Royal Security

[jacqui24]

As I see it, Harry and Meghan both confirmed that they had been officially engaged for a couple of weeks prior to the announcement. It would then make sense that once engaged, Meghan would have been assigned protection 24/7.

If she is determined to need 24/7 protection, I know they would assign them before the engagement is announced. However, my question was really, does this mean they've determined she'll have 24 hour protection going forward? Because that's not the case for every member of the royal family. Even Sophie, who is a full time royal.

 

[Iluvbertie]

If she is determined to need 24/7 protection, I know they would assign them before the engagement is announced. However, my question was really, does this mean they've determined she'll have 24 hour protection going forward? Because that's not the case for every member of the royal family. Even Sophie, who is a full time royal.

Each one is determined on a case by case basis and is reviewed regularly.

I would suspect that when George, Charlotte and the new baby reach their early 20s, them, like Sophie, Meghan will lose it unless on royal duties as she will be then only be married to a very minor royal - as is Sophie today.

 

[jacqui24]

Each one is determined on a case by case basis and is reviewed regularly.

I would suspect that when George, Charlotte and the new baby reach their early 20s, them, like Sophie, Meghan will lose it unless on royal duties as she will be then only be married to a very minor royal - as is Sophie today.

One more question. I know York princesses lost their RPOs, but would any future children of Harry and Meghan receive RPO until they come of age? I'm not sure if the Wessex children currently have RPO.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Wessex children don't and I don't think Harry's would given the down grading of the royals and security. The British taxpayers don't want to pay for minor royals at all and that means anyone other than the future monarch and his/her family. The rest are going to be surplus to requirements and so no protection for them unless Harry pays for it himself as Andrew does. Given Harry's personal wealth there is no reason why he can't pay for the security of his wife and children.

 

[Princess Larisa]

Who determines the risk level for each individual members of the royal family?

I've heard awhile back that Prince Harry is determined to have higher risk because he is a member of the royal family that's served in Afghanistan in the past. But I'm not sure if that would automatically mean his fiancee and eventually wife would have higher risk than Sophie and Tim?

The Scotland Yard decides. And yes, Harry’s wife will be high risk and have 24/7 RPOs, effective immediately when the engagement is announced.

 

[Dman]

The Queen’s Royal Security Concern:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...y-a3715821.html?amp&__twitter_impression=true

 

[Muhler]

Sounds like an Excel-decision.
Looks good and sound and cost-effective on paper but out in the real world, it doesn't work.

And it's so typical to implement such decisions without listening to the parties involved.
I think we all know similar examples from our own lives. Fortunately on a less dramatic scale.

What if QEII decided to rely on private contractors to provide security? Not for herself and the very most senior members of the BRF, but certainly just a little lower down? Harry and Meghan, Andrew, Edward and so on.
I would imagine it would be hugely embarrassing for Scotland Yard and also the government, should it come out that QEII was contemplating such a thing!

 

[Pranter]

Not to mention if something happened under those circumstances....very bad.


LaRae

 

[jacqui24]

What if QEII decided to rely on private contractors to provide security? Not for herself and the very most senior members of the BRF, but certainly just a little lower down? Harry and Meghan, Andrew, Edward and so on.
I would imagine it would be hugely embarrassing for Scotland Yard and also the government, should it come out that QEII was contemplating such a thing!

How would she pay for it then? We have to keep in mind it came out a few years ago that the York princesses' security detail was about half million pound a year. They weren't even working members of the royal family. I'd imagine the cost of Harry and Meghan, Andrew, Anne, and Edward are higher.

 

[Muhler]

How would she pay for it then? We have to keep in mind it came out a few years ago that the York princesses' security detail was about half million pound a year. They weren't even working members of the royal family. I'd imagine the cost of Harry and Meghan, Andrew, Anne, and Edward are higher.

No doubt!
Harry + Meghan would at the very least require two bodyguards each, 24/7/365 - when not on the job, mind you. Working eight hour shifts in order to be efficient and alert. That is at the very least 12 bodyguards a day - just for this couple.

She would have to sell considerable assets to finance that protection. Alternatively these persons will no longer be working members of the BRF. Or seriously cut down on the number of public appearances of the BRF.

That would of course be a huge embarrassment for any British government. Imagine the head of state having to pay for security for her own (working) family out of her own pocket!
That's almost unheard in any country.

The scenario outlined here is of course most unlikely. However, that is not the point.
The point is that it "has been leaked" that QEII (as well as other high-rankers) have expressed concern about the police being able to provide security on a level for her to feel comfortable about it! - And that is coming from a person who is used to face genuine security risks!

