The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #601  
Old 02-27-2020, 01:38 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 10,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by stunking View Post
Security is something the Sussexes didn't feel they needed to think about. Who will be responsible if an attack or kidnapping happens, who will pay then?
There is no difference in Prince Harry being kidnapped or the CEO of Sainsbury's. Both are British citizens and the UK - of course- provides protection if the risk assessment shows there is an imminent threat indeed. It is not that these British citizens have to lock themselves up in a remote countryside retreat. The UK has to enforce all citizens can life in safety and peace.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #602  
Old 02-27-2020, 02:16 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 600
IMO the general public in the UK, in principal ,would not object to the security. Even as non working royals if they had decided to withdraw from royal life, continued to stay in Windsor and carried out private charity work. Although Eugenie and Beatrice only received protection when they are on royal duty.
The problem or at least the bad optics is that they have chosen to live abroad, the cost of security in those circumstances cannot be justified. In particular when they appear to want to be financially independent, in other words earn money.
If they then travel around the world with their charity work, that will incur further costs.
I am not sure what the answer to this is, but it will cause problems for both the government and the BRF to try and justify soaring costs for protection, in the circumstances. I am just glad I am not the person in authority making the decision, It is a lose lose one.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #603  
Old 02-27-2020, 02:48 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 1,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
They should have thought about this before they decided to give up their royal duties. There are arguments for and against state-funded security, but the cost was one of the first issues raised by the media and the public when they moved, so why does it not seem to have occurred to Harry and Meghan, or whoever's supposedly advising them. This should all have been sorted out in advance.

They didnít think about much of anything thoroughly and realistically in advance imo. This is part of the consequence of them announcing things publicly that hadnít been agreed on.


I do think part of the issue is that if they were part time royals- as they wanted- this would be slightly less of a problem than it is with them being totally out. Though them choosing to be based outside of the U.K. part-time was always likely to be an issue.
Reply With Quote
  #604  
Old 02-27-2020, 02:51 PM
ACO ACO is online now
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,151
Harry and Meghan will continue to be provided protected as long as the metro police access their threat level to need it. It is just that simple. God forbid something happens to them because they had none... a brand new conversation would be had just like it was after Diana died and people debated would it had happened had she had her RPO instead of the private security.

It is wise that the Canadians stop paying as they will no longer be working royals come March 31. That is reasonable. It very well should be what happens. But also the royals have issued this 12 month review so technically is security included in that too?

Will all of this be accessed differently in a year once everything has calmed down?
Reply With Quote
  #605  
Old 02-27-2020, 02:51 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Mokane, United States
Posts: 644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erin9 View Post
They didnít think about much of anything thoroughly and realistically in advance imo. This is part of the consequence of them announcing things publicly that hadnít been agreed on.
Agreed. This is also one of the consequences of relying on advice from people who have absolutely no idea how the monarchy and all of its parts work. Had they had the appropriate conversations with the appropriate people instead of stomping around like angry teenagers trying to guilt trip their way into getting what they want then this all could have been discussed and figured out before turning into this big debacle.
Reply With Quote
  #606  
Old 02-27-2020, 03:04 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 600
I think it has became clear that there were lots of things still to be sorted before the announcement, that they were going. At the time of the announcement the detail on the website spoke about their right to security, using Sussex Royal, staying at Frogmore cottage. Part in part out with regards royal duties. These are the things that now appear to be causing the problems. So it does make you wonder if these were the things that were causing deadlock in the discussions, is that why they went public, to try and force the hand of the BRF.
Reply With Quote
  #607  
Old 02-27-2020, 03:31 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 803
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.
Reply With Quote
  #608  
Old 02-27-2020, 03:35 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 21,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
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.


