The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #461  
Old 05-11-2018, 11:47 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Yeah I think any of the direct line of the Monarch need different consideration.


LaRae
I think once they are grown up and are private citizens, that's a different story. However, I'm quite uncomfortable with the fact that children that close to the monarch aren't protected. It's one thing when it's an adult, but I imagine a 10 year old James can't fend off someone the same way Peter Phillips can.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #462  
Old 05-11-2018, 12:47 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 14,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal_enthusiast View Post
I’ve come up with a list of royals that receive 24/hr police protection. Please correct me if I’m wrong. ......................

I don't think we should go into too many specific details as to who, when and how the individual royals are protected here on an open forum. Stalkers also read the royal forums.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #463  
Old 05-11-2018, 01:05 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Somewhere in the U.K, United Kingdom
Posts: 112
You’re right, I forgot about the types of people that could read this. I’ve deleted the list and it’s probably right to not go in to great detail about security in order for safety purposes.
Reply With Quote
  #464  
Old 05-11-2018, 02:52 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
No. They would have to find other ways of getting that protection. The most recent case is Meghan, and her job paid for her security when she was working at first, and eventually NBC stepped it up to 24/7 except when she's travelling overseas for pleasure as the threat level was deemed to be higher. However, most royal girlfriends probably didn't have that option. I seem to remember that Charles paid for someone before he and Camilla were married.

But I do think royal girlfriend is a terrible position. First, they don't have the weight of the palace behind them, so the newspapers feel like they can say certain things that wouldn't be said if this was a member of the royal family and she would't be able to push back. Second, the threat to their lives is real. I remember reading that Meghan along with Harry was briefed on kidnaps attempts while they were dating. It was a brief article, and didn't get a lot of traction because there were so many other things written at that time, but that'd be terrifying if she was just a random person that worked a 9-5 job.
I agree it is a complicated position although they might be happy to go about their lives a liitle longer without a protrction officer as it sincerely limits your freedom and privacy.

The article about the kidnap training was from March so she was engaged at that point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
I think once they are grown up and are private citizens, that's a different story. However, I'm quite uncomfortable with the fact that children that close to the monarch aren't protected. It's one thing when it's an adult, but I imagine a 10 year old James can't fend off someone the same way Peter Phillips can.
I am sure that Louise and James are very happy that they don't have one. Now they can just go about their lives (while the adults in their lives take appropriste care). If there was a reason to suspect they might be at risk, I am sure an officer would be assigned.
Reply With Quote
  #465  
Old 05-12-2018, 01:46 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
I don't think we should go into too many specific details as to who, when and how the individual royals are protected here on an open forum. Stalkers also read the royal forums.
It is in the public record who receives what level of protection within the BRF - not just here but in lots of places. It was officially announced by the Met themselves as to who they were providing protection for:

the monarch, the spouse of the monarch, the children of the monarch, the spouse of the heir apparent, the children of the heir apparent, the spouses of the children of the heir apparent (subject to later assessment over time e.g. Meghan will probably lose it in time as Sophie did), the children of the heir apparent's heir apparent.

Other royals get protection when on official duties but not when on private events any more.

This came about because of the outcry over security costs and an assessment of real threats and it was decided that anyone from Beatrice down didn't need it as they weren't seen as a potential threat - only a grandchild of the monarch through the second son.

Remember that Anne's children never had protection so why do the other grandchildren need protection. Margaret's children didn't have protection either.
Reply With Quote
  #466  
Old 05-12-2018, 01:53 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
It is in the public record who receives what level of protection within the BRF - not just here but in lots of places. It was officially announced by the Met themselves as to who they were providing protection for:

the monarch, the spouse of the monarch, the children of the monarch, the spouse of the heir apparent, the children of the heir apparent, the spouses of the children of the heir apparent (subject to later assessment over time e.g. Meghan will probably lose it in time as Sophie did), the children of the heir apparent's heir apparent.

Other royals get protection when on official duties but not when on private events any more.

This came about because of the outcry over security costs and an assessment of real threats and it was decided that anyone from Beatrice down didn't need it as they weren't seen as a potential threat - only a grandchild of the monarch through the second son.

Remember that Anne's children never had protection so why do the other grandchildren need protection. Margaret's children didn't have protection either.
My issue with the younger children compared to when Margaret and Anne’s children were younger is that we live in a different world today. Base on most of the estimates I’ve seen for wedding security cost, Meghan and Harry’s wedding is expect to exceed the cost of W&K in 2011 even though it’s at a much smaller venue. That is perfect example of how the security necessary just keeps moving up. And I agree with the assessing risk and provide protection as needed. But I do feel that right now the young children are left in a particular vulnerable position. You quite simply can’t assess the risk associated with children than adults as they can’t react the same way as adults or manage the situation as well. Beatrice and Eugenie lost their security when they were already adults I believe and it’s been pretty much determined that they’ll be private citizens. I agree with them not having government funded security at that point of review of threat level is low.

The question I have is if Charles’ siblings will loose their security detail once the Queen passes away. At that point, they wouldn’t be children of THE monarch, but children of a monarch.
Reply With Quote
  #467  
Old 05-12-2018, 05:14 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,215
Why would Charles' siblings lose security? The Met made a decision based on relationship to a monarch not the monarch. As Andrew, Edward and Anne will always be the children of a monarch they will always have security but not their spouses.

