Obviously, a neutral advisor would spell out EXACTLY how high ballpark range H's legal costs would be even if he WINS--that's why Hugh Grant settled his hacking lawsuit.
Harry wants his IPP status back. But that is not determined by the courts, but by the Home Office. Harry is no longer representing the State or the Crown, hence no IPP status. Not sure Harry understands this, and he is for sure thinking it is special for him. However, a lot of blame has to be laid at the feet of Meghan Markle, Elton John, Hugh Grant and Harry´s lawyer Sherbourne. Most of these cases are fighting old stuff that has been changed a long time ago in the UK.
I'd leave off Hugh Grant. He had genuine harm from hacking, he wasn't involved in the whole 'visiting Elton in France' lawyer meeting w/Sherbourne. Also, Hugh Grant -could- have continued his case to trial, but plainly said that would cost him 10 million pounds so he wasn't doing it. Harry managed to make a huge fool of himself (worst.witness.ever) in hacking case. Hugh Grant didn't as far as I can tell. I'm sure Sherbourne is pacing his office swearing he'll never take on a client who's as big an idiot as Harry again. Just preparing Harry for his time on the stand must have made him into an alcoholic.
Other: goaded on by Meghan Markle, which will be described in her one-tear-left-eye-go tell-all interviews and book when they split as Harry's obsessive and delusional behaviour. She tried to stop him, really she did, but he wouldn't listen (sob!)
This is all about IPP status which he won't get because HE FREAKING LEFT!!! his sense of entitlement won't let him give up even if he goes broke. "it's my birth right!! I was born a prince through no fault of my own!!". Then you should have kept your fu king head down, do the job at waving, shaking hands and looking mildly interested in the little people and you wouldn't be where you are now, you idiot!!
If he were to get IPP status again, any country he visited or stayed in (like the US) would be legally required to provide him with taxpayer-funded security. He wouldn't have to pay for it himself anymore, which is probably the biggest reason he's suing the UK government.
Agree with all the comments. On Oprah, Meghan believed Archie was entitled to security, which is crazy due to his lack of proximity to the throne. They are both delusional about their status.
The final option. He'd do anything to avoid being held accountable for his actions.
I don’t see blackmailing/embarrassing the RF as an option…
Let's parse that sentence down. "... stupid ..."
I think He is using the court to force his narrative. This way, later in time, he can use his own court-statement to do a doc with "his truth" with the premissa of being truth because it was taken to court. Plus it gives him and Rachel timeline and a reason/material to write puff-pieces that puts their names on the same line as the Royals. It's the "being cool by association" of Rachel's high school times.
REVENGE!!!!
He wants free security. He believes he is entitled to it. He has a messiah complex and feels william has let him and mummy down by being a responsible adult and settling. Fighting makes him a "better" son than William.IMO.
There should be another option: "All of the above."