The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #641  
Old 02-27-2020, 06:14 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand
Posts: 29
I am glad Canada are standing their ground, at the end of the these two are the British Royal's family problem and the buck need to stop with the UK. So it would be very unfair to shift their expenses to an innocent country that has unexpectedly found themselves in this position.

I do stress that the UK should not have to pay either but its for the UK government to sort out (who should also stand their ground), not Canada to deal with the consequences.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #642  
Old 02-27-2020, 06:23 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: jersey shore, United States
Posts: 1,124
We can go around in circles why/why not have security I suppose.

They walked away knowingly...their egos precede them, imo. Security because of who they are doesn’t exactly seem right to me. I thought they were going to start “fresh” following what path I couldn’t say, but certainly not on the coattails of others paying for security and “incidentals”.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #643  
Old 02-27-2020, 06:25 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
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.
Exactly. The difference lies in the type of security. Dodi had private security and they answered to Dodi. RPOs do not answer to their clients but to their superiors at the Met.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that I believe what will happen is that the Met decides that they will provide RPOs for the Sussexes if and when they're in the UK and residing at Frogmore (which at this time seems to be for part time). While not in the UK, their security will be their own concern to provide for. Canada has already stated they won't provide security while they're in Canada and as they'll be private people when there, that is the right move to make.

Providing RPOs from the Met while the Sussexes are in Vancouver just isn't practical for me. I would imagine too that there wouldn't be very many RPOs willing to relocate to Vancouver for weeks at a time. It would create havoc with those RPOs that have families and their own social lives in the UK. Tours are one thing but continual security with all it entails (housing, meals, transportation) just isn't feasible.
__________________
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
  #644  
Old 02-27-2020, 06:34 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Exactly. The difference lies in the type of security. Dodi had private security and they answered to Dodi. RPOs do not answer to their clients but to their superiors at the Met.



I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that I believe what will happen is that the Met decides that they will provide RPOs for the Sussexes if and when they're in the UK and residing at Frogmore (which at this time seems to be for part time). While not in the UK, their security will be their own concern to provide for. Canada has already stated they won't provide security while they're in Canada and as they'll be private people when there, that is the right move to make.



Providing RPOs from the Met while the Sussexes are in Vancouver just isn't practical for me. I would imagine too that there wouldn't be very many RPOs willing to relocate to Vancouver for weeks at a time. It would create havoc with those RPOs that have families and their own social lives in the UK. Tours are one thing but continual security with all it entails (housing, meals, transportation) just isn't feasible.


This seems like a more likely scenario. I think it will be hard to justify millions of dollars of security costs for 3 people given the fact that police resources are very limited. These days there are so many terror threats within UK. They need to protect millions of people in their own soil. I can’t see them protect Harry when he lives abroad.
Reply With Quote
  #645  
Old 02-27-2020, 06:49 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
If (as I understand it) the Met policy is to provide protection for British ppl who fall within their parameters (threat assessments) regardless of who they are then why would the Sussexes be any different?



LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #646  
Old 02-27-2020, 07:00 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
If (as I understand it) the Met policy is to provide protection for British ppl who fall within their parameters (threat assessments) regardless of who they are then why would the Sussexes be any different?



LaRae
That's just it. We don't know what the threat assessment is as for security reasons, they don't tell us. All we can do is look at the situation from where we sit and offer thoughts on what *may* happen or not happen. Keeps us off the streets and out of trouble.
__________________
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
  #647  
Old 02-27-2020, 09:57 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 5,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
If (as I understand it) the Met policy is to provide protection for British ppl who fall within their parameters (threat assessments) regardless of who they are then why would the Sussexes be any different?



LaRae
Because the monarchy depends on the public goodwill.
And there'll be no goodwill if the public has to pay mega pounds for people who don't even live in the UK and are not working royals.

I'm sure the Queen and Charles know this; they always keep a finger on the pulse of public opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #648  
Old 02-27-2020, 10:24 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 458
I'm sure the threat assessment will be reevaluated going forward. Part of what makes royals vulnerable is that they are predictable...their engagements are published in advance. This will change I the future for H&M.
Reply With Quote
  #649  
Old 02-27-2020, 11:19 PM
rominet09's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: LIEGE, Belgium
Posts: 4,939
Let's say it straight : I love them.
But I Wonder if they were conscious of all the practical effects their decision would bring. Everyday the situation becomes worse. Didn't they ask for advice beforehand ?
Was advice given and ignored ?
Reply With Quote
  #650  
Old 02-28-2020, 12:01 AM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by yvr girl View Post
I'm sure the threat assessment will be reevaluated going forward. Part of what makes royals vulnerable is that they are predictable...their engagements are published in advance. This will change I the future for H&M.
I agree with this. They will have it temporarily but it will be removed with time. I am with the poster upthread who states they likely will just have it when they are in the UK. It will be private security when not.
Reply With Quote
  #651  
Old 02-28-2020, 02:19 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by rominet09 View Post
Let's say it straight : I love them.
But I Wonder if they were conscious of all the practical effects their decision would bring. Everyday the situation becomes worse. Didn't they ask for advice beforehand ?
Was advice given and ignored ?
They don't seem to have thought at all. Did they just assume that the Canadian government would provide security indefinitely, and find millions of pounds/dollars out of thin air to plug the resulting hole in their budget? The Canadian media, quite reasonably, raised this issue from the start - did it just not occur to Harry and Meghan?

