The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #561  
Old 04-01-2019, 06:00 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Somewhere in the U.K, United Kingdom
Posts: 112
I know Diana after the divorce was offered Police protection but decided against it. However if she had accepted it would this have been permanent even if she had re-married? This is because if Diana was alive today you would be in the position of both Diana and Camilla having police protection.

I know this is just speculation and we'll never know but if Diana was still alive today and Charles had married Camilla or someone completely new (which would have been very unlikely). Interest in Diana in a royal sense could have been gradually reduced as there was a new Princess of Wales and a royal replacement for Diana who would be the former Princess of Wales?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #562  
Old 04-01-2019, 06:43 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,533
Some sort of police protection would have been offered for as long as there was perceived to be a threat to Diana's security. I am sure that, for example, the Middleton's have more security than you or I, even if its just specific phone number to call the police if there is a problem.

She may not have had "Royal protection" officers if she re-married but would have had some level of protection while in the UK, all of which would be based on the threat assessment to her. NO police protection is permanent as it all based on the threat assessment of that person - for example some royals considered senior now and getting 24/7 protection will probably not get such protection in a decade or two if their public profile is considerably lower. I suspect, for example, by then Anne Andrew and the Wessex's will get similar protection to that the Queen's cousins get now. `likewise as you say, Diana's profile could well have reduced over time to a point where 24/7 protection was considered unnecessary. That said it all depends on the threat to that individual.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #563  
Old 09-05-2019, 07:51 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Somewhere in the U.K, United Kingdom
Posts: 112
After her divorce, Diana even if she did not use it was still entitled to police protection. I was wondering if Diana had re-married would the offer of police protection have been withdrawn?
Reply With Quote
  #564  
Old 10-07-2019, 12:22 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,908
“Every time there is a major Royal event the whingers are unbelievably vocal over policing cost to taxpayers. Today hundreds of police were deployed in effort to prevent 'climate protestors' from bringing London to a standstill. So why no howls of protest over policing cost?”

Via Dickie Arbiter Twitter
Reply With Quote
  #565  
Old 02-25-2020, 05:37 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 458
Security is such a tough subject. Families of the Head of State are vulnerable because of who they are. All of Donald Trumps children receive protection, not just the ones who work for the government. I understand why people want the freedom to live their own lives, but all tax payer money needs to be spent responsibly.
Reply With Quote
  #566  
Old 02-25-2020, 05:42 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 830
What is the status of Bea and Eugenie's police protection? Does Andrew pay for it or do they just not have any?
Reply With Quote
  #567  
Old 02-25-2020, 05:53 PM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenMathilde View Post
What is the status of Bea and Eugenie's police protection? Does Andrew pay for it or do they just not have any?
They have private security when needed. Andrew pays for it. They do live in buildings/areas for which the government provides security, but not because of them.
Reply With Quote
  #568  
Old 02-25-2020, 06:37 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal_enthusiast View Post
I know Diana after the divorce was offered Police protection but decided against it. However if she had accepted it would this have been permanent even if she had re-married? This is because if Diana was alive today you would be in the position of both Diana and Camilla having police protection.

I know this is just speculation and we'll never know but if Diana was still alive today and Charles had married Camilla or someone completely new (which would have been very unlikely). Interest in Diana in a royal sense could have been gradually reduced as there was a new Princess of Wales and a royal replacement for Diana who would be the former Princess of Wales?

Well - he didn't remarry so it isn't quite the same but does Fergie have police protection? It's a shame Andrew messed up his life so badly - if he had just waited he could have gotten his daughters that working royals role he wanted for them.
Reply With Quote
  #569  
Old 02-25-2020, 06:41 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,745
As far as security goes, we have to remember too that its not the "Firm" or any royal's decision on who gets security and who doesn't. That is totally decided by the Metropolitan Police. They're the ones that do the threat assessments and deem the security level and how much protection someone gets.
__________________
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
  #570  
Old 02-25-2020, 08:30 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenMathilde View Post
What is the status of Bea and Eugenie's police protection? Does Andrew pay for it or do they just not have any?
Andrew has been paying for it since they left university. He even offered the job to some of the RPOs who had been on their detail as members of the Metropolitan Police and as he offered higher pay and better conditions a number of them chose to leave the Police to become private security for the girls.

