The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #481  
Old 08-24-2018, 07:26 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Somewhere in the U.K, United Kingdom
Posts: 105
I know the children of the monarch receive 24 hr police protection but does the mother of a monarch receive 24 hour police protection?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #482  
Old 08-24-2018, 07:41 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,356
The Queen Mother had 24/7 security from her engagement to her death, as did Princess Alice of Gloucester. The cut-backs only occurred in about 2012, after the Jubilee when the reassessment occurred which determined that the monarch, spouse of the monarch, children of the monarch, spouse of the heir apparent, children of the heir apparent, spouses of the heir apparent and their children have 24/7. Spouses of younger children and the cousins and their spouses now only have security when on official duties. That was when it was decided to remove security from the Queen's cousins and the York princesses.

It should also be noted that this is a case by case basis. In time, when interest in Meghan is reduced - as George, Charlotte and Louis grow to adulthood she will lose 24/7 security - just as Sophie has lost it and I suspect that their children may never receive it. New procedures are being put in place as the family is modernised and made acceptable to the public who don't want to support a large family and that includes the security for 'minor royals'. The optics are important.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #483  
Old 08-24-2018, 07:48 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Somewhere in the U.K, United Kingdom
Posts: 105
So if the Queen Mother was alive today she wouldn’t have police protection?

The Queen Mother was the widow of a King so I would have assumed she would still have 24 hour police protection if she was alive today.
Reply With Quote
  #484  
Old 08-24-2018, 07:49 AM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 2,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The Queen Mother had 24/7 security from her engagement to her death, as did Princess Alice of Gloucester. The cut-backs only occurred in about 2012, after the Jubilee when the reassessment occurred which determined that the monarch, spouse of the monarch, children of the monarch, spouse of the heir apparent, children of the heir apparent, spouses of the heir apparent and their children have 24/7. Spouses of younger children and the cousins and their spouses now only have security when on official duties. That was when it was decided to remove security from the Queen's cousins and the York princesses.

It should also be noted that this is a case by case basis. In time, when interest in Meghan is reduced - as George, Charlotte and Louis grow to adulthood she will lose 24/7 security - just as Sophie has lost it and I suspect that their children may never receive it. New procedures are being put in place as the family is modernised and made acceptable to the public who don't want to support a large family and that includes the security for 'minor royals'. The optics are important.
Many people today fail to realise that before the Good Friday agreement in 1998 the royals and British politicians was under a massive amount of threat from the IRA. A bigger threat than they are facing today.
Lord Mountbatten and his grandson were killed by a bomb in Northern Ireland and Prime minister Margaret Thatcher was almost killed by a bomb in Brighton. This would have influenced the need for protection for all members of the Royal family at the time.
Reply With Quote
  #485  
Old 08-24-2018, 08:04 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal_enthusiast View Post
So if the Queen Mother was alive today she wouldn’t have police protection?
Yes she would. As the spouse of a monarch it would hers forever just as Philip will have security if he were to outlive the Queen.

Same with Princess Margaret - she would still have it if she were alive today as the child of a monarch.
Reply With Quote
  #486  
Old 08-24-2018, 08:26 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Somewhere in the U.K, United Kingdom
Posts: 105
Where type of security would Diana have if she was alive today?
Reply With Quote
  #487  
Old 08-24-2018, 08:49 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,550
I think in mid 2000s the process changed to become more threat based rather than just automatically giving everyone with HRH status full time 24/7 police protection.

The Queen Mother would certainly still get some level of protection if she were alive today, whether that would be a police officer standing next to her at all times or not who knows. Certainly she would have had police protection officers when on public duties and her homes - Clarence House and Royal Lodge would have been protected at all times.

Diana actually continued to have police protection from the Met Police after her divorce. The only reason this stopped was because Diana herself requested it stop. A little while back during one of the inquests into Diana's death the then head of Met Police (I think, possibly it was the then Head of Royal Protection) said he begged Diana to keep police protection. I assume that Diana would still have been given police protection for as long as if was felt necessary and it would have only been taken away if the threat to her diminished dramatically.
Reply With Quote
  #488  
Old 08-24-2018, 09:26 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Somewhere in the U.K, United Kingdom
Posts: 105
Would The Duchess of Windsor have received police protection when she was alive?
Reply With Quote
  #489  
Old 08-24-2018, 09:40 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 13,978
To my knowledge, even as the Duchess of Windsor, she was never afforded police protection at all. There would be no reason to think that should she be alive today, she'd have any kind of protection at all.
__________________
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
  #490  
Old 08-24-2018, 09:45 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal_enthusiast View Post
Where type of security would Diana have if she was alive today?
Private-she chose not to have RPOs after the divorce. That's why she only had Al-Fayed security around her the week she died.
Reply With Quote
  #491  
Old 08-24-2018, 10:15 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Somewhere in the U.K, United Kingdom
Posts: 105
I know the Duchess of Windsor wouldn’t have police protection if she was alive today because of the downsizing of those who receive 24 hour police protection. However I just wondered because Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester received police protection during her life, why didn’t The Duchess of Windsor? Both women were married to a son of a Monarch and this was before the reduction in those who received police protection.
Reply With Quote
  #492  
Old 08-24-2018, 10:42 AM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 961
There were probably different reasons for different phases of her life and circumstances. The Duchess of Gloucester was a working royal and likely had protection when she carried out engagements. She lived on royal properties which were secured and more than likely her country home was retrofitted to be secured.

