Royal Security

[Duc_et_Pair]

Security is something the Sussexes didn't feel they needed to think about. Who will be responsible if an attack or kidnapping happens, who will pay then?

There is no difference in Prince Harry being kidnapped or the CEO of Sainsbury's. Both are British citizens and the UK - of course- provides protection if the risk assessment shows there is an imminent threat indeed. It is not that these British citizens have to lock themselves up in a remote countryside retreat. The UK has to enforce all citizens can life in safety and peace.

 

[Hallo girl]

IMO the general public in the UK, in principal ,would not object to the security. Even as non working royals if they had decided to withdraw from royal life, continued to stay in Windsor and carried out private charity work. Although Eugenie and Beatrice only received protection when they are on royal duty.
The problem or at least the bad optics is that they have chosen to live abroad, the cost of security in those circumstances cannot be justified. In particular when they appear to want to be financially independent, in other words earn money.
If they then travel around the world with their charity work, that will incur further costs.
I am not sure what the answer to this is, but it will cause problems for both the government and the BRF to try and justify soaring costs for protection, in the circumstances. I am just glad I am not the person in authority making the decision, It is a lose lose one.

 

[Erin9]

They should have thought about this before they decided to give up their royal duties. There are arguments for and against state-funded security, but the cost was one of the first issues raised by the media and the public when they moved, so why does it not seem to have occurred to Harry and Meghan, or whoever's supposedly advising them. This should all have been sorted out in advance.

They didn’t think about much of anything thoroughly and realistically in advance imo. This is part of the consequence of them announcing things publicly that hadn’t been agreed on.


I do think part of the issue is that if they were part time royals- as they wanted- this would be slightly less of a problem than it is with them being totally out. Though them choosing to be based outside of the U.K. part-time was always likely to be an issue.

 

[ACO]

Harry and Meghan will continue to be provided protected as long as the metro police access their threat level to need it. It is just that simple. God forbid something happens to them because they had none... a brand new conversation would be had just like it was after Diana died and people debated would it had happened had she had her RPO instead of the private security.

It is wise that the Canadians stop paying as they will no longer be working royals come March 31. That is reasonable. It very well should be what happens. But also the royals have issued this 12 month review so technically is security included in that too?

Will all of this be accessed differently in a year once everything has calmed down?

 

[_Heather_]

They didn’t think about much of anything thoroughly and realistically in advance imo. This is part of the consequence of them announcing things publicly that hadn’t been agreed on.

Agreed. This is also one of the consequences of relying on advice from people who have absolutely no idea how the monarchy and all of its parts work. Had they had the appropriate conversations with the appropriate people instead of stomping around like angry teenagers trying to guilt trip their way into getting what they want then this all could have been discussed and figured out before turning into this big debacle.

 

[Hallo girl]

I think it has became clear that there were lots of things still to be sorted before the announcement, that they were going. At the time of the announcement the detail on the website spoke about their right to security, using Sussex Royal, staying at Frogmore cottage. Part in part out with regards royal duties. These are the things that now appear to be causing the problems. So it does make you wonder if these were the things that were causing deadlock in the discussions, is that why they went public, to try and force the hand of the BRF.

 

[Durham]

With the decision of the Canadian Government to withdraw protection from the end of March it's now clear that the entire cost & staffing will have to be proved for by the Met Police. There can be no question of compromising the family's safety.

It will last for as long as there is a need for it. It's an open ended commitment that will further divide opinion. An unhappy result.

 

[Lumutqueen]

With the decision of the Canadian Government to withdraw protection from the end of March it's now clear that the entire cost & staffing will have to be proved for by the Met Police. There can be no question of compromising the family's safety.



It will last for as long as there is a need for it. It's an open ended commitment that will further divide opinion. An unhappy result.

I’m not quite sure how you’ve come to that conclusion? Why should the Met police have resources diminished to protect non working royals not in the U.K.?

Frankly the solution is for Henry and Meghan to spend on their own private security whilst they are anywhere other than the U.K.

 

[Durham]

I’m not quite sure how you’ve come to that conclusion? Why should the Met police have resources diminished to protect non working royals not in the U.K.?

Frankly the solution is for Henry and Meghan to spend on their own private security whilst they are anywhere other than the U.K.

The Met Police shouldn't have resources diminished. You misunderstand. I'm suggesting that we have no choice but to provide protection. I'm not saying that we should.

I would be very surprised if the decision was made not to provide security outside of the UK.

