
Bratty Royal: Prince Harry And Bespoke Security Protection
The latest tremor of narcissistic display on the Duke's part involved an interview with the BBC which could be billed as confession and advertisement: 'I confess; I advertise', with an afterthought of 'Please Forgive Me Daddy' while funding my security detail on visits to the United Kingdom.
The man, self-proclaimed victim, had been consistently sinned against. He felt that the courts had wronged him in not accepting the proposition that he needed as much security as other working Royals and public figures, despite seeking a pampered life in California and exiting the British orbit in 2020. The lack of a risk assessment post-2019 of his family was 'not only a deviation from standard practice [but] a dereliction of duty.' His court failure was also a 'good old fashioned establishment stitchup'.
The legal proceedings so irking Harry centred on an appeal against the dismissal of his High Court claim against the UK Home Office. The interior ministry had accepted the decision of the executive committee for the protection of royalty and public figures (RAVEC) that he should receive a different, less hefty measure of protection when in the UK. The Court of Appeal was unconvinced by the Duke of Sussex's claim that his 'sense of grievance translated into a legal argument for the challenge to RAVEC's decision.' Judge Geoffrey Vos appreciated that, from Harry's view, 'something may indeed have gone wrong' in that stepping back from Royal duties and spending most of his time abroad would lead to the provision of 'more bespoke, and generally lesser, level of protection than when he was in the UK. But that does not, of itself, give rise to a legal complaint.'
In a terse statement, Buckingham Palace reiterated the point: 'All of these issues have been examined repeatedly and meticulously by the courts, with the same conclusion reached on each occasion.'
Harry felt his family had not given him his due, certainly on the 'sticking point' of security, but wished for 'reconciliation'. As a plea, it was lamentable; as an effort, it could hardly have softened well hardened hearts.
A bit of blackmail was also proffered. Not giving him the security assurances would mean depriving his children and wife of any chance of visiting Britain. It was the fault of Britain, its courts, and Buckingham Palace that the state had not provided the subsidised level of security he sought. Pompously, he was certain 'there are some people out there, probably most likely wish me harm, [who] consider this a huge win.'
Cringeworthy justifications flow, not least the shameless use of his dead mother, who died in a Paris tunnel with her lover because of the drunken actions of an intoxicated chauffeur. Blaming the insatiable paparazzi for what was otherwise an appalling lack of judgment on the part of Diana and her bit of fluff, Dodi Fayed, is all too convenient. Responsibility is found elsewhere. The levers of destiny lie in another realm. The best thing to do, as the duke demonstrates, is sentimentalise and exploit the situation.
Unfortunately for him, sympathy for his arguments in the Sceptred Isle is not in abundant supply. Marina Hyde of The Guardian preferred to call him 'His Rich Highness' who had changed his life but failed to appreciate the examples of others in the well heeled category. Beyoncé, for instance, was not complaining about splashing out on security knowing that such matters went 'with the territory, and that you have to pay for it out of your riches.'
In The Spectator, Alexander Larman made the pertinent observation that Harry, despite seeing himself as a 'maverick' on the hunt for justice, sounded all too much like President Donald Trump. 'Both men have talked passionately, if not always persuasively, about the shadowy forces that have frustrated their popular crusade for truth and justice'. One difference proved incontestable: Trump won.
This hereditary figure of aristocracy cannot help his instincts on entitlement. He was 'born' into the role, and for that birthright, he demands a degree of security protection exceptional, whatever his personal decisions and choices about career, location and Royal duties. Here is a figure who insists on not so much damaging the monarchy as an institution – as if more could be done to it – but by airing his public life as a new, celluloid royal, a figure happy to condemn the media and its violations of privacy on the one hand, yet reveal the rather disturbed contents of a private life he has cashed in on. The public arena has become the site of his ongoing, distinctly unattractive effort at raking in the cash and seeking therapy.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


NZ Herald
12 hours ago
- NZ Herald
NZ's largest teachers' union taking Government to court over resource teacher cuts
Education Minister Erica Stanford announced consultation on reallocating funding for literacy and Māori resource teachers. The NZEI Te Riu Roa claims she had already decided to cut the services. Photo / Mark Mitchell Listening to articles is free for open-access content—explore other articles or learn more about text-to-speech. Already a subscriber? Sign in here Access to Herald Premium articles require a Premium subscription. Subscribe now to listen. 24 Jul, 2025 01:51 AM 2 mins to read NZ's largest teachers' union taking Government to court over resource teacher cuts Education Minister Erica Stanford announced consultation on reallocating funding for literacy and Māori resource teachers. The NZEI Te Riu Roa claims she had already decided to cut the services. Photo / Mark Mitchell New Zealand's largest teachers' union is taking the Government to court over recent changes to funding resource teachers. Resource teachers work alongside teachers to help students with learning and behaviour difficulties. The latest Budget, in May, confirmed cuts to some resource teacher services. NZEI Te Riu Roa claims Education Minister Erica Stanford had already decided to scrap the services before announcing consultation on reallocating funding for literacy and Māori resource teachers. The union said it had filed for a judicial review in the High Court at Wellington this morning.


