Royal Security

[Alison H]

The whole issue of policing and security is a muddle. What annoys a lot of people is that taxpayers' money is used to fund policing for political protests, even when these are by extremist groups to whom most people are vehemently opposed. Policing outside sports grounds etc is also state-funded, which is questionable when big clubs are spending tens of millions of pounds on buying one player.

However, as far as security for individuals goes, AFAIK it's only senior royals, government officials and diplomats.

I don't know what would happen if someone - say a high profile businessperson or celebrity - received a specific threat, though. But that would be in response to a specific incident, not ongoing, anyway. You certainly do not get police protection because of harassment or intrusion: you just get a restraining order telling whoever's making the threats to stay away from you. It's a shame you don't, because there've been so many cases of people being attacked by violent exes whom they'd reported to the police, but there just aren't the resources.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

What has happened to Scotland Yard, to MI5, to MI6 and the legendaric James Bond with his "Licence to kill"? The United Kingdom has such an unbelievable machinery of security. They should not even have 0,001 second of thought to protect citizens which score within the parameters of risk assessment. I also think the amount named here and there is sucked out of a big fat thumb. Exactly because it is a secretive policy, the security services will not reveal precize amounts distributed to individual royals.

The armoured Audi which shadows the Earl of Wessex today, probably shadows the Duke of Sussex tomorrow and the Prince of Wales coming week. Maybe the armoured Audi came with a staggering price label but it is in use for three or four years. What I have seen is allocating security, cars, helicopters whatever to individual royals. But they also protect foreign guests, they also protect the Prime Minister, they also protect Mme Brigitte Macron doing some shopping in London. With or without a royal family, any developed country has such a security force.

In the Netherlands the Prime Minister always refuses to say what the security costs are for the royals because the Corps Royal- and Diplomatic Protection Service would have been there anyway, with or without a monarchy. They protect Justices of the International Tribunal, they protect foreign ambassadors, they protect politicians, mayors, prosecutors, citizens under threat.

I think that reply is pure. I see millions swarming over the net about the costs but the central comnand, the fleet of armoured vehicles, the shadowing by personal guards, the helicopter above, it would have been there anyway, with or without a Harry.

 

[Denville]

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?

I doubt very much if Joe Bloggs calls the police and says that he is in danger or subject to threats, is going to get ful time police protection.. much less special officers.

 

[Denville]

The whole issue of policing and security is a muddle. What annoys a lot of people is that taxpayers' money is used to fund policing for political protests, even when these are by extremist groups to whom most people are vehemently opposed. Policing outside sports grounds etc is also state-funded, which is questionable when big clubs are spending tens of millions of pounds on buying one player.

However, as far as security for individuals goes, AFAIK it's only senior royals, government officials and diplomats.

I.

Of course ordinary people as opposed to the RF, senior politicans etc don't get regular security. If soemone is in danger and is a wealthy person they may get some help during a specific incident like a kidnapping but the police wont be there permanently..> They wll be expected to pay their own security.

 

[Alison H]

Yes - so it's hard to argue that there should be an exception for Harry and Meghan, when there isn't for Beatrice and Eugenie, and police resources are stretched as it is. It'll probably end up being like the "Who pays for the repairs to Windsor Castle after the fire?" saga - if there's a public outcry, public funding will be withdrawn. If there isn't, who knows?

 

[LadyGlendower]

Dear Meghan and Harry:

Life as globe-trotting philanthropic celebrities often does require a security presence. Get some referrals from George and Amal, or Oprah.

Do not in any event expect the hardworking taxpayers of any country in the world to support your lifestyle. (BRF protection of course being an exception for which you no longer qualify.)

Sincerely,

The World

 

[Avicenna]

Yes - so it's hard to argue that there should be an exception for Harry and Meghan, when there isn't for Beatrice and Eugenie, and police resources are stretched as it is. It'll probably end up being like the "Who pays for the repairs to Windsor Castle after the fire?" saga - if there's a public outcry, public funding will be withdrawn. If there isn't, who knows?

There's a difference though between Harry and Beatrice/Eugenie: His service in Afghanistan. Does this make him a target? Something that should be considered IMHO.

 

[ACO]

I think the Beatrice/Eugenie & Sussexes comparisons are a little flawed mostly due to profile at the moment. I don't disagree they shouldn't have their security costs questioned but the fact is that the York sisters don't bring the attention and likely threats the Sussexes have at the current moment. And I am sure that is likely the biggest issue right now. Will that change in the comings months? We shall see.

 

[wyevale]

Does this make him a target? Something that should be considered IMHO.

His military service ended 5 years ago.. and Terrorism has 'moved on'. If the Security people consider it a continued risk, it will [of course], be 'factored in' to the decision.

