The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #441  
Old 12-18-2017, 12:07 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 11,819
As far as a RPO having to guard the bathroom while Kate or whomever is shopping, usually, if a royal is going somewhere, the RPOs do a recee (scope out the place and know the layout of the place) beforehand and bathrooms would definitely be checked again before a royal would use it. The RPO would then stand guard outside the bathroom and prohibit anyone else from entering. That's how I understand it. When royals have a private suite at a hotel, the RPO stands outside the suite guarding the entrance therefore giving the royal some semblance of privacy.

For a bit of levity to this situation, I can just imagine the RPO going to their charge "Did you go before we leave? I'd seriously recommend it." Prevents having to use a more public restroom.
__________________

__________________
No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #442  
Old 12-18-2017, 05:12 PM
padams2359's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 639
Maybe George or Charlotte, but I doubt anyone else.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #443  
Old 05-11-2018, 06:39 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Somewhere in the U.K, United Kingdom
Posts: 37
Was Diana entitled to Royal Protection Officers after her divorce as she was no longer a HRH and now a Private Citizen.
Reply With Quote
  #444  
Old 05-11-2018, 06:49 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 11,819
I believe she was offered protection after the divorce but declined. It was her own personal decision not to have a RPO for a variety of different reasons with the top one being she felt that having a RPO would have someone "keeping an eye" on her.
__________________
No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #445  
Old 05-11-2018, 06:58 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Somewhere in the U.K, United Kingdom
Posts: 37
Would Sarah, Duchess of York then received the same offer of protection after her divorce?
Reply With Quote
  #446  
Old 05-11-2018, 07:01 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 11,819
I don't believe so. Sarah was not expected to continue on doing royal engagements and duties and would have no need for a RPO.
__________________
No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #447  
Old 05-11-2018, 07:08 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 9,468
My understanding is the only time she would ('be entitled') to have them is when the boys were with her. Unless she was doing something officially for the BRF.



LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #448  
Old 05-11-2018, 07:10 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Somewhere in the U.K, United Kingdom
Posts: 37
Thank you for the information you've provided, I was under the impression that being a HRH is what entitles you protection because royal girlfriends do not receive an RPO and they could still be a target for terrorists.
Reply With Quote
  #449  
Old 05-11-2018, 07:28 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
My understanding is the only time she would ('be entitled') to have them is when the boys were with her. Unless she was doing something officially for the BRF.



LaRae
I'm not sure limited protection would have been true in 1996. That was before the cutbacks in the number of family members who received 24/7 protection that happened in 2010.
Reply With Quote
  #450  
Old 05-11-2018, 07:31 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 6,705
I seem to remember that Diana was still regarded as a member of the Royal Family after the divorce in view of her being the mother of the heir to the throne - but I may be remembering incorrectly.

She was, as others have said, offered protection but decided against it. I believe in may have been limiting for her having RPOs since they would have been employed by the Government/Royal Family rather than her employing them.
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #451  
Old 05-11-2018, 08:14 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Somewhere in the U.K, United Kingdom
Posts: 37
I thought you had no choice in having an RPO and you couldn't reject them. I can not imagine The Duchess of Cambridge being able to get rid of her RPO.
Reply With Quote
  #452  
Old 05-11-2018, 09:07 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 9,468
Things are different now royal enthusiast. Very different.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #453  
Old 05-11-2018, 09:48 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 11,819
I would think that any royal today would be very grateful for their RPOs. Not only are they nearby to protect their client, but they also scout out where the royal is going beforehand and knows all the ins and outs and the nooks and the crannies that need to be known.

It most certainly is a different world out there than even in Diana's time. Sure there were threats that needed to be addressed then but nothing compared to the scale of threats faced today.

BTW: RPOs are not hired by the government or the royal family themselves. They are trained and managed by the Metropolitan Police Department and Scotland Yard and are well versed in any intelligence that they need to know ahead of time.
__________________
No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #454  
Old 05-11-2018, 09:56 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Somewhere in the U.K, United Kingdom
Posts: 37
Do you think royal girlfriends should have RPOs, currently they have to be engaged to their partner to get one but I wonder whether they should have one before they get engaged?
Reply With Quote
  #455  
Old 05-11-2018, 10:01 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 9,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal_enthusiast View Post
Do you think royal girlfriends should have RPOs, currently they have to be engaged to their partner to get one but I wonder whether they should have one before they get engaged?
No if the g/f needs them then the member of the BRF should pay for their protection or help pay for it.

