I was studying in London when the queen faced two security breaches.

A man smelling of smoke broke into her bedroom.  Thinking quickly, she requested that cigarettes be brought to her.

At that spring's Trooping the Color, a man fired a starter's pistol, startling her horse.

Both incidents were much discussed, but it was decades before I learned about the security arrangements of the queen.  I didn't even notice that I didn't notice earlier.

Harry's book, Spare, has really made a lot of people aware of risks we hadn't otherwise noticed.

But as for his own risks, well, he's a little wanting.

I've been surveying what he's been saying recently, and what's being said about him — and there's a lot!

In the 2022 Netflix series, Harry & Meghan, Harry's description of the timeframe of their exit plan proves that planning started before the wedding.  Megxit wasn't a response to racism, paparazzi, online disinformation, or standoffish royals.  It was pre-arranged.  Harry may have wanted the  privacy they claimed to want.  Longstanding paranoia about paparazzi caused his breakup with Cressida Bonas. 

Early in the relationship, Meghan alerted the Toronto police and Harry to her security concerns.  Soon, he publicly demanded that internet trolls and media leave her alone.  Already, the couple was conflating anonymous posts and paparazzi.

Today's tabloids rarely feature annoyed ambushed celebrities, as today's stars often set up photo appointments and interface with fans via their own social media.  In 2016, Meghan was an internet influencer, posting frequently on Instagram and her blog, The Tig.  She'd be familiar with anonymous trolls, influencers (over 200,000 followers), and tabloid media.  Meghan might have had less media and internet attention after meeting Harry if she hadn't provided leaks in Toronto and the U.K.  Princess Diana's former bodyguard, Ken Wharfe, said in 2020 that Meghan's main risk was an "eagerness to interact with the public," not internet posts or tabloids.

In March 2022, the pair reportedly faced danger at their Montecito home in California from mudslides.

They were constantly alerting everyone that they felt that danger followed them everywhere.  Videos from March 2020 showed individuals approaching their front door (without cameras), and one boat visible from their borrowed house, as Harry describes having been swarmed by paparazzi in Vancouver Island.  Canada began pandemic lockdowns that month.

A new accusation debuted on the series — paparazzi paying neighbors to install ordinary security cameras (nothing stealthy or discreet) facing Meghan's Toronto home.  Former Toronto police chief James Ramer disputes Meghan's accusation of police indifference.  His department deployed undercover vehicles and teams and extra security during the Toronto Invictus Games.  Columnist Joe Warmington, a former Toronto crime reporter, called Meghan's complaints "ludicrous."

Months before their second anniversary, Harry presented the queen with a vague "half in, half out" plan to be part-time royals making independent income.

Before the Palace had time to announce the news, it appeared on the Sussex Royal website (established January 2019, months before their wedding).  The January 2020 post said they'd "step back as 'senior' members of the Royal Family, and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty the Queen."

The queen quickly ordered the removal of their next post, Jan. 8, 2020.  "The provision of armed security by the Metropolitan Police is mandated by the Home Office, a ministerial department of Her Majesty's Government, responsible for security and law & order.  The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are classified as internationally protected people, which mandates this level of security." 

The palace posted on January 18 that they don't comment on publicly funded security, provided by set processes.

Sussex Royal posted on February 22, "It is agreed that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will continue to require effective security to protect them and their son.  This is based on The Duke's public profile by virtue of being born into The Royal Family, his military service, the Duchess' own independent profile and the shared threat and risk level documented specifically over the last few years.  No further details can be shared as this is classified information for security reasons."

Who, besides Harry and Meghan, agreed they required continued royal protection wasn't specified.

Random fans?  Remember, half of the couple served ten years in the military — good experience for security work.

The security Harry is seeking is SO14 Royalty Protection Group officers, who protect royals and their homes, and visiting dignitaries.  Requesting security was followed by offering to pay, then two lawsuits.  Meanwhile, he employs armed security in California.  If, in the U.K., staying with his family, their normal security would also cover him.

Harry and Meghan have made a security-risk mountain of every disagreeable molehill.

Their series featured Christopher Bouzy, of Bot Sentinel, as their expert on internet danger.  Implying expansive research on phenomena including extremism, QAnon, and MAGA, he concluded there's an unprecedented, deeply connected global hate campaign against Meghan.  (For scale, a March 2022 survey concluded that almost 176 million Americans believe QAnon claims, and the Washington Post published a September 2022 survey estimating that 33 million Americans support MAGA.)

According to Bouzy, trolls and media generating misinformation targeting Meghan was evidenced by 114,000 tweets from 83 accounts, viewed by 17 million of the world's 8 billion people.  (I assume this is since they met in 2016.)  He characterizes these internet masterminds as mostly middle-aged white housewives.  Twitter found that 55 of the 83 accounts Bouzy mentioned were run by individuals, 33 were bots, and only 4 individuals violated policy, with no organized activity against Meghan.  Bouzy characterized 83 housewives reaching 0.002% of earthlings as an enormous concern.

Christopher Bouzy flatly stated in the series that racism and hatred put Meghan at risk.  He also admitted, after the series launched, to trolling William and Catherine.

The Sussexes have been cavalier about other royals' safety.  They provided information for "Finding Freedom," which included directions to the royal jewel vault.  Netflix aired images their photographer captured inside Buckingham Palace and the queen's childhood playhouse without permission.  In an interview in The Cut Magazine, Meghan ominously remarked that the royals never made her sign a nondisclosure agreement. 

Consider some recent interactions between ordinary people and royals.  Marlene Headley (aka Ngozi Fulani, Marlene Fulani, Sister Ngozi) attended a palace event uninvited and chatted with Queen Consort Camilla (later claiming racist questioning by Lady-of-the-Household Susan Hussey).  Catherine was photographed taking her kids shopping, and an American who didn't recognize the queen asked her to take a photo.  One factor contributing to the royal family safety has been the affection of the British public.  Being unspecific about arrangements was another.

There's a key feature of royal protection that hired security can't replicate.  According to royal security expert Dai Davies, losing royal protection means "no access to integrated intelligence from the security services."  The U.K. has four categories of intelligence: domestic, foreign (MI6), signals intelligence, and joint intelligence.  Some of the intelligence might be from foreign allies.

Revealing for money minor family incidents like a scuffle with William or Catherine wincing (rightly) at a request to share her lip gloss, shows a callous attitude toward those Harry claims to love.  Reporting that he killed 25 Taliban fighters, like removing chess pieces — not in conversation, but published in a book — shows monstrous indifference from the man who has been crying wolf for so very long. 

Having so little regard for the implications of his words and actions, even after military training, means Harry can't be trusted with information that affects the safety of other people.

Image: DoD News Feature via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 2.0.