It can become quite expensive with Beatrice's home in the US also needing to be secured.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenMathilde View Post
Well - he didn't remarry so it isn't quite the same but does Fergie have police protection? It's a shame Andrew messed up his life so badly - if he had just waited he could have gotten his daughters that working royals role he wanted for them.
Sarah lost royal protection years ago. She would have it when she was with the girls but she also, like Diana, gave it after her divorce.

Andrew's mess has nothing to do with the York girls not being wanted as working royals. That decision was made while they were both still in full-time education when he was still seen as acceptable to the public.

Now there is no way back for him and his daughters aren't wanted by the senior royals nor would they be accepted by the public at large.
Reply With Quote
  #571  
Old 02-25-2020, 09:40 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 458
I can see Meghan's security being removed at some point. From what I understand, Sophie only has it when she is in her official capacity. She wouldn't have protection if she was out shopping or out for lunch.
Reply With Quote
  #572  
Old 02-26-2020, 11:40 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Missouri, United States
Posts: 992
Quote:
Originally Posted by yvr girl View Post
I can see Meghan's security being removed at some point. From what I understand, Sophie only has it when she is in her official capacity. She wouldn't have protection if she was out shopping or out for lunch.
Agreed. I'd be surprised if she's allowed to keep her security on a full-time permanent basis. I think that, at least for a while, they'll be allowed to keep full-time security, especially because of all of the drama surrounding them right now. There's a lot of people out there who aren't taking kindly to the disrespect to the Queen, the family, and the institution. At least a few of those people might try to take it upon themselves to do something about the situation. As things settle and time goes on, though, I certainly think that at least Meghan will lose her publicly funded security and I honestly think Harry might, too. At a certain point it'll no longer be tenable for them to retain publicly funded security no matter how much they might not want to be stuck footing their own bill.
Reply With Quote
  #573  
Old 02-26-2020, 11:48 AM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,758
Security is based on threat assessment and frankly the way some act about Harry and Meghan.... they probably will have it for while.
Reply With Quote
  #574  
Old 02-26-2020, 12:28 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,177
In my country (Netherlands) anyone with a risk profile, be a prince or a pauper, be a celebrity or a nobody, be a politician or a witness of the prosecution, gets personal security.

And there is no bill for it as the State has the monopoly on law enforcement and armed protection.

In my personal view, no matter HRH The Duke of Sussex or a "Harry", if he has a risk profile he should have protection. Period. And no, he does not need to pay for it. He has not asked to be a potential target. No one asks the Mayor of London, under threat, to pay for his protection. Why should "Harry", equally under threat, have to pay? That is class justice.
Reply With Quote
  #575  
Old 02-26-2020, 01:18 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by yvr girl View Post
I can see Meghan's security being removed at some point. From what I understand, Sophie only has it when she is in her official capacity. She wouldn't have protection if she was out shopping or out for lunch.
This sounds eminently reasonable. It makes sense to provide security at future events which are public knowledge.
Reply With Quote
  #576  
Old 02-26-2020, 01:28 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
In my country (Netherlands) anyone with a risk profile, be a prince or a pauper, be a celebrity or a nobody, be a politician or a witness of the prosecution, gets personal security.

And there is no bill for it as the State has the monopoly on law enforcement and armed protection.

In my personal view, no matter HRH The Duke of Sussex or a "Harry", if he has a risk profile he should have protection. Period. And no, he does not need to pay for it. He has not asked to be a potential target. No one asks the Mayor of London, under threat, to pay for his protection. Why should "Harry", equally under threat, have to pay? That is class justice.
I agree that it's not Harry's fault that he is who he is. On the other hand he has chosen to lead a life that will potentially cost staggering amounts of taxpayers money to provide security. It is very unclear at the moment who is going to pay for what. The logistics of royal protection officers being so far from home must also have affects on their personal lives. Are they supposed to relocate? How long do they have to live in BC for before returning to the UK?