Otago Daily Times
14 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Trump was told he's in Epstein files: report
United States Attorney General Pam Bondi told President Donald Trump in May this year that his name appeared in investigative files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, the Wall Street Journal is reporting. The disclosure about Trump's appearance in the Justice Department's case records threatened to deepen a political crisis that has engulfed his administration for weeks. Some Trump supporters for years have fanned conspiracy theories about Epstein's clients and the circumstances of his 2019 death in prison. The White House sent mixed signals following the story. It released an initial statement characterising it as "fake news," but a White House official later told Reuters the administration was not denying that Trump's name appears in some files, noting that Trump was already included in a tranche of materials Bondi assembled in February for conservative influencers. Trump, 79, who was friendly with Epstein in the 1990s and early 2000s, appears multiple times on flight logs for Epstein's private plane in the 1990s. Trump and several members of his family also appear in an Epstein contact book, alongside hundreds of others. Much of that material had been publicly released in the criminal case against Epstein's former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, a British socialite sentenced to 20 years in prison in 2022 after her conviction for child sex-trafficking and other crimes. During her trial, Epstein's long-time pilot testified that Trump flew on Epstein's private plane multiple times. Trump has denied being on the plane. Reuters was not able to immediately verify the Journal 's report. The President has faced intense backlash from his own supporters after his administration said it would not release the files, reversing a campaign promise. The Justice Department said in a memo earlier this month that there was no basis to continue probing the Epstein case, sparking anger among some prominent Trump supporters who demanded more information about wealthy and powerful people who had interacted with Epstein. Trump has not been accused of wrongdoing related to Epstein and has said their friendship ended before Epstein's legal troubles first began two decades ago. Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a statement that did not directly address the Journal 's report. "Nothing in the files warranted further investigation or prosecution, and we have filed a motion in court to unseal the underlying grand jury transcripts," the officials said. "As part of our routine briefing, we made the President aware of the findings." MANY NAMES APPEARED The newspaper reported that Bondi and her deputy told Trump at a White House meeting that his name, as well as those of "many other high-profile figures," appeared in the files. Epstein died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges, to which he had pleaded not guilty. He was 66. In a separate case, Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 to a prostitution charge in Florida and received a 13-month sentence in what is now widely regarded as too lenient a deal with prosecutors. Under political pressure last week, Trump directed the Justice Department to seek the release of sealed grand jury transcripts related to Epstein. On Wednesday, US District Judge Robin Rosenberg denied one of those requests, finding that it did not fall into any of the exceptions to rules requiring grand jury material be kept secret. That motion stemmed from federal investigations into Epstein in 2005 and 2007, according to court documents; the department has also requested the unsealing of transcripts in Manhattan federal court related to later indictments brought against Epstein and Maxwell. Last week, the Journal reported that Trump had sent Epstein a bawdy birthday note in 2003 that ended, "Happy Birthday- and may every day be another wonderful secret." Reuters has not confirmed the authenticity of the alleged letter. Trump has sued the Journal and its owners, including billionaire Rupert Murdoch, asserting that the birthday note was fake. MAGA PUSHBACK Trump and his advisers have long engaged in conspiracy theories, including about Epstein, that have resonated with Trump's political base. The Make American Great Again movement's broad refusal to accept his administration's argument that those theories are now unfounded is unusual for a politician who is accustomed to enjoying relatively unchallenged loyalty from his supporters. Epstein killed himself in prison, according to the New York City chief medical examiner. But his connections with wealthy and powerful individuals prompted speculation that his death was not a suicide. The Justice Department said in its memo this month that it had concluded Epstein died by his own hand. In a sign of how the issue has bedevilled Trump and divided his fellow Republicans, US House Speaker Mike Johnson on Tuesday abruptly said he would send lawmakers home for the summer a day early to avoid a floor fight over a vote on the Epstein files. His decision temporarily stymied a push by Democrats and some Republicans for a vote on a bipartisan resolution that would require the Justice Department to release all Epstein-related documents. But a subcommittee of the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday approved a subpoena seeking all Justice Department files on Epstein. Three Republicans joined five Democrats to back the effort, in a sign that Trump's party was not ready to move on from the issue. Trump, stung and frustrated by the continued focus on the Epstein story, has sought to divert attention to other topics, including unfounded accusations that former President Barack Obama undermined Trump's successful 2016 presidential campaign. Obama's office denounced the allegations as "ridiculous." More than two-thirds of Americans believe the Trump administration is hiding information about Epstein's clients, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted last week.

