The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #781  
Old 12-07-2017, 06:38 AM
Gaudete's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: South East Coast, United Kingdom
Posts: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
They have no police protection, as they do not represent t the BRF.


Thanks Muriel, I had a suspicion that was the case but I wasn’t sure. But I do think in today’s world that’s a bit of a risk quite honestly. This time it was only a beggar but if our MPs have police protection because of outside threats, surely Prince & Princess Michael should have at least one officer? It seems very naive. They might not carry out engagements but they’re still closely related.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #782  
Old 12-07-2017, 06:46 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,757
I would imagine that if the Kents did need protection, it would have to be funded by the Queen or by themselves personally as the members of the BRF that do have RPOs are provided and funded through the Metropolitan Police at Scotland Yard by the taxpayers.

The public is not going to be approving of providing protection for people that do not serve the people or the monarchy.

Members of Parliament are serving the government and the people hence they warrant protection.
__________________

__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #783  
Old 12-07-2017, 06:49 AM
muriel's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaudete View Post
Thanks Muriel, I had a suspicion that was the case but I wasn’t sure. But I do think in today’s world that’s a bit of a risk quite honestly. This time it was only a beggar but if our MPs have police protection because of outside threats, surely Prince & Princess Michael should have at least one officer? It seems very naive. They might not carry out engagements but they’re still closely related.
I see no argument for the government to fund security for somebody who is not even in the line of succession. Prince Michael and fill have no public role Nd are private citizens.
Reply With Quote
  #784  
Old 12-07-2017, 06:54 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,541
It is still very dangerous for them to be on the streets without protection like this. They are an easy target for a terrorist and it would be a huge coup for an organisation like Islamic State to say they killed members of the royal family. I don't know what the answer is for them and other members of the family who don't have official protection.
Reply With Quote
  #785  
Old 12-07-2017, 07:01 AM
Gaudete's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: South East Coast, United Kingdom
Posts: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
I see no argument for the government to fund security for somebody who is not even in the line of succession. Prince Michael and fill have no public role Nd are private citizens.

Ten years ago I would agree. But we have sophisticated terror networks that would love a royal hostage, however junior. It doesn’t bear thinking about. Considering that the Shadow Culture Secretary has a police escort, I should think we could find the money to provide at least one officer for the Kents.
Reply With Quote
  #786  
Old 12-07-2017, 07:05 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,195
I think to be in the line of succession or not is no argument for protection. It has to do with a risk profile. When an opinion maker voices inflammatory opinions, the security services can feel that this person has a certain risk profile and needs protection.

Prince and Princess Michael apparently have a low risk profile, in the eyes of the security services.
Reply With Quote
  #787  
Old 12-07-2017, 07:21 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,757
I think I can be reasonably sure that if it was felt that the Kents do need protection and that there is a significant risk to them, the Queen, herself, would provide protection.

Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie do not warrant taxpayer funded RPOs yet they have them. Andrew pays for them out of his own pocket the last I heard.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #788  
Old 12-07-2017, 07:26 AM
Gaudete's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: South East Coast, United Kingdom
Posts: 514
But of course, these headlines could have been very different if it wasn’t just a group of beggars and was someone else with a weapon. That’s what I think is a concern, that people could get so close.
Reply With Quote
  #789  
Old 12-07-2017, 08:02 AM
muriel's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaudete View Post
Ten years ago I would agree. But we have sophisticated terror networks that would love a royal hostage, however junior. It doesn’t bear thinking about. Considering that the Shadow Culture Secretary has a police escort, I should think we could find the money to provide at least one officer for the Kents.
Personally, I would much rather that the funds be used for the NHS.
Reply With Quote
  #790  
Old 12-07-2017, 08:05 AM
Gaudete's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: South East Coast, United Kingdom
Posts: 514
That’s where we would differ I think. But it would be very boring if we all thought the same way
Reply With Quote
  #791  
Old 12-07-2017, 08:11 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,757
On a normal, ordinary day, the activities of Prince and Princess Michael of Kent are not known or publicized as they pretty much live their lives as private citizens.