 

[Hallo girl]

I am just adding this to the discussion, Eugenie and Beatrice lost their security when they were 5th and 6th in line. They only receive protection when they are on official royal duties, anything else is private. That is one of the reasons they all stay on royal estates/ palaces.

 

[Durham]

I am just adding this to the discussion, Eugenie and Beatrice lost their security when they were 5th and 6th in line. They only receive protection when they are on official royal duties, anything else is private. That is one of the reasons they all stay on royal estates/ palaces.

That all sounds eminently sensible & could have provided a model for the Sussexes but they chose to complicate matters by moving overseas. Possibly without really thinking through the effects of their decisions on others. I'd hazard a guess that the Met judge the risks around at least Harry to be on a whole other level to the York princesses.

 

[Alison H]

I think this has put the authorities in a very difficult position. Obviously no-one wants Harry and Meghan and Archie to be in danger, but money does not grow on trees, and we're hearing every day that hospitals are struggling to cope with the increase in illness that happens every winter, and that better flood defences are urgently needed because we're getting so many severe storms. They've lost public goodwill because of their stroppy attitude, and, even without that, it's difficult to justify spending so much public money on their security when they are no longer working royals, i.e. no longer carrying out a public role. It's not as simple as saying that there can be no question of compromising their security. I can just see all the "95-year-old war hero Fred Bloggs was left on a stretcher for 5 hours whilst taxpayers' money pays for security for Harry and Meghan whilst they give talks for JP Morgan," headlines now! - and they'd have a point.

 

[Denville]

I am just adding this to the discussion, Eugenie and Beatrice lost their security when they were 5th and 6th in line. They only receive protection when they are on official royal duties, anything else is private. That is one of the reasons they all stay on royal estates/ palaces.

Yes they lost their security and they had not done a wlak out... Andrew I believe pays towards thier security...

 

[Durham]

I think this has put the authorities in a very difficult position. Obviously no-one wants Harry and Meghan and Archie to be in danger, but money does not grow on trees, and we're hearing every day that hospitals are struggling to cope with the increase in illness that happens every winter, and that better flood defences are urgently needed because we're getting so many severe storms. They've lost public goodwill because of their stroppy attitude, and, even without that, it's difficult to justify spending so much public money on their security when they are no longer working royals, i.e. no longer carrying out a public role. It's not as simple as saying that there can be no question of compromising their security. I can just see all the "95-year-old war hero Fred Bloggs was left on a stretcher for 5 hours whilst taxpayers' money pays for security for Harry and Meghan whilst they give talks for JP Morgan," headlines now! - and they'd have a point.

I agree with almost all of that but I'm not convinced that British politicians would refuse to follow advice from the Met. If the Met assesses the risk as sufficiently serious than why would the safety of the Sussexes (or just Harry) be compromised? We'll have to agree to disagree about the simplicity of that particular question.

All speculation on my part of course. Happy to be proven wrong

 

[Denville]

I agree with almost all of that but I'm not convinced that British politicians would refuse to follow advice from the Met. If the Met assesses the risk as sufficiently serious than why would the safety of the Sussexes (or just Harry) be compromised? We'll have to agree to disagree about the simplicity of that particular question.

All speculation on my part of course. Happy to be proven wrong

Nobody wants them to be unsafe but financial facts are facts. Harry is the child of a very wealthy man.. and if he needs protection, the public should not be asked to pay for it...Many of the RF have lost their protection, and Harry has chosen NOT to be a working part of the RF...

 

[Lumutqueen]

The Met Police shouldn't have resources diminished. You misunderstand. I'm suggesting that we have no choice but to provide protection. I'm not saying that we should.



I would be very surprised if the decision was made not to provide security outside of the UK.

Why do we have no choice? “We” have a choice, spend taxpayers money on two people who don’t work for their country anymore, or let them pay for it themselves?

I really don’t see how we have to pay for it...

 

[wyevale]

Harry is the child of a very wealthy man

Sussex is [by any standard] a very wealthy Man himself.. and should PAY for himself.. why Charles is always considered the 'cash-cow', I don't know...

Besides this couple insist they will/want to be 'independent'.. So they should be, in this regard.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Nobody wants them to be unsafe but financial facts are facts. Harry is the child of a very wealthy man.. and if he needs protection, the public should not be asked to pay for it...Many of the RF have lost their protection, and Harry has chosen NOT to be a working part of the RF...

But that is making security subject to wealth. Lady Justitia is not for nothing blindfolded. It can not be that state protection comes with a private bill.