That anyone could come up with such a stupid scheme is mind boggling! Only surpassed by the fact that someone actually approved it!

I wouldn't feel particularly safe either, if I knew my close-protection officer hasn't been around, or is allowed to be around, long enough to know who is who and how things work. "Excuse me, Your Majesty. Could you tell me where the exits are in case of a situation? - I was only assigned here this morning and my duty roster says I'm going to the Israeli ambassador's residence tomorrow".

- That is a situation akin to how the Secret Service protected President Kennedy back in 1963. Hopelessly understaffed and overworked and they were at least permanently attached to the President.
A French delegation went to see how the Secret Service worked, due to several assassination attempts on President de Gaulle - they went home in shock!

 

[jacqui24]

I know some don't like their tax money spent on royal security, but these people face genuine threats simply for being born into this family. I do feel that security for the royal family has already been cut down to as much as it can. The fact that even underage grandchildren of the monarch don't have protection is mind boggling. It's one thing when they are adults, it's quite another when they are still children, which are easier to kidnap.

And I don't know if the alternative of taking all the others out of public duty would work either. There isn't enough to spread around if it's HMQ, PoW, Duchess of Cornwall, and Cambridges. In addition, Harry can't just disappear from the face of earth, even if he were to relinquish his duties. His high profile isn't just because of his work. It's because there is significant public interest in him. He is also a retired soldier, who has served in the front line of Afghanistan. I'd think there are significant risks to his life because of it.

Unfortunately, we do live in a world where terror threats are higher than in the previous generation. If ISIS is killing journalists and such, imagine what would they do if they get their hands on a royal.

 

[Muhler]

Wholeheartedly agree.

There will of course always be people who don't want their tax-money to go things they don't like. - Some would no doubt object to their tax-money going to heating the dormitories for orphan toddlers!

But most people are sensible enough to realize that protection is a necessity for prominent figures like royals.
It is however difficult to argue for, if people in general feel threatened by crime and don't feel there is any police around. Or that the courts and police is efficient enough.

 

[jacqui24]

But most people are sensible enough to realize that protection is a necessity for prominent figures like royals.
It is however difficult to argue for, if people in general feel threatened by crime and don't feel there is any police around. Or that the courts and police is efficient enough.

But I feel like that should be on the politicians and policy makers than the royal family as the royal family has no control over public security. And honestly, the monarch itself does bring in plenty of tourism revenue.

 

[MARG]

It is definitely a finance driven measure and because of the nature of the job a rapport is essential. How close do they want strangers with then when they do personal shopping? Are Catherine and Meghan going to like strange men around when they shop for intimate the apparel?

 

[Pranter]

My guess is when they shop for those types of items they have a assistant pick it up or have it delivered etc.


LaRae

 

[xenobia]

It is definitely a finance driven measure and because of the nature of the job a rapport is essential. How close do they want strangers with then when they do personal shopping? Are Catherine and Meghan going to like strange men around when they shop for intimate the apparel?

RPO's aren't always male, if I'm correct.

 

[MARG]

I think know using a general pool of RPO'S will lessen the availability of the "right" officer at any particular time.

 

[jacqui24]

It is definitely a finance driven measure and because of the nature of the job a rapport is essential. How close do they want strangers with then when they do personal shopping? Are Catherine and Meghan going to like strange men around when they shop for intimate the apparel?

I do think Kate has close personal bodyguard that's a female. Camilla Tominey reported the day before the engagement announcement that someone is shadowing her in preparation to become Meghan's personal bodyguard as well. And at some point, they are bound to need the restroom when out shopping or something. How is a male bodyguard supposed to guard a female bathroom?

 

[tommy100]

Kate and Camilla both have (or at least did have) female protection officers. Kate had two I think, one of whom had worked protecting Beatrice and Eugenie. Even the Queen had a female protection officer for a long time.

 

[Osipi]

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.

 

[padams2359]

Maybe George or Charlotte, but I doubt anyone else.

 

[royal_enthusiast]

Was Diana entitled to Royal Protection Officers after her divorce as she was no longer a HRH and now a Private Citizen.

 

[Osipi]

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.

 

[royal_enthusiast]

Would Sarah, Duchess of York then received the same offer of protection after her divorce?

 

[Osipi]

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.

 

[Pranter]

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

 

[royal_enthusiast]

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.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

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.

 

[Jacknch]

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.

 

[royal_enthusiast]

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.