Royal Security

[Lumutqueen]

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?

Whilst I don’t wish to diminish our metropolitan police department and the services they offer, private security can be whatever you pay for. It can and in some cases does go well above the standard afforded to them currently.

Whilst I can appreciate that Henry is still a member of the RF, and has the extra criterion of having served in Afghanistan. It’s not the days of old, where terror levels were raised and lowered daily, our biggest threat in recent years was IS but their stranglehold has significantly diminished in recent years. To put it bluntly, if somebody wanted to get at Henry or the RF in general, no amount of security tax payer funded or not would stop them.

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.

She didn’t wear a seatbelt in a car, that’s what happened.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I do hope that this doesn't become an election issue in the UK - which it may very well do given the state of the NHS, flood relief needs, coronovirus etc etc. The UK people pushed for security to be removed from 'minor royals' even those working full-time and won so it is possible that the same thing will happen and Harry and Meghan will lose it on the back on public opposition to the costs.

 

[Somebody]

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.

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.

If I understand it correctly, the MET has a fixed budget, so if they need to provide for protection abroad (both for them living in Canada and for travels promoting their new 'business' - so to a much higher cost than if the family would live in the UK on royal grounds), that means that the MET's budget for anything else diminishes automatically.

I can imagine a scenario in which basic protection will be provided (to about the cost level that they would have if they lived in the UK) and any additional costs made because of their personal preferences need to be met by themselves. It seems clear that their security 'status' changes per March 31, so some adjustments will need to be made. Moreover, I don't think it is unreasonable to put some restrictions on people's movement. Many company's will restrict where their high-level employees can live (especially abroad), so they can be kept safe at a reasonable cost.

 

[Denville]

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.

but that was Dodi's stupidity, and a high speed car chase. Most very wealthy people have security, and seeme to manage to lead their lives safely, without needing the Police to provide security for them.

 

[ACO]

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.

I am aware which begs to question what the conversation would be if it is removed from Harry and Meghan right now and something unfortunate happened....

We really have no say. If the met say they need it than they will have it but I think most can understand all sides in this. I just will be surprised if in this current climate it is removed.

I think it will be revisited in a year though but we shall see what happens.

Either way they will have security whether they pay for it not.

 

[Durham]

private security can be whatever you pay for. It can and in some cases does go well above the standard afforded to them currently.

Whilst I can appreciate that Henry is still a member of the RF, and has the extra criterion of having served in Afghanistan. It’s not the days of old, where terror levels were raised and lowered daily, our biggest threat in recent years was IS but their stranglehold has significantly diminished in recent years. To put it bluntly, if somebody wanted to get at Henry or the RF in general, no amount of security tax payer funded or not would stop them.


She didn’t wear a seatbelt in a car, that’s what happened.

It would seem you know more about private security than I do. Clearly I am mistaken in my understanding that private security is not as good as the met. Happy to be educated. Do you have a source for that btw?

Not sure what you mean in your second point.

What happened was that the car hit a concrete post at 65mph.

 

[wyevale]

I do hope that this doesn't become an election issue in the UK

There isn't a General election scheduled here until 2024.. this issue will be 'history', by then

 

[Missjersey]

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.

Definitely agree.

They made the choice to leave. I don’t think they deserve security at anyone’s expense other than their own. I understand it’s different when representing HM. They can well afford to pay “security as you go” on their personal travels.

 

[tommy100]

The reality is the Met don't provide security to anyone indefinitely (with few exceptions eg. HM, the Prime Minister) and who and how they protect is based on threat assessment. I would imagine that the threat is based on real life threatening situations not just "celebrity" style security needs e.g. a burly person to block paparazzi.

If you take out the supposed additional threat of Harry having served in Afghanistan (not really sure whether that really applies or not) we have seen that the Met have quite regularly removed at least some level of security when they deem it appropriate. Beatrice and Eugenie had their full time protection removed in 2011. The Gloucesters and Kents, who still undertake official duties for HM and have HRH status, don't have 24hour protection and only have officers assigned to them when on official duties. Likewise The Countess of Wessex was said to have similarly had her 24hour protection removed around the same time in 2011 except when she is on official duties.

Based on that it does somewhat tricky to fully justify the Sussexs having full time 24hr protection when even those still in the UK who do represent HM and don't make a profit from it don't get the same.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Whilst I don’t wish to diminish our metropolitan police department and the services they offer, private security can be whatever you pay for. It can and in some cases does go well above the standard afforded to them currently.

Whilst I can appreciate that Henry is still a member of the RF, and has the extra criterion of having served in Afghanistan. It’s not the days of old, where terror levels were raised and lowered daily, our biggest threat in recent years was IS but their stranglehold has significantly diminished in recent years. To put it bluntly, if somebody wanted to get at Henry or the RF in general, no amount of security tax payer funded or not would stop them.





She didn’t wear a seatbelt in a car, that’s what happened.

And there was a drunk driver, not vetted by security but insisted upon by the boss-Mohamed Al-Fayed. A case of the Boss thinking he knew better than security.