Most people in the UK seem to think think Sussex has put HIMSELF outside his previously safeguarded position, and so have little sympathy, and even less 'appetite' for continuing to pay for the security of what will be [after 31st March], essentially 'private individuals', who undertake no duties on our behalf, or that of the Crown..

If and when they do, of course they should have security provided by the Met, otherwise no..they are 'on their own', as they chose to be.

 

[Dalriada]

British soccer football clubs contribute costs significantly for policing inside and outside football grounds during matches! It’s not all up to taxpayers thankfully.

 

[crm2317]

If wealthy people such as the Beckhams, Ecclestones and Dyson families need to pay for private security then why shouldn’t the Sussexes? They are wanting to make an independent income and that it their right but they should use this income to fund their security.

 

[victor1319]

In my humble opinion there should be a period for a year or something, in which the security costs are paid by the state. There are a lot of crazies out there and the Sussexes continue to have a very public profile.


And after this: Since the Sussexes seek the public and it looks like they want to become international A-listers, they should pay for themselves. I mean Oprah or Brad Pitt or any other in this league has to pay for the security too.

 

[Dalriada]

Should the British taxpayer continue to foot the security bill going forward for these two private individuals then there is a danger that a gravy train of costs could spiral without end! I am reminded of the Dutch sovereign’s private holiday villa in Greece (different status) where Dutch taxpayers have paid for various safety measures including the lease of land for a wall, the construction of a small harbour and the lease of a plot of land to extend security as well as the construction of a building for the security personel! I could well envisage this sort of extravagance on Vancouver Island or the Californian coast if there isn’t a stop to it. Thankfully the Canadian Government have listened to taxpayers’ concerns.

 

[Durham]

The author Salman Rushdie was a non vip who had round the clock state protection for years. Very different circumstances of course. There was a very clear public threat to his life.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I also think the amount named here and there is sucked out of a big fat thumb. Exactly because it is a secretive policy, the security services will not reveal precize amounts distributed to individual royals.

Let's see, at least three teams of RPOS for three people, that have to rotate off every two weeks since they are living overseas. And because they are overseas, the RPOs probably get some sort of bonus. 5 star hotel rooms while the RPOs are off duty, a generous meal allowance, plus the back and forth trips from London to Vancouver in first class. I'm sure there are other additional expenses as well. That all adds up fast.

Only the RPOs salaries, and maybe a meal allowance, would be normal costs if the Sussexes had stayed put at Windsor.

This is not sustainable.

 

[Mirabel]

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. .

The police won't provide protection indefinitely.
They would probably advise installing security cameras, or something of that nature.

Even celebrities who get stalked by disturbed people generally must get their own security. The police simply don't have the resources to offer protection 24/7.

 

[Kataryn]

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. .

I am not sure the British public really minds paying for Harry's security. There are other things that are much more important now and the prize of security for them is just a topic to get readers away from thinking about all the other things wrong with the distribution of taxes. And as Harry is exposed to threats due to his station as a son of the PoW, then the Met Police should ask for further money from the Crown estate, because paying for guards and security was one of most important things that were payed by this estate before George III. turned it over to the government in exchange for eg. security. I understand that a lot of you think that Harry could not have his cake and eat it, but it is the same with the government/taxpayer. The government took the Crown estate for the taxpayers in exchange for security and other privileges for the Royals. They cannot now tell the Royals they won't get it anymor when they get the extra money to distribute among the citizens of the UK.

 

[Kataryn]

Should the British taxpayer continue to foot the security bill going forward for these two private individuals then there is a danger that a gravy train of costs could spiral without end! I am reminded of the Dutch sovereign’s private holiday villa in Greece (different status) where Dutch taxpayers have paid for various safety measures including the lease of land for a wall, the construction of a small harbour and the lease of a plot of land to extend security as well as the construction of a building for the security personel! I could well envisage this sort of extravagance on Vancouver Island or the Californian coast if there isn’t a stop to it. Thankfully the Canadian Government have listened to taxpayers’ concerns.

I can only remind all members her to check out the Crown Estate, what it used to be, what it was exchanged for and how much money it brings in - for the queen and her family as the souverain grant and for the use of the government. Harry does nothing to be threatend but be born a prince! You cannot leave him unprotected when th experts think he should have protection. And there is enough money out of the Royal hand to pay for that, just like the Britons pay for their embassies and ambassadours worldwide to be protected.
As Nr. 6 in the succession list, Harry is the 7th most important person in the Uk when it comes to official precedence - he is far higher in official rank than any ambassadour or even the Prime Minister ever can be. That's how it is in the Uk and nothing is going to change that apart from a public vote for the end of the monarchy.

 

[wyevale]

I am not sure the British public really minds paying for Harry's security.