Iím not quite sure how youíve 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.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #609  
Old 02-27-2020, 03:40 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Iím not quite sure how youíve 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.
Reply With Quote
  #610  
Old 02-27-2020, 03:55 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 600
I am just adding this to the discussion, Eugenie and Beatrice lost their security when they were 5th and 6th in line. They only receive protection when they are on official royal duties, anything else is private. That is one of the reasons they all stay on royal estates/ palaces.
Reply With Quote
  #611  
Old 02-27-2020, 04:04 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl View Post
I am just adding this to the discussion, Eugenie and Beatrice lost their security when they were 5th and 6th in line. They only receive protection when they are on official royal duties, anything else is private. That is one of the reasons they all stay on royal estates/ palaces.
That all sounds eminently sensible & could have provided a model for the Sussexes but they chose to complicate matters by moving overseas. Possibly without really thinking through the effects of their decisions on others. I'd hazard a guess that the Met judge the risks around at least Harry to be on a whole other level to the York princesses.
Reply With Quote
  #612  
Old 02-27-2020, 04:10 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 651
I think this has put the authorities in a very difficult position. Obviously no-one wants Harry and Meghan and Archie to be in danger, but money does not grow on trees, and we're hearing every day that hospitals are struggling to cope with the increase in illness that happens every winter, and that better flood defences are urgently needed because we're getting so many severe storms. They've lost public goodwill because of their stroppy attitude, and, even without that, it's difficult to justify spending so much public money on their security when they are no longer working royals, i.e. no longer carrying out a public role. It's not as simple as saying that there can be no question of compromising their security. I can just see all the "95-year-old war hero Fred Bloggs was left on a stretcher for 5 hours whilst taxpayers' money pays for security for Harry and Meghan whilst they give talks for JP Morgan," headlines now! - and they'd have a point.
Reply With Quote
  #613  
Old 02-27-2020, 04:19 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl View Post
I am just adding this to the discussion, Eugenie and Beatrice lost their security when they were 5th and 6th in line. They only receive protection when they are on official royal duties, anything else is private. That is one of the reasons they all stay on royal estates/ palaces.
Yes they lost their security and they had not done a wlak out... Andrew I believe pays towards thier security...
Reply With Quote
  #614  
Old 02-27-2020, 04:31 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
I think this has put the authorities in a very difficult position. Obviously no-one wants Harry and Meghan and Archie to be in danger, but money does not grow on trees, and we're hearing every day that hospitals are struggling to cope with the increase in illness that happens every winter, and that better flood defences are urgently needed because we're getting so many severe storms. They've lost public goodwill because of their stroppy attitude, and, even without that, it's difficult to justify spending so much public money on their security when they are no longer working royals, i.e. no longer carrying out a public role. It's not as simple as saying that there can be no question of compromising their security. I can just see all the "95-year-old war hero Fred Bloggs was left on a stretcher for 5 hours whilst taxpayers' money pays for security for Harry and Meghan whilst they give talks for JP Morgan," headlines now! - and they'd have a point.
I agree with almost all of that but I'm not convinced that British politicians would refuse to follow advice from the Met. If the Met assesses the risk as sufficiently serious than why would the safety of the Sussexes (or just Harry) be compromised? We'll have to agree to disagree about the simplicity of that particular question.

All speculation on my part of course. Happy to be proven wrong
Reply With Quote
  #615  
Old 02-27-2020, 04:36 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
I agree with almost all of that but I'm not convinced that British politicians would refuse to follow advice from the Met. If the Met assesses the risk as sufficiently serious than why would the safety of the Sussexes (or just Harry) be compromised? We'll have to agree to disagree about the simplicity of that particular question.

All speculation on my part of course. Happy to be proven wrong
Nobody wants them to be unsafe but financial facts are facts. Harry is the child of a very wealthy man.. and if he needs protection, the public should not be asked to pay for it...Many of the RF have lost their protection, and Harry has chosen NOT to be a working part of the RF...
Reply With Quote
  #616  
Old 02-27-2020, 04:39 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 21,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
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.

Why do we have no choice? ďWeĒ have a choice, spend taxpayers money on two people who donít work for their country anymore, or let them pay for it themselves?

I really donít see how we have to pay for it...
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #617  
Old 02-27-2020, 04:48 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
Quote:
Harry is the child of a very wealthy man
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.
Reply With Quote
  #618  
Old 02-27-2020, 04:49 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 10,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Nobody wants them to be unsafe but financial facts are facts. Harry is the child of a very wealthy man.. and if he needs protection, the public should not be asked to pay for it...Many of the RF have lost their protection, and Harry has chosen NOT to be a working part of the RF...
But that is making security subject to wealth. Lady Justitia is not for nothing blindfolded. It can not be that state protection comes with a private bill.
Reply With Quote
  #619  
Old 02-27-2020, 04:51 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Why do we have no choice? ďWeĒ have a choice, spend taxpayers money on two people who donít work for their country anymore, or let them pay for it themselves?

I really donít see how we have to pay for it...
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?
Reply With Quote
  #620  
Old 02-27-2020, 04:55 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Why do we have no choice? ďWeĒ have a choice, spend taxpayers money on two people who donít work for their country anymore, or let them pay for it themselves?

I really donít see how we have to pay for it...
At present they are entitled to police security and its being paid for by tax payers. In Canada the Canadian govt seem ot have helped out. But I agree that neither the British nor Can tax payers should have to pay....
__________________

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 6 04-02-2020 08:45 AM




Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes althorp anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry belgian royal family belgium chittagong countess of snowdon cover-up crown princess victoria danish royalty dna dutch royal family dutch royals emperor family tree games haakon vii henry v hill history house of bourbon house of glucksburg interesting israel italian royal family jacobite jewellery jumma kids movie king salman list of rulers mailing mary: crown princess of denmark monogram nepalese royal jewels nobel prize norwegian royal family popularity prince charles prince dimitri princely family of monaco princess chulabhorn walailak princess elizabeth princess ribha pronunciation queen mathilde queen maud rown royal balls royal court royal events royal family royal jewels royalty royal wedding saudi arabia shakespeare spain spanish royal spencer family sweden swedish royalty thailand tracts united states of america unsubscribe videos wedding gown


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:36 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×