I'm sure good, trained private security, when allowed to do the job they are being paid for, are more than adequate.

I think government provided security is going to be a big point of contention given all the circumstances of Harry and Meghan's new life. I really don't see how it can be continued at these levels indefinitely. The whole living in another country is a really big issue.

 

[OtagoLass]

I am glad Canada are standing their ground, at the end of the these two are the British Royal's family problem and the buck need to stop with the UK. So it would be very unfair to shift their expenses to an innocent country that has unexpectedly found themselves in this position.

I do stress that the UK should not have to pay either but its for the UK government to sort out (who should also stand their ground), not Canada to deal with the consequences.

 

[Missjersey]

We can go around in circles why/why not have security I suppose.

They walked away knowingly...their egos precede them, imo. Security because of who they are doesn’t exactly seem right to me. I thought they were going to start “fresh” following what path I couldn’t say, but certainly not on the coattails of others paying for security and “incidentals”.

 

[Osipi]

but that was Dodi's stupidity, and a high speed car chase. Most very wealthy people have security, and seeme to manage to lead their lives safely, without needing the Police to provide security for them.

Exactly. The difference lies in the type of security. Dodi had private security and they answered to Dodi. RPOs do not answer to their clients but to their superiors at the Met.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that I believe what will happen is that the Met decides that they will provide RPOs for the Sussexes if and when they're in the UK and residing at Frogmore (which at this time seems to be for part time). While not in the UK, their security will be their own concern to provide for. Canada has already stated they won't provide security while they're in Canada and as they'll be private people when there, that is the right move to make.

Providing RPOs from the Met while the Sussexes are in Vancouver just isn't practical for me. I would imagine too that there wouldn't be very many RPOs willing to relocate to Vancouver for weeks at a time. It would create havoc with those RPOs that have families and their own social lives in the UK. Tours are one thing but continual security with all it entails (housing, meals, transportation) just isn't feasible.

 

[tausi]

Exactly. The difference lies in the type of security. Dodi had private security and they answered to Dodi. RPOs do not answer to their clients but to their superiors at the Met.



I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that I believe what will happen is that the Met decides that they will provide RPOs for the Sussexes if and when they're in the UK and residing at Frogmore (which at this time seems to be for part time). While not in the UK, their security will be their own concern to provide for. Canada has already stated they won't provide security while they're in Canada and as they'll be private people when there, that is the right move to make.



Providing RPOs from the Met while the Sussexes are in Vancouver just isn't practical for me. I would imagine too that there wouldn't be very many RPOs willing to relocate to Vancouver for weeks at a time. It would create havoc with those RPOs that have families and their own social lives in the UK. Tours are one thing but continual security with all it entails (housing, meals, transportation) just isn't feasible.

This seems like a more likely scenario. I think it will be hard to justify millions of dollars of security costs for 3 people given the fact that police resources are very limited. These days there are so many terror threats within UK. They need to protect millions of people in their own soil. I can’t see them protect Harry when he lives abroad.

 

[Pranter]

If (as I understand it) the Met policy is to provide protection for British ppl who fall within their parameters (threat assessments) regardless of who they are then why would the Sussexes be any different?



LaRae

 

[Osipi]

If (as I understand it) the Met policy is to provide protection for British ppl who fall within their parameters (threat assessments) regardless of who they are then why would the Sussexes be any different?



LaRae

That's just it. We don't know what the threat assessment is as for security reasons, they don't tell us. All we can do is look at the situation from where we sit and offer thoughts on what *may* happen or not happen. Keeps us off the streets and out of trouble.

 

[Mirabel]

If (as I understand it) the Met policy is to provide protection for British ppl who fall within their parameters (threat assessments) regardless of who they are then why would the Sussexes be any different?



LaRae

Because the monarchy depends on the public goodwill.
And there'll be no goodwill if the public has to pay mega pounds for people who don't even live in the UK and are not working royals.

I'm sure the Queen and Charles know this; they always keep a finger on the pulse of public opinion.

 

[yvr girl]

I'm sure the threat assessment will be reevaluated going forward. Part of what makes royals vulnerable is that they are predictable...their engagements are published in advance. This will change I the future for H&M.

 

[rominet09]

Let's say it straight : I love them.
But I Wonder if they were conscious of all the practical effects their decision would bring. Everyday the situation becomes worse. Didn't they ask for advice beforehand ?
Was advice given and ignored ?

 

[ACO]

I'm sure the threat assessment will be reevaluated going forward. Part of what makes royals vulnerable is that they are predictable...their engagements are published in advance. This will change I the future for H&M.

I agree with this. They will have it temporarily but it will be removed with time. I am with the poster upthread who states they likely will just have it when they are in the UK. It will be private security when not.

 

[Alison H]

Let's say it straight : I love them.
But I Wonder if they were conscious of all the practical effects their decision would bring. Everyday the situation becomes worse. Didn't they ask for advice beforehand ?
Was advice given and ignored ?