That was pretty clear. The same will happen, in time, to Meghan - she will lose it when interest in her diminishes as George, Charlotte and Louis take over in the public's mind - as happened to Sophie in 2012 when she lost security. That is when the did the review and cut right back on who was eligible and cousins and the children of younger sons are to be treated the same as children of daughters - no security. They did evaluate the threat to those positions and James and Louise were considered and deemed not to be threatened.
Reply With Quote
  #468  
Old 05-12-2018, 05:32 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,533
Surely in this day and age security is based on assessment of the threats not relationship, or kinship to the monarch. There is no way on the day of the Queen's death or Charles' coronation that security will cease for Anne, Edward and Andrew. If they carry on doing public duties they will continue to have security to a certain degree, based on the assessment of the risks to them. The Gloucesters and Kents still have some level of protection provided, as they still carry out public duties for the monarch. Of course it is at a lower level than that of the Queen's own children, just as their protection is in turn lower than that of Charles and William.

Sophie reportedly, lost her 24hour protection, putting her in the same boat the Queen's cousins who receive protection when the are on public duties but not all the time. She still gets police protection when on public duties and her home is protected 24hrs a day. In time I expect the same will happen to degree for Anne, Edward and Andrew especially as/when William's children start official duties.
Reply With Quote
  #469  
Old 05-12-2018, 06:42 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Somewhere in the U.K, United Kingdom
Posts: 112
Would you say that even though Diana was the ex-wife of the Prince of Wales, her being the mother of the Future King would be a reason that she would have needed protection.
Reply With Quote
  #470  
Old 05-12-2018, 06:55 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,745
Even after the divorce, Diana drew crowds of people and hoards of press wherever she went. It was Diana, herself, that decided that she no longer needed a RPO dogging her and it actually did prove to be a bad decision in the long run.

If you read Ken Wharfe's book, "Diana: Closely Guarded Secret" (he was Diana's principle RPO for five years), he comes right out and states that if he or any other RPO from the Metropolitan Police/Scotland Yard had still been employed to protect her, the accident in Paris would never have happened.
__________________
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
  #471  
Old 05-12-2018, 07:16 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,533
Diana was given protection by RPOs after her divorce, she asked for it to be withdrawn herself and they were of course obliged to do so. Again this proves its risk based not family ties that determine security. The then head of Met Police says he asked her to reinstate it repeatedly right up to her death.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...rotection.html
Britain’s most senior police officer at the time of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales had repeatedly begged her to reinstate her Scotland Yard security team and believes she would still be alive if that had been done, the Princess’s inquest heard today.
Lord Condon, former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, described how the Princess decided to jettison her police protection team against his wishes in December 1993.

Lord Condon told the hearing at the High Court in London: "Let me be absolutely frank. If as my wish was, she would have had police protection in Paris, then I'm absolutely convinced those three lives would not have been tragically lost.

"Her problem with protection was, sadly, that she did not have police protection. I wish she had."

He described how meetings were held with the Princess on an "almost daily basis" in December 1993 and January 1994 but she was "absolutely adamant" she did not want protection. There were further meetings in 1995.

Lord Condon said: "In 1996 when the IRA ceasefire broke down we very stridently suggested that was a good time to reintroduce her security.

"She was making judgments about who she could believe was on her side and who was not - I suspect she probably thought we were not on her side."
Reply With Quote
  #472  
Old 05-12-2018, 07:37 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 10,151
Wasn't Trevor Rees-Jones her security man?
Reply With Quote
  #473  
Old 05-12-2018, 07:46 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,745
Any and all protective detail during that stay in Paris were employed by Dodi's father, Mohamed Al-Fayed. They answered to Dodi at that time and it was Dodi, himself, that made bad decisions.
__________________
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
  #474  
Old 05-12-2018, 10:12 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biri View Post
Wasn't Trevor Rees-Jones her security man?

Not an RPO though.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #475  
Old 05-12-2018, 11:53 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Not an RPO though.


LaRae
He was not employed By Diana... She did at times employ protection from private firms.... usually, I think Ex RPOs....
Reply With Quote
  #476  
Old 05-12-2018, 12:25 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 10,151
What does RPO stand for?
Reply With Quote
  #477  
Old 05-12-2018, 01:17 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,533
Royal Protection Officer
Reply With Quote
  #478  
Old 05-26-2018, 10:06 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Somewhere in the U.K, United Kingdom
Posts: 112
Will the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's children receive RPO's?
Reply With Quote
  #479  
Old 05-26-2018, 10:21 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,386
IMO I think that will depend on what the terrorist threat is like at the time they are growing up. Harry will be the King's only other son (and his security has at times been at very high alert because of Afghanistan. I remember he had six RPOs assigned to him in the weeks after he came back.) Harry and Meghan will still be doing engagements in the public eye for a couple of decades. So they and their family may need RPOs during that time.
Reply With Quote
  #480  
Old 08-24-2018, 07:26 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Somewhere in the U.K, United Kingdom
Posts: 112
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
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 10 07-27-2021 12:02 AM




Popular Tags
america archie mountbatten-windsor asian baby names birth britain britannia british british royal family british royals buckingham palace camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing colorblindness coronation customs dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family tree fashion and style gemstones genetics george vi gradenigo harry and meghan henry viii highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs japan history king juan carlos liechtenstein list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists monarchy mongolia mountbatten names nara period pless politics prince harry princess eugenie queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen louise queen victoria royal ancestry royalty of taiwan st edward sussex suthida swedish queen tradition unfinished portrait united states of america wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:41 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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