The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #621  
Old 02-27-2020, 04:55 PM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
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?
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.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #622  
Old 02-27-2020, 04:55 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
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.
I don't disagree they they should pay. All I'm saying is that I suspect the state will continue to foot the bill for all sorts of reasons. Who knows, I may be wrong.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #623  
Old 02-27-2020, 04:56 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
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?
I don't see why it isn't. And its paid fror by the people who use It, not by the public....
Reply With Quote
  #624  
Old 02-27-2020, 04:58 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #625  
Old 02-27-2020, 04:58 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
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.
Do you think Harry and Meg are going to pay? I don't. Their security is going to be a very heavy bill now, and they will probably "not have enough money".. But Charles has a lot more and he will IMO almost certainly foot the bill if security is removed.
Reply With Quote
  #626  
Old 02-27-2020, 05:00 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
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.
What happened was because Diana's boyfriend messed around with the security guards he had, and did not make it easy for them to do their jobs. Diana refused to have RPOs and had not had any for over a year. there was nothing that the RF or Police could do....
Reply With Quote
  #627  
Old 02-27-2020, 05:02 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I don't see why it isn't. And its paid fror by the people who use It, not by the public....
Well that's why I posed it as a question rather than as a definitive statement. I don't know. I have to be honest though, I would be very surprised if private security provided the same level of protection as the Met's Protection Command. It is after all classed as part of specialist operations.

Does anyone on here have any professional expertise in this field I wonder? Be interesting to hear.
Reply With Quote
  #628  
Old 02-27-2020, 05:05 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
Quote:
they will probably "not have enough money"..
Their 'devotees' insist they will make POTS of Money, so [if true] why shouldn't they sort it out themselves ?
George and Amal don't expect others to pay for their security...
Reply With Quote
  #629  
Old 02-27-2020, 05:06 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
What happened was because Diana's boyfriend messed around with the security guards he had, and did not make it easy for them to do their jobs. Diana refused to have RPOs and had not had any for over a year. there was nothing that the RF or Police could do....
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.
Reply With Quote
  #630  
Old 02-27-2020, 05:08 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
Their 'devotees' insist they will make POTS of Money, so [if true] why shouldn't they sort it out themselves ?
George and Amal don't expect others to pay for their security...
George and Amal were not brought up as Hary was. I agree I think they SHOUD pay and that if they are successful they should be able to, but I do rather question whether they are going to make such "pots of money" as some think. I would bet that if the govts cut the security, Charles will step in.....
Reply With Quote
  #631  
Old 02-27-2020, 05:08 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 21,388
Royal Security

Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
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.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #632  
Old 02-27-2020, 05:08 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,215
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.
Reply With Quote
  #633  
Old 02-27-2020, 05:09 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
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.
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #634  
Old 02-27-2020, 05:09 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #635  
Old 02-27-2020, 05:17 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #636  
Old 02-27-2020, 05:26 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post

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.
Reply With Quote
  #637  
Old 02-27-2020, 05:39 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
Quote:
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
Reply With Quote
  #638  
Old 02-27-2020, 05:54 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: jersey shore, United States
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #639  
Old 02-27-2020, 06:03 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,533
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.
Reply With Quote
  #640  
Old 02-27-2020, 06:08 PM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
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.
__________________

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 08:35 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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