They don't seem to have thought at all. Did they just assume that the Canadian government would provide security indefinitely, and find millions of pounds/dollars out of thin air to plug the resulting hole in their budget? The Canadian media, quite reasonably, raised this issue from the start - did it just not occur to Harry and Meghan?

I'm also inclined to think they'll only get state-funded security when in the UK, because of the public opinion issue. Neither the British nor Canadian governments need to get dragged into a row over this: they've both got plenty of other issues to deal with.

 

[Denville]

I agree with this. They will have it temporarily but it will be removed with time. I am with the poster upthread who states they likely will just have it when they are in the UK. It will be private security when not.

then they might as well start with privately funded security from now on. It up to them to be sensible, listen to their bodyguards and not take unnecessary risks...

 

[Hallo girl]

I agree with this. They will have it temporarily but it will be removed with time. I am with the poster upthread who states they likely will just have it when they are in the UK. It will be private security when not.

I think this is a fair assessment of what could happen, nobody expects the security to just suddenly be withdrawn but they as a couple have decided to make changes to their lives , so it can only be expected that other changes will follow on.
The security services will never make a public announcement about costs, or ask for more money but I am sure these discussions are going on behind the scenes.
There is an issue in the uk about police officers on the street, crime prevention etc, it is all about the optics.
There has been criticism in the past when security are seen , in their down time, sitting round the pool or having a beer.
It is not an easy question or answer, maybe a half way house will be found.
Full independence will take time, it might be a sliding scale of UK security , it might continue as is now.
Time will tell, we can speculate all we like but one thing we do know is that the queen is aware of the optics.

 

[Denville]

I think this is a fair assessment of what could happen, nobody expects the security to just suddenly be withdrawn but they as a couple have decided to make changes to their lives , so it can only be expected that other changes will follow on.
The security services will never make a public announcement about costs, or ask for more money but I am sure these discussions are going on behind the scenes.
There is an issue in the uk about police officers on the street, crime prevention etc, it is all about the optics.
There has been criticism in the past when security are seen , in their down time, sitting round the pool or having a beer.
It is not an easy question or answer, maybe a half way house will be found.
Full independence will take time, it might be a sliding scale of UK security , it might continue as is now.
Time will tell, we can speculate all we like but one thing we do know is that the queen is aware of the optics.

I hope that the queen is indeed aware of how things look...she has had to see a lot of annoyance about the high costs of paying for security for her family, and I hope she will undersand that if H and Meghan are not working royals and are living abroad, they simply can't continue to have protection paid for by the tax payers.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I am glad Canada are standing their ground, at the end of the these two are the British Royal's family problem and the buck need to stop with the UK. So it would be very unfair to shift their expenses to an innocent country that has unexpectedly found themselves in this position.

I do stress that the UK should not have to pay either but its for the UK government to sort out (who should also stand their ground), not Canada to deal with the consequences.

I hope the State of New Zealand will not throw a Bill on your doormat when you, or your loved ones, come under threat. It is unheard of that a State, which is ultimately responsible for maintaining Law and Order, sends a bill for police protection. Neither Prince Harry nor you or your family have asked to be under threat of lunatics, loons and terrorists.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Because the monarchy depends on the public goodwill.
And there'll be no goodwill if the public has to pay mega pounds for people who don't even live in the UK and are not working royals.

I'm sure the Queen and Charles know this; they always keep a finger on the pulse of public opinion.

But that is not the point. When you or your loved ones are subject to threats, harassment, intrusion then the police will provide protection. No matter you are no royal. I fail to see why Prince Harry should foot the bill. He did not ask idiots to threat him, his wife or his son. .

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

If (as I understand it) the Met policy is to provide protection for British ppl who fall within their parameters (threat assessments) regardless of who they are then why would the Sussexes be any different?



LaRae

That is the correct attitude. It can not be that a British citizen has to pay for his security when it is the State, and the State only, which holds the monopoly on law enforcement and use of violence, to fulfil their most important core duty: to maintain law and order and provide security and safety to all.

 

[winifred]

The Met has access to intelligence from the security services which NO private security firm will ever have.

Harry and Meghan have made a complete mess of this, IMO, and solutions will have to be found, but there's no question of summarily cutting them off on March 31st.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

However, it was Harry& Meghan’s choice to leave the UK and go off to live in Canada. They chose to change their circumstances for personal reasons, possibly for personal gain, thereby increasing security costs exponentially.
I am sure things are being evaluated by the police. They have a limited budget.

The expectations that the Sussexes could make such a drastic change and security not be affected is naive or oblivious.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If (as I understand it) the Met policy is to provide protection for British ppl who fall within their parameters (threat assessments) regardless of who they are [...]

When you or your loved ones are subject to threats, harassment, intrusion then the police will provide protection. No matter you are no royal.

You raise an interesting question. Does British government policy provide for the police force to fund bodyguard protection (beyond regular police services) to any person who is subject to threats, or is the personal protection service only available for members of the Royal Family, officials in government, visiting dignitaries, and so on? Is there a policy statement which clarifies this?