I am guessing that her and all other royals protection would also get beefed up if there was a threat like plots by the IRA and other terrorist groups.

I would like to think that if the British government determined that the Duke and Duchess of Windsor were vulnerable and needed protection that it would have been provided.
Reply With Quote
  #493  
Old 08-24-2018, 10:46 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 13,978
Princess Alice of Gloucester was a HRH whereas the Duchess of Windsor never was given the HRH. That is what, I believe, makes the difference. Although the Duke of Windsor, as the son of a monarch was a HRH, I don't believe that either the Duke or the Duchess of Windsor were afforded royal protection frankly because they never resided in the UK again after the abdication. They lived mainly, I believe in France or the Bahamas.
__________________
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
  #494  
Old 08-24-2018, 10:55 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Somewhere in the U.K, United Kingdom
Posts: 105
Thank you for all your responses in clearing up my query. The only think I’m confused about is if the title HRH is what entitles someone to police protection, why was Diana offered police protection even if she did not accept it after her divorce when she lost her HRH title?
Reply With Quote
  #495  
Old 08-24-2018, 11:09 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 13,978
the HRH standing shows a relationship of a person to the monarch. That's all it does. Its not actually a title but a form of address.

In Diana's case, even with the divorce, she was still the mother of a future monarch and was treated as such.
__________________
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
  #496  
Old 08-24-2018, 11:18 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Somewhere in the U.K, United Kingdom
Posts: 105
Do you think she should have had the HRH because she would have had a relationship with a monarch as it would be her son?
Reply With Quote
  #497  
Old 08-24-2018, 11:34 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,550
There was talk that William as a little boy has said he would give her HRH back again when he was King but who knows, that really is getting into pure speculation. I don't necessarily think HRH is the only reason members of the RF get protection but in general, most HRH's do official duties for the monarch so are therefore public figures. That said if the threat was there the police would probably provide some level of protection for other members of the RF, even those without HRH. I think in days gone by HRHs nearly all got protection but over time, in these post IRA days, that's not the case now and it is very much risk and threat assessed.
Reply With Quote
  #498  
Old 08-24-2018, 11:50 AM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 961
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
There was talk that William as a little boy has said he would give her HRH back again when he was King but who knows, that really is getting into pure speculation. I don't necessarily think HRH is the only reason members of the RF get protection but in general, most HRH's do official duties for the monarch so are therefore public figures. That said if the threat was there the police would probably provide some level of protection for other members of the RF, even those without HRH. I think in days gone by HRHs nearly all got protection but over time, in these post IRA days, that's not the case now and it is very much risk and threat assessed.

I agree. Half of the Queen's grandchildren are HRHs and half are not. I doubt if protecting Beatrice and Eugenie is given more consideration than protecting Louise and James.
Reply With Quote
  #499  
Old 08-24-2018, 12:55 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
There was talk that William as a little boy has said he would give her HRH back again when he was King but who knows, that really is getting into pure speculation. I don't necessarily think HRH is the only reason members of the RF get protection but in general, most HRH's do official duties for the monarch so are therefore public figures. That said if the threat was there the police would probably provide some level of protection for other members of the RF, even those without HRH. I think in days gone by HRHs nearly all got protection but over time, in these post IRA days, that's not the case now and it is very much risk and threat assessed.
I agree. HRH is not the reasoning. It is the circumstances around them. The more higher profile royals are expected to have 24/7 protection. That is just sadly the climate we are in right now.
Reply With Quote
  #500  
Old 08-24-2018, 01:52 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
the HRH standing shows a relationship of a person to the monarch. That's all it does. Its not actually a title but a form of address.

In Diana's case, even with the divorce, she was still the mother of a future monarch and was treated as such.
It is a form of address which, nonetheless, is tied to a dignity , namely that of Prince or Princess. Being an HRH is equivalent in Britain to being a prince or princess of the United Kingdom.
__________________

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
administrator archie mountbatten-windsor aristocracy belgian royal belgian royal family birthday celebration bracelets countess of snowdon crown crown prince hussein crown prince hussein's future wife crusades current events cypher danish royalty denmark discussão duchess of cambridge duchess of sussex duke of sussex dutch royal family earl of wessex french revolution future genealogy germany hamdan bin mohammed harry headship house of bernadotte house of grimaldi house of orange-nassau jerusalem king philippe letter lithuania lithuanian palaces marriage mbs meghan markle mohammed vi monaco royal monarchist monarchy mountbatten nelson mandela bay netflix nobel prize official visit pakistan potential areas prince charles prince harry princely family of monaco princess anne queen mathilde queen paola romanov family rown savoy saxony south korea spanish royal state visit state visit to denmark sweden swedish history trump viscount severn windy city


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:12 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019
Jelsoft Enterprises
×