Perhaps you underestimate the resentment his actions have prompted amongst a Public that [once] adored him ?
lt seems to me that much of that same public now seeks to punish this couple for their [perceived] 'betrayal', and attempting to deny them security, paid for 'from the Public purse', is one of their sole remaining weapons in the quest for revenge ?

The Press [naturally] are 'stoking this fire'.

 

[Dalriada]

“ ....As Nr. 6 in the succession list, Harry is the 7th most important person in the Uk when it comes to official precedence - he is far higher in official rank than any ambassadour or even the Prime Minister ever can be. That's how it is in the Uk and nothing is going to change that apart from a public vote for the end of the monarchy.[/QUOTE]


Looking ahead Harry is still the grandson of the Head of State of the realm of Canada but he is still deemed a private individual by the Canadian government who sees him not worthy of this realm’s special security.

 

[Hallo girl]

What has happened to Scotland Yard, to MI5, to MI6 and the legendaric James Bond with his "Licence to kill"? The United Kingdom has such an unbelievable machinery of security. They should not even have 0,001 second of thought to protect citizens which score within the parameters of risk assessment. I also think the amount named here and there is sucked out of a big fat thumb. Exactly because it is a secretive policy, the security services will not reveal precize amounts distributed to individual royals.

The armoured Audi which shadows the Earl of Wessex today, probably shadows the Duke of Sussex tomorrow and the Prince of Wales coming week. Maybe the armoured Audi came with a staggering price label but it is in use for three or four years. What I have seen is allocating security, cars, helicopters whatever to individual royals. But they also protect foreign guests, they also protect the Prime Minister, they also protect Mme Brigitte Macron doing some shopping in London. With or without a royal family, any developed country has such a security force.

In the Netherlands the Prime Minister always refuses to say what the security costs are for the royals because the Corps Royal- and Diplomatic Service would have been there anyway, with or without a monarchy. They protect Justices of the International Tribunal, they protect foreign ambassadors, they protect politicians, mayors, prosecutors, citizens under threat.

I think that reply is pure. I see millions swarming over the net about the costs but the central comnand, the fleet of armoured vehicles, the shadowing by personal guards, the helicopter above, it would have been there anyway, with or without a Harry.

That is all very true, but the Sussex's intend to live in North America, so all the trappings of security would need to go with them.

The rota of RPO's would be huge, with the individuals flying back and forth across the Atlantic , staying at expensive hotels, on some sort of bonus as they are aware from home and basically on 24 hour call. If the family decide to travel, the security would travel with them. all incurring further costs.
Your point is basically correct and when they are in the UK as you say everything is already in place. The various estates are all protected with security. The point is they will not be in the UK, I do not know the answer but it is not as simple as everything is already there so what is the problem,

 

[Hallo girl]

“ ....As Nr. 6 in the succession list, Harry is the 7th most important person in the Uk when it comes to official precedence - he is far higher in official rank than any ambassadour or even the Prime Minister ever can be. That's how it is in the Uk and nothing is going to change that apart from a public vote for the end of the monarchy.

Looking ahead Harry is still the grandson of the Head of State of the realm of Canada but he is still deemed a private individual by the Canadian government who sees him not worthy of this realm’s special security.[/QUOTE]

He does not want the trappings though, he wants to leave his responsibilities as 6th in line.

 

[Hallo girl]

I doubt very much if Joe Bloggs calls the police and says that he is in danger or subject to threats, is going to get ful time police protection.. much less special officers.

You are lucky if you get a visit.

 

[Kataryn]

Perhaps you underestimate the resentment his actions have prompted amongst a Public that [once] adored him ?
lt seems to me that much of that same public now seeks to punish this couple for their [perceived] 'betrayal', and attempting to deny them security, paid for 'from the Public purse', is one of their sole remaining weapons in the quest for revenge ?

The Press [naturally] are 'stoking this fire'.

But who are these people??? Where do they form a forum for their opinion? How many do even show enough interest to change their opinion? Harry is a prince of the Uk. He is Diana's and Charles' son. That alone means most people see him as something "special". Now he has his "scandal". A lot of people understand that he seeks to protect his wife and son and is still happy to be his grandmother's subject. Others were raised up against him by the media's reports. But how many are in one group, how many in the other? I think it's legitimate to have your own opinion about all of this. But to say "The taxpayer" is quite a lot! Especially as no one normally listens to "The taxpayer", when they don't even listen to "The voter". That "Taxpayers" are IMHO just a metaphor in use when the media wants to whip the Royals or the government for something the media hates. NBot for the people hates, but for their own jobs/situation. Harry does not want to play the game anymore and I understand that the media hates it. But do the people really think about that and form an opinion that is so way off what they normally think? I am not convinced about that.