 

[Durham]

Why do we have no choice? “We” have a choice, spend taxpayers money on two people who don’t work for their country anymore, or let them pay for it themselves?

I really don’t see how we have to pay for it...

Well I did say I was suggesting that we have no choice. It wasn't a definitive statement.

I made the suggestion because they (or Harry alone) may well be at risk. We don't know. So if he (they) is/are I can't really envisage any circumstances in which someone would make a decision not to protect them with the resources of the state. Private security is surely not up to the same standard?

 

[Denville]

Why do we have no choice? “We” have a choice, spend taxpayers money on two people who don’t work for their country anymore, or let them pay for it themselves?

I really don’t see how we have to pay for it...

At present they are entitled to police security and its being paid for by tax payers. In Canada the Canadian govt seem ot have helped out. But I agree that neither the British nor Can tax payers should have to pay....

 

[JR76]

Harry and Meghan will continue to be provided protected as long as the metro police access their threat level to need it. It is just that simple. God forbid something happens to them because they had none... a brand new conversation would be had just like it was after Diana died and people debated would it had happened had she had her RPO instead of the private security.

It is wise that the Canadians stop paying as they will no longer be working royals come March 31. That is reasonable. It very well should be what happens. But also the royals have issued this 12 month review so technically is security included in that too?

Will all of this be accessed differently in a year once everything has calmed down?

It's worth a mention here that it was Diana herself that decided to not use the protection she, as a royal, was entitled to. It wasn't something that was removed.

 

[Durham]

Sussex is [by any standard] a very wealthy Man himself.. and should PAY for himself.. why Charles is always considered the 'cash-cow', I don't know...

Besides this couple insist they will/want to be 'independent'.. So they should be, in this regard.

I don't disagree they they should pay. All I'm saying is that I suspect the state will continue to foot the bill for all sorts of reasons. Who knows, I may be wrong.

 

[Denville]

Well I did say I was suggesting that we have no choice. It wasn't a definitive statement.

I made the suggestion because they (or Harry alone) may well be at risk. We don't know. So if he (they) is/are I can't really envisage any circumstances in which someone would make a decision not to protect them with the resources of the state. Private security is surely not up to the same standard?

I don't see why it isn't. And its paid fror by the people who use It, not by the public....

 

[Durham]

It's worth a mention here that it was Diana herself that decided to not use the protection she, as a royal, was entitled to. It wasn't something that was removed.

Yes & we all know what happened next of course. It feels to me like a no win situation. Damned it we do, damned if we don't.

 

[Denville]

Sussex is [by any standard] a very wealthy Man himself.. and should PAY for himself.. why Charles is always considered the 'cash-cow', I don't know...

Besides this couple insist they will/want to be 'independent'.. So they should be, in this regard.

Do you think Harry and Meg are going to pay? I don't. Their security is going to be a very heavy bill now, and they will probably "not have enough money".. But Charles has a lot more and he will IMO almost certainly foot the bill if security is removed.

 

[Denville]

Yes & we all know what happened next of course. It feels to me like a no win situation. Damned it we do, damned if we don't.

What happened was because Diana's boyfriend messed around with the security guards he had, and did not make it easy for them to do their jobs. Diana refused to have RPOs and had not had any for over a year. there was nothing that the RF or Police could do....

 

[Durham]

I don't see why it isn't. And its paid fror by the people who use It, not by the public....

Well that's why I posed it as a question rather than as a definitive statement. I don't know. I have to be honest though, I would be very surprised if private security provided the same level of protection as the Met's Protection Command. It is after all classed as part of specialist operations.

Does anyone on here have any professional expertise in this field I wonder? Be interesting to hear.

 

[wyevale]

they will probably "not have enough money"..

Their 'devotees' insist they will make POTS of Money, so [if true] why shouldn't they sort it out themselves ?
George and Amal don't expect others to pay for their security...

 

[Durham]

What happened was because Diana's boyfriend messed around with the security guards he had, and did not make it easy for them to do their jobs. Diana refused to have RPOs and had not had any for over a year. there was nothing that the RF or Police could do....

I know & in a sense does that not indicate that state provided protection is more secure than private? RPO's would not have allowed themselves to be messed around with.

 

[Denville]

Their 'devotees' insist they will make POTS of Money, so [if true] why shouldn't they sort it out themselves ?
George and Amal don't expect others to pay for their security...

George and Amal were not brought up as Hary was. I agree I think they SHOUD pay and that if they are successful they should be able to, but I do rather question whether they are going to make such "pots of money" as some think. I would bet that if the govts cut the security, Charles will step in.....