Once they are engaged yes they should (and do) get RPO's.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #456  
Old 05-11-2018, 10:05 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Norfolk, United States
Posts: 3,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal_enthusiast View Post
Do you think royal girlfriends should have RPOs, currently they have to be engaged to their partner to get one but I wonder whether they should have one before they get engaged?
No. They would have to find other ways of getting that protection. The most recent case is Meghan, and her job paid for her security when she was working at first, and eventually NBC stepped it up to 24/7 except when she's travelling overseas for pleasure as the threat level was deemed to be higher. However, most royal girlfriends probably didn't have that option. I seem to remember that Charles paid for someone before he and Camilla were married.

But I do think royal girlfriend is a terrible position. First, they don't have the weight of the palace behind them, so the newspapers feel like they can say certain things that wouldn't be said if this was a member of the royal family and she would't be able to push back. Second, the threat to their lives is real. I remember reading that Meghan along with Harry was briefed on kidnaps attempts while they were dating. It was a brief article, and didn't get a lot of traction because there were so many other things written at that time, but that'd be terrifying if she was just a random person that worked a 9-5 job.
Reply With Quote
  #457  
Old 05-11-2018, 10:34 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,661
Diana was offered and for a time accepted the RPOs after her divorce but then she came to believe they were spying on her and so told the RF she didn't want them anymore but was told she would have to have them when she had the boys with her and that any private security could not overrule the RPOs.

Sarah was not offered any RPOs after her divorce.

As for boyfriend/girlfriends - no I don't believe they should get security. As they have cut back the security from Sophie to being only when she is one royal duties and she is married to the son of the monarch I see no reason why Meghan should be getting protection due to marrying the grandson of the monarch who may, in time, become the son of the monarch. Kate is different - the future Queen - but Meghan will become less and less important as the decades go by and Kate's children grow in age (and 20 years will pass quite quickly in many ways.
Reply With Quote
  #458  
Old 05-11-2018, 11:06 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Norfolk, United States
Posts: 3,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post

As for boyfriend/girlfriends - no I don't believe they should get security. As they have cut back the security from Sophie to being only when she is one royal duties and she is married to the son of the monarch I see no reason why Meghan should be getting protection due to marrying the grandson of the monarch who may, in time, become the son of the monarch. Kate is different - the future Queen - but Meghan will become less and less important as the decades go by and Kate's children grow in age (and 20 years will pass quite quickly in many ways.
Meghan is offered protection as the threat level assessed right now. She does get a lot more public attention than Sophie does. Add that to the fact that the number of stalkers they are monitoring went up drastically in the last year. I don't think she'll always get 24/7 protection. But given that Harry is deemed to be under high threat from terrorists due to his service, I don't think it's a stretch to say his wife, who also generates a high level of interest, needs to be protected. I don't think they are saying only so and so gets protection because of who they are other than those that are in direct line to the throne. For all the other members of the royal family, it is assessed on a security risk basis. And sure, 20 years may pass quickly, but in the meantime, she is deemed to face enough of a security risk that she's been assigned protection.

And yes, Harry might only be a grandson of the monarch right now while Edward is a son of the monarch, but in a lot of official appearances, William and Harry are given precedence over their uncles and aunt in terms of entrance and seating. And that is a decision that would directly be approved by HMQ.
Reply With Quote
  #459  
Old 05-11-2018, 11:19 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 9,468
I don't think there should be an issue if the spouses of working royals are given RPO's.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #460  
Old 05-11-2018, 11:21 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Norfolk, United States
Posts: 3,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
I don't think there should be an issue if the spouses of working royals are given RPO's.


LaRae
I don't either. Nor do I think it's right that the underage grandchildren of a monarch doesn't have RPO.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, gloucester, kent, kidnapping, minor hrh, royal security, security, terrorism


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Royal Family's Security Helen88 Royal House of Sweden 5 02-11-2005 06:59 PM




Popular Tags
book british royal family camilla ceremony chris o'neill crown princess victoria current events current events thread duchess of calabria dutch royal family family fashion felipe vi general news hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hereditary princess sophie infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia interests iñaki urdangarín juan carlos king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia meghan markle news nobel piromallo porphyria prince alexander prince charles prince daniel prince gabriel prince harry prince harry of wales prince nicholas prince oscar princess alexandra princess alexia princess claire princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess of asturias princess sofia princess victoria public image queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima royal royal ancestry royal geneology royal wedding smith state visit stephanie sweden swedish royal family tiara tony armstrong-jones van belgië victoria wedding wedding of prince harry windsor castle



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:15 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018
Jelsoft Enterprises