 

[Iluvbertie]

delete - still no delete button

 

[Kataryn]

“ ....As Nr. 6 in the succession list, Harry is the 7th most important person in the Uk when it comes to official precedence - he is far higher in official rank than any ambassadour or even the Prime Minister ever can be. That's how it is in the Uk and nothing is going to change that apart from a public vote for the end of the monarchy.

Looking ahead Harry is still the grandson of the Head of State of the realm of Canada but he is still deemed a private individual by the Canadian government who sees him not worthy of this realm’s special security.[/QUOTE]
Even though he is the grandson of the queen, he is not a Canadian. He is a guest in Canada and not on an official mission there. If people normally surrounded by security go abroard on holiday, they won't get security of the country they are in besides the exchange of information and occasionally help from them wehn it comes to cars etc.

 

[Alison H]

As I see it, this isn't about to trying to punish anyone, or hating anyone, or "revenge". It's about the fact that it's difficult to justify spending millions of pounds on security for people who are performing no public service, when there've had to be cuts to the numbers of police on the streets trying to protect 65 million people from being mugged, burgled or worse. It's only a media estimate and probably way out, but the reports are that the costs of security for them in Canada would be £14 million more than if they were in the UK, because of the travel costs and the fact that official vehicles wouldn't be there anyway. That's a lot of money that could otherwise be spent on general policing.


Nobody wanted "revenge" against Beatrice and Eugenie, whose state-funded security was withdrawn. It was just a question of justifying the expenditure. Police resources are stretched.

 

[Dalriada]

Most taxpayers wanted justification rather than revenge for paying ££millions of security costs to follow these two Yorgies (B&E) on multiple holidays every year around the world without them having any employment never mind full employment at the time. Revulsion rather than hatred.

 

[Denville]

As I see it, this isn't about to trying to punish anyone, or hating anyone, or "revenge". It's about the fact that it's difficult to justify spending millions of pounds on security for people who are performing no public service, when there've had to be cuts to the numbers of police on the streets trying to protect 65 million people from being mugged, burgled or worse. It's only a media estimate and probably way out, but the reports are that the costs of security for them in Canada would be £14 million more than if they were in the UK, because of the travel costs and the fact that official vehicles wouldn't be there anyway. That's a lot of money that could otherwise be spent on general policing.


Nobody wanted "revenge" against Beatrice and Eugenie, whose state-funded security was withdrawn. It was just a question of justifying the expenditure. Police resources are stretched.

well yes, its not high end maths, 1) the costs of security will be much heavier abroad and 2) Harry and Meghan have chosen to give up being working royals.. so - they may continue to get security paid for, by the tax payer for a time.. but it wont continue all that long and it will rouse resentment...

 

[tommy100]

It perhaps also worth pointing out the argument my be different if they were moving to Canada to lead normal lives away from the spotlight with 9-5 jobs and generally shun any attention and focus. The fact they have stated repeatedly a desire to "make their own way" and "earn their own income" is what makes some of these arguments about who funds the security relevant. E.g. if they are earning six figure sums to speak to bankers why should the British taxpayers be picking up the bill for their protection? Why can't they pay for it themselves or ask the people willing to pay so much to pay for flights for the protection officers etc. Furthermore is seems (and maybe we will be shown to be wrong) they are quite happy to still garner media attention by the nature of the work they are wanting to do, therefore its in their interest to keep a high profile to earn the $£$£$£ (whether that goes to themselves or charity) so that means there will be more diminishing of the interest in them in the same way there may be with other royals who "leave the stage".

Ultimately if its assessed that there is a real threat (as I'm sure there will be for the next few months or year or two at least) I'm all for them having protection but it would be nice to think if they do start earning big bucks they could see some of it go towards repaying a portion of the bill e.g. the costs of protection when they are on doing any paid events. That said I hope they don't get protection just because they are 'celebrities' who garner media interest without any real actual harmful threat (if that makes sense I'm not wishing them ill personally I hope there is no threat), if thats the case they should hire their own minders.

“ ....As Nr. 6 in the succession list, Harry is the 7th most important person in the Uk when it comes to official precedence - he is far higher in official rank than any ambassadour or even the Prime Minister ever can be. That's how it is in the Uk and nothing is going to change that apart from a public vote for the end of the monarchy.[/QUOTE]

The order of succession and the order of precedence are different. By official and legal precedence Andrew and Edward rank higher than William and Harry even though William and Harry are higher in the line of succession. If we base security on place in precedence the Archbishop of Canterbury (first in precedence after the Royal Family) would be deemed more at risk than the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor (also usually held with the office of Secretary of State for Justice) would rank higher than the Prime Minister (who appoints them and could fire them at whim). That is why the provision and level of protection is based on an assessment of the risks not just holding a title or status or place in precedence.