I'm also inclined to think they'll only get state-funded security when in the UK, because of the public opinion issue. Neither the British nor Canadian governments need to get dragged into a row over this: they've both got plenty of other issues to deal with.
Reply With Quote
  #652  
Old 02-28-2020, 03:03 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
I agree with this. They will have it temporarily but it will be removed with time. I am with the poster upthread who states they likely will just have it when they are in the UK. It will be private security when not.
then they might as well start with privately funded security from now on. It up to them to be sensible, listen to their bodyguards and not take unnecessary risks...
Reply With Quote
  #653  
Old 02-28-2020, 04:35 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
I agree with this. They will have it temporarily but it will be removed with time. I am with the poster upthread who states they likely will just have it when they are in the UK. It will be private security when not.
I think this is a fair assessment of what could happen, nobody expects the security to just suddenly be withdrawn but they as a couple have decided to make changes to their lives , so it can only be expected that other changes will follow on.
The security services will never make a public announcement about costs, or ask for more money but I am sure these discussions are going on behind the scenes.
There is an issue in the uk about police officers on the street, crime prevention etc, it is all about the optics.
There has been criticism in the past when security are seen , in their down time, sitting round the pool or having a beer.
It is not an easy question or answer, maybe a half way house will be found.
Full independence will take time, it might be a sliding scale of UK security , it might continue as is now.
Time will tell, we can speculate all we like but one thing we do know is that the queen is aware of the optics.
Reply With Quote
  #654  
Old 02-28-2020, 05:43 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl View Post
I think this is a fair assessment of what could happen, nobody expects the security to just suddenly be withdrawn but they as a couple have decided to make changes to their lives , so it can only be expected that other changes will follow on.
The security services will never make a public announcement about costs, or ask for more money but I am sure these discussions are going on behind the scenes.
There is an issue in the uk about police officers on the street, crime prevention etc, it is all about the optics.
There has been criticism in the past when security are seen , in their down time, sitting round the pool or having a beer.
It is not an easy question or answer, maybe a half way house will be found.
Full independence will take time, it might be a sliding scale of UK security , it might continue as is now.
Time will tell, we can speculate all we like but one thing we do know is that the queen is aware of the optics.
I hope that the queen is indeed aware of how things look...she has had to see a lot of annoyance about the high costs of paying for security for her family, and I hope she will undersand that if H and Meghan are not working royals and are living abroad, they simply can't continue to have protection paid for by the tax payers.
Reply With Quote
  #655  
Old 02-28-2020, 07:23 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by OtagoLass View Post
I am glad Canada are standing their ground, at the end of the these two are the British Royal's family problem and the buck need to stop with the UK. So it would be very unfair to shift their expenses to an innocent country that has unexpectedly found themselves in this position.

I do stress that the UK should not have to pay either but its for the UK government to sort out (who should also stand their ground), not Canada to deal with the consequences.
I hope the State of New Zealand will not throw a Bill on your doormat when you, or your loved ones, come under threat. It is unheard of that a State, which is ultimately responsible for maintaining Law and Order, sends a bill for police protection. Neither Prince Harry nor you or your family have asked to be under threat of lunatics, loons and terrorists.
Reply With Quote
  #656  
Old 02-28-2020, 07:25 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
Because the monarchy depends on the public goodwill.
And there'll be no goodwill if the public has to pay mega pounds for people who don't even live in the UK and are not working royals.

I'm sure the Queen and Charles know this; they always keep a finger on the pulse of public opinion.
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. .
Reply With Quote
  #657  
Old 02-28-2020, 07:31 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
If (as I understand it) the Met policy is to provide protection for British ppl who fall within their parameters (threat assessments) regardless of who they are then why would the Sussexes be any different?



LaRae
That is the correct attitude. It can not be that a British citizen has to pay for his security when it is the State, and the State only, which holds the monopoly on law enforcement and use of violence, to fulfil their most important core duty: to maintain law and order and provide security and safety to all.
Reply With Quote
  #658  
Old 02-28-2020, 07:49 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Aberdeen, United Kingdom
Posts: 66
The Met has access to intelligence from the security services which NO private security firm will ever have.

Harry and Meghan have made a complete mess of this, IMO, and solutions will have to be found, but there's no question of summarily cutting them off on March 31st.
Reply With Quote
  #659  
Old 02-28-2020, 07:55 AM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
However, it was Harry& Meghan’s choice to leave the UK and go off to live in Canada. They chose to change their circumstances for personal reasons, possibly for personal gain, thereby increasing security costs exponentially.
I am sure things are being evaluated by the police. They have a limited budget.

The expectations that the Sussexes could make such a drastic change and security not be affected is naive or oblivious.
Reply With Quote
  #660  
Old 02-28-2020, 08:08 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
If (as I understand it) the Met policy is to provide protection for British ppl who fall within their parameters (threat assessments) regardless of who they are [...]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
When you or your loved ones are subject to threats, harassment, intrusion then the police will provide protection. No matter you are no royal.
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?
__________________

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 asian baby names biography birth britain britannia british royal family british royals buckingham palace camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing clarence house colorblindness coronation daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii family life family tree gemstones george vi gradenigo hello! henry viii highgrove history hochberg hypothetical monarchs japan jewellery książ castle liechtenstein list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchy mongolia mountbatten names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince harry princess eugenie queen elizabeth ii queen louise royal ancestry royalty of taiwan solomon j solomon spanish royal family speech sussex suthida unfinished portrait united states united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:39 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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