If they expect the Canadian Government to provide officers then there will be knock on effects on policing in whatever part of Canada they end up living in. I would imagine most vip protection officers in Canada live/work around Ottawa. That's a long was from Vancouver Island. Maybe I'm totally wrong on this & one of our Canadian cousins can help me out here.
Reply With Quote
  #577  
Old 02-26-2020, 02:18 PM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by yvr girl View Post
I can see Meghan's security being removed at some point. From what I understand, Sophie only has it when she is in her official capacity. She wouldn't have protection if she was out shopping or out for lunch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
This sounds eminently reasonable. It makes sense to provide security at future events which are public knowledge.
It really depends on the risk factor whether BRFs have security or not & we don't know that side of things. If Meghan continues to have 24/7 security, it will be for a reason.
Reply With Quote
  #578  
Old 02-26-2020, 02:25 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
It really depends on the risk factor whether BRFs have security or not & we don't know that side of things. If Meghan continues to have 24/7 security, it will be for a reason.
Indeed it will. Security is provided on a case by case basis. My comment was referring to Sophie rather then Meghan btw. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Reply With Quote
  #579  
Old 02-26-2020, 04:16 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
I agree that it's not Harry's fault that he is who he is. On the other hand he has chosen to lead a life that will potentially cost staggering amounts of taxpayers money to provide security. It is very unclear at the moment who is going to pay for what. The logistics of royal protection officers being so far from home must also have affects on their personal lives. Are they supposed to relocate? How long do they have to live in BC for before returning to the UK?

If they expect the Canadian Government to provide officers then there will be knock on effects on policing in whatever part of Canada they end up living in. I would imagine most vip protection officers in Canada live/work around Ottawa. That's a long was from Vancouver Island. Maybe I'm totally wrong on this & one of our Canadian cousins can help me out here.
When Eugenie was on her gap year and she stayed at a hostel in India it came out the the RPOs (and she had a full detail in those days - 6 with her) weren't staying there. Their award requires that when not on duty that have to be accommodated at a 5 star hotel, with a meal allowance. They also have to fly first class, except for those 'on duty' who will travel in the same class as the principle. It also came out that they had to be replaced every two weeks - so every two weeks 12 first class airfares from the UK to wherever the principle is has to be paid for by the British taxpayers. It was this information that lead to the reassessment of who should get security in an attempt to reign in the budget.

If the reports are true that Harry and Meghan will cost around 20 million pounds a year that is unsustainable to the British taxpayers. They would prefer that money to be spent on solving and preventing crime in the UK rather than guarding two people who have largely turned their backs on the UK and the institution that made them public. I can see this even being debated in parliament with a lot of opposition to them having this security.
Reply With Quote
  #580  
Old 02-26-2020, 04:29 PM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
If the reports are true that Harry and Meghan will cost around 20 million pounds a year that is unsustainable to the British taxpayers. They would prefer that money to be spent on solving and preventing crime in the UK rather than guarding two people who have largely turned their backs on the UK and the institution that made them public. I can see this even being debated in parliament with a lot of opposition to them having this security.
If that number is true it will become a nightmare for both the Royal family and the British government. As pointed out in the latest episode of Pod save the Queen there is no way that the British public will accept that cost for three people that are set to make millions on the same travels that will only increase the security costs. It will cost the Royal family popularity and it will cost any government defending the costs votes. Lots of votes.
My bet is that eventually the Sussexes will have to pay for their own security.
__________________

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
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia biography birth britain britannia british british royal family buckingham palace camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles china chinese clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries crown jewels customs daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex elizabeth ii family life gemstones george vi gustaf vi adolf harry and meghan hello! henry viii history hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii książ castle lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchy mountbatten names nara period plantinum jubilee politics portugal prince harry princess eugenie queen consort queen louise solomon j solomon spanish royal family speech st edward sussex taiwan thai royal family tradition united states wales welsh


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

Social Knowledge Networks

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