RNZ News
17 hours ago
- RNZ News
Key moments during the month-long trial of Julia DeLuney
Julia Deluney at the High Court in Wellington. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Warning: This article contains graphic images which some readers may find distressing. An outburst from the dock, a "bizarre" conversation with a relative about her dead mother's money at her funeral, and a murdered woman who was "not planning to die tomorrow" - these are some of the pivotal moments during the month-long trial of Julia DeLuney. The trial at the High Court in Wellington lasted four and a half weeks, and the jury took just over a day to reach its verdict . The court heard evidence from forensic experts to accountants, and in the end, the jurors sided with the Crown, finding DeLuney guilty of murdering her 79-year-old mother Helen Gregory in her Baroda Street home in the Wellington suburb of Khandallah on 24 January, 2024. Helen Gregory and Julia DeLuney together on Christmas Day at Gregory's Baroda Street home in 2023, in a photo taken off DeLuney's phone by police. Photo: SUPPLIED Here are some of the trial's notable moments. In the trial's early stages, the jury heard from police officers about how their investigation shifted from unexplained death to murder. Detective Luke Hensley said when he arrived in the hours following the 111 call, the death was not being treated as suspicious. But he said the blood around the house struck him as strange - as did the fact DeLuney had left her mother on the bedroom floor after her alleged fall from the attic, to drive back to Kāpiti to pick up her husband, rather than calling an ambulance. An image from the Khandallah house where 79-year-old Helen Gregory was killed, shown at the trial of Julia Deluney. Photo: Supplied The jury had by then seen photos of blood smeared on the walls in the hallway, and in and around the utility cupboard through which the attic was accessed by way of a ladder built into the back wall. DeLuney told police her mother had climbed into the attic to put away a stack of toilet roll, and fallen, causing a small wound on the back of her head. She said she left her mother in the bedroom lying down, and at that stage, there was not a lot of blood. When she returned to the house with her husband, it looked, in her own words, "like a warzone". An image from the Khandallah house shown at the trial of Julia Deluney. Photo: Supplied Forensic scientist Glenys Knight said she knew quickly she was dealing with a homicide . She said the blood smeared on the hallway walls looked like it had been applied with fabric. Defence lawyer Quentin Duff asked whether it could have been applied by someone staggering around the house. "I've never seen it in my experience," Knight replied. Crown prosecutor Stephanie Bishop asked the jury: Why would a burglar stage the scene? And how would they know to stage it as a fall from the attic, the same story DeLuney would later tell the police? She said the only person who would benefit from staging the scene was DeLuney herself. Julia DeLuney on CCTV buying a lighter at the Mobil petrol station in Johnsonville, on her way from her mother's to her own home in Paraparaumu, at 9.52pm on 24 January, 2024. Photo: Supplied In trial week three, the court heard from Gregory's brother Peter Wilson, who lives in Australia, who told the court about a conversation he'd had with DeLuney, his niece, at the funeral. "What do you know about the kitchen?" she had asked him. "Is any money hidden in the kitchen?" Wilson said he told her he knew nothing - which he explained to the court was a deliberate withholding of information, as months earlier, he had helped his sister hide money underneath a kitchen drawer. The court had already heard from witnesses about Gregory's mistrust of banks, and the way she hid thousands of dollars around the house - including $50,000 in the freezer, and various amounts wedged between salad bowls. Wilson said the conversation at the funeral was "really bizarre", and then DeLuney asked: "What do you know about Helen's diaries?" to which he also replied, nothing. That wasn't the only shocking piece of evidence to come out of Wilson's testimony. Police at the Baroda Street house in January 2024. Photo: RNZ / Ashleigh McCaull The court heard Gregory had had a fall in September 2023, which Wilson and his wife learned when they dropped in on her the day after a family gathering. DeLuney answered the door and showed them in, and Wilson said when he saw his sister lying in bed, he was shocked. "I thought she was dead," he told the court. "Blew me away." He said to DeLuney, "You have to ring an ambulance," and she said she had already called a relative, who would be there "soon". But Wilson said about 40 