They just happened to be at LouLou's which is a prime spot for fine dining and would be a draw for beggars to accost any of the patrons there. Those that frequent LouLou's are more likely to have money to spare than those that frequent the local McDonalds or Burger King. Its just logical.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #792  
Old 12-07-2017, 08:25 AM
Gaudete's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: South East Coast, United Kingdom
Posts: 514
Which makes me wonder why the restaurant itself doesn't clear the entrance ways of people begging. It's illegal for a start, which allows most London venues to clear their doorways of people badgering patrons as they arrive and leave.

If you're paying a fortune for service, you'd at least think the restaurant could throw in a little privacy as you leave.
Reply With Quote
  #793  
Old 12-07-2017, 03:11 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,216
The Metropolitan Police will fund security for ordinary citizens IF they believe that it is warranted e.g. Salman Rushdie.

I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a review of the security around the minor royals and maybe there will be an increase in security and maybe not but there will certainly be a review after this incident.

Imagine the headlines if something more serious had happened.
Reply With Quote
  #794  
Old 12-07-2017, 04:11 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
I see no argument for the government to fund security for somebody who is not even in the line of succession. Prince Michael and fill have no public role Nd are private citizens.
Prince Michael is back in the line to the throne as marriage to a catholic is no longer a reason for exclusion and those excluded on those grounds were reinstated.

Not sure that being in/someone's place in the line to the throne has a strong relationship to the need for protection - especially not for lower ranked family members. Arthur Chatto for example is much higher in line than the duke of Kent (and prince Michael) but less at risk than the duke or prince Michael as Arthur isn't a royal prince/duke.
Reply With Quote
  #795  
Old 12-07-2017, 04:38 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,541
The words 'private citizens' suggest that we are talking about Mr and Mrs Joe Bloggs and that isn't the reality here. If any of the Queen's cousins were kidnapped or killed by terrorists it's a story that would go right around the world reported, and rightly so, as 'members of the royal family' have been killed/kidnapped. We can't underestimate what a major story that would be so when I see the Michaels ( but it could equally be other relatives) being accosted on the street like this I do feel very uneasy and think there should be some more security in place.
Reply With Quote
  #796  
Old 12-07-2017, 04:56 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,216
Totally agree - maybe something like a police presence when they are in public e.g. the local bobby standing around while they exit from the restaurant until they are in the car - not 24/7 and the full RPO bit that the Queen and her children and grandsons have but a bit more protection that there was there which was none.
Reply With Quote
  #797  
Old 12-11-2017, 06:22 AM
iceflower's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: , Germany
Posts: 58,897
.

On November 29 Prince Michael of Kent held a speech at the Russian-British Business Forum in London:


** Pic 1 ** Pic 2 **
__________________
**** Welcome aboard! ****
Reply With Quote
  #798  
Old 12-11-2017, 07:55 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 5,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
The public is not going to be approving of providing protection for people that do not serve the people or the monarchy.
I totally agree!
Imagine if they had to have protection for every member of the extended RF, any time they were out in public!

The cost would be astronomical.

Anyway, I don't think they were accosted because they are royal but because they are obviously wealthy people exiting a pricey establishment.
It should be up to the club to provide security.
Reply With Quote
  #799  
Old 12-11-2017, 09:22 AM
maria-olivia's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 6,593
Prince Michael speaks the language but is he good in Business ?
Reply With Quote
  #800  
Old 12-11-2017, 10:33 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a review of the security around the minor royals and maybe there will be an increase in security and maybe not but there will certainly be a review after this incident.

Imagine the headlines if something more serious had happened.
I honestly don't know if Kents would even be part of consideration if some royal's protection needs are looked at closer. We have to keep in mind that Sophie of Wessex doesn't even have full time RPO. I do, however, think the Queen's underage grandchildren, the Wessex children, should be afforded RPOs.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
prince michael of kent, princess michael of kent


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
Prince and Princess Michael of Kent Current Events 5: September 2009-July 2011 Warren Current Events Archive 688 07-03-2011 02:52 PM




Popular Tags
america archie mountbatten-windsor asia baby names birth britain britannia british british royal family camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family life fashion and style gemstones george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf hello! henry viii hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan kensington palace king edward vii lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists mongolia mountbatten names nara period pless politics prince harry princess eugenie queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen louise royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family st edward sussex suthida taiwan tradition united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:44 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×