minutes passed, with DeLuney tending to her mother, feeding her lemonade through a straw, so he went outside and called the relative himself. "I said [relative's name], um, [Helen's] not very well, and Julia's rung you?" "And [they] said, 'No she hasn't, nobody's rung me today.'" Julia DeLuney pictured on CCTV at the BP station in Johnsonville, on her way to her mother's house, at 5.47pm on 24 January 2024. Photo: Supplied On July 14 - the beginning of trial week four - the court heard audio from a phone call Gregory made to her bank, on the evening of January 23, 2024. The purpose of the call was to take out money to pay withdrawal fees on cryptocurrency profits, which DeLuney had invested in on her behalf. The court would later hear evidence that those fees were "false", and that the profit DeLuney had told her mother about did not exist - she had in fact sent her a screenshot of someone else's cryptocurrency account, which had made a large profit, as though it was her own. DeLuney also asked her mother not to reveal to the bank that she needed the money for anything to do with cryptocurrency. Gregory told the bank employee on the phone: "We're pre-paying a funeral thing. Not that I'm thinking of dying tomorrow or anything." It was met by a collective intake of breath from the public gallery. The Crown later argued this was Gregory handing over the last of her money to her daughter - a potential flash point in their relationship that led to an altercation, and ultimately her death, the next day. The Crown was the first to close its case, with prosecutor Stephanie Bishop running the members of the jury through their version of what happened that night. DeLuney had remained mostly silent for the duration of the trial. The court had heard her statements to police and watched the video interviews, but had not heard from DeLuney herself. She sat in the dock, flanked by two security guards - normal procedure, the justice explained to the jury at the beginning of the trial, and not to be taken as a sign DeLuney was dangerous or presumed guilty. But her outburst came after a CCTV footage was played to the court, showing someone checking the communal skip in the carpark of the DeLuneys' apartment complex in Paraparaumu in the early hours of the morning following the death, after her first interview with police. The jury had seen this footage before, when it was played as evidence, but this time Bishop told the jury what she wanted them to take from it. Julia DeLuney, pictured on CCTV from a camera on the side of a rubbish truck, placing a black bin bag in a rubbish bin at 6.58am on 25 January, 2024. Photo: Supplied "In the morning, having been to the police station to provide a statement, one of them [the DeLuneys] then exits their vehicle and then walks immediately to the skip bin," she said. "Again, members of the jury, what plausible explanation could there be for this?" At that point, DeLuney called out harshly: "Our dogs!" The court had already heard evidence that the DeLuneys owned two dearly loved dogs, which according to police they expressed concern about leaving alone on more than one occasion. A short time later, DeLuney kicked the wall of the dock in front of her, causing a loud thud in the quiet of the courtroom. At the close of the Crown's case, the defence declined to call witnesses, and DeLuney did not give evidence herself . The Justice reminded the jury during his summing up that no guilt should be read into this. Antonio DeLuney, her husband, did not give evidence either. The court had already heard the pair lived together in an apartment in Paraparaumu. On the night of her mother's death, DeLuney sent a photo to Antonio of herself and her mother in her mother's wardrobe, telling him they were trying on clothes. Julia DeLuney and Helen Gregory, pictured in Gregory's walk-in wardrobe. DeLuney sent the photo to her husband Antonio the night of Gregory's death telling him they were trying on clothes. Photo: SUPPLIED Then, she missed a handful of calls and messages from him later in the evening, and had a conversation lasting only 17 seconds before she returned to Paraparaumu to pick him up. The court heard he was asleep when she arrived, but returned to her mother's Baroda St address with her, where they found Gregory badly injured. Both DeLuneys gave statements to the police that night, but Antonio's was not read in court, and he did not give evidence. While he previously sought name suppression alongside his wife's before the case went to trial - both were declined - he does not face charges relating to this event. The jury was sent out to deliberate about 1pm on Tuesday and they reached their verdict just before 5pm on Wednesday. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.