The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #741  
Old 03-01-2020, 05:07 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,533
The reality is as they move further away from being "working members of the Royal Family" they will become celebrities with a high public profile in the same way as other celebrities. I don't see why they shouldn't have to pay anything at all to their own security when they are using their positions to make money from that former position.

They have a choice

move to Canada and leave behind the level of security they are use to
or
stay mainly in the UK and get the security they are use to

They may see that as unfair but that is the choice they have and life is full of tricky choices for all of us from time to time.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #742  
Old 03-01-2020, 07:15 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,758
That 20M figure is an exaggerated number like much things they post. They also claimed their wedding security cost 30M and then the report showed it was more like 5M. These numbers are reported to rile the public up. And it works.

That said it will not be cheap and it will be a discussion. I think it’s also pretty clear that their security status likely isn’t changing in the immediate future.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #743  
Old 03-02-2020, 02:51 AM
Claire's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,607
I was listening to an interesting radio show - where the journalist (I presume) noted something interesting. When the royals stay in an already secure area - Buckingham Palace complex or Windsor Castle complex it is cheaper as security has already worked the bugs out - when a new house/estate is brought there is a lot of security evaluation that comes into that. So if Harry and Meghan live near the California governor or close to the Canadian president - the security bill will be cheaper.
Reply With Quote
  #744  
Old 03-02-2020, 03:04 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
I'm going by memory here but if I'm remembering right, wherever a royal chooses his/her residence, security measures are "beefed" up accordingly such as when Charles went to boarding school (or was it William?), the dorm room for him was fitted with stuff like bullet proof glass and a secure phone line. I'm doing this from memory so don't quote me on this.

Highgrove has buildings on the estate itself specifically for the security detail, their rest areas and command center. One thing for sure is that security is taken very seriously.

Harry and Meghan moving anywhere near the Governor General's mansion or anywhere near someone with nationally provided security won't amount to a hill of beans in H&M's case as they not be anywhere near the "parameters" of the security reach provided. H&M's security would cost them as much as if they lived over the river and through the woods away from nationally provided security detail.
__________________
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
  #745  
Old 03-02-2020, 03:29 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
The reality is as they move further away from being "working members of the Royal Family" they will become celebrities with a high public profile in the same way as other celebrities. I don't see why they shouldn't have to pay anything at all to their own security when they are using their positions to make money from that former position.

They have a choice

move to Canada and leave behind the level of security they are use to
or
stay mainly in the UK and get the security they are use to

They may see that as unfair but that is the choice they have and life is full of tricky choices for all of us from time to time.
Its perfectly fair. They wanted out of the RF, part time and were told they could not do that, it would have to be full time or nothing. They chose not to be working royals and to live abroad. They can't expect the tax payers or the Canadain govt to go on paying for their security indefinitely.
Reply With Quote
  #746  
Old 03-02-2020, 03:44 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Its perfectly fair. They wanted out of the RF, part time and were told they could not do that, it would have to be full time or nothing. They chose not to be working royals and to live abroad. They can't expect the tax payers or the Canadain govt to go on paying for their security indefinitely.
I agree with this. One part of realizing life as private citizens is the realization that all of us live with and that is there ain't no such thing as a free lunch and nothing is for certain except death and taxes.
__________________
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
  #747  
Old 03-02-2020, 04:12 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 909
Harry and Meghan seem to have decided to live more months away from the already secure royal residences in Britain than perhaps everyone imagined.

To live full time in Canada or America surely means a large security expense that the public might object to paying for - not to mention the officers themselves having to live abroad and away from family.
Reply With Quote
  #748  
Old 03-02-2020, 04:18 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
Quote:
To live full time in Canada or America surely means a large security expense that the public might object to paying for - not to mention the officers themselves having to live abroad and away from family
If the public are expected to shell out for the security of a [self imposed] expat, and his foreign wife, l predict there will be a significant increase in Republican sentiment..
Reply With Quote
  #749  
Old 03-02-2020, 04:19 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the Jungle View Post
Harry and Meghan seem to have decided to live more months away from the already secure royal residences in Britain than perhaps everyone imagined.

To live full time in Canada or America surely means a large security expense that the public might object to paying for - not to mention the officers themselves having to live abroad and away from family.
yes that is what the issue is. Their original plan seems to have been to live partly in Canada and partly in England where they would live in Frogmore. Now they are mainly going to live abroad, it seems and only visit England.. so while Frogmore is a secure base, it will only be tehir residence for maybe a few weeks a year, spaced out. So obviously they will be needing security abroad in a strange location for say 10 or 11 months a year. And if they are not doing royal duties any more, there seems to be no reason why they should ask the tax payer for them to pay for their security. If they are travelling to the US or other places for their work, that wil be another addition to the expense.
Reply With Quote
  #750  
Old 03-02-2020, 04:21 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
Thinking along the lines of the Sussex security questions, it reminds me of an old Moody Blues album I've been meaning to dig out again. "A Question Of Balance". One thing I think that is going to happen is that if H&M decide part of the year in N. America and part of the year in the UK, they may even experience themselves the differences.

Say, for example, when they are in the UK at Frogmore, they still retain RPOs from the Met as members of the royal family, then when in N. America, responsible for their own security detail and paying for it, they're most definitely going to notice the difference in the coverage and the quality of the service that surrounds them.

It'll be Paris revisited I think. Private security answers to H&M themselves while the RPOs from the Met call the shots. It may prove interesting to watch what develops over time.
__________________
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
  #751  
Old 03-02-2020, 04:31 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Thinking along the lines of the Sussex security questions, it reminds me of an old Moody Blues album I've been meaning to dig out again. "A Question Of Balance". One thing I think that is going to happen is that if H&M decide part of the year in N. America and part of the year in the UK, they may even experience themselves the differences.

Say, for example, when they are in the UK at Frogmore, they still retain RPOs from the Met as members of the royal family, then when in N. America, responsible for their own security detail and paying for it, they're most definitely going to notice the difference in the coverage and the quality of the service that surrounds them.

It'll be Paris revisited I think. Private security answers to H&M themselves while the RPOs from the Met call the shots. It may prove interesting to watch what develops over time.
But they're not going to be in Frogmore all that much. I think they will come for a couple of weeks during the year and do their charity engagemettns or come and see family.. but they wont be steadily resident there and most of the security they know and experience will be in Canada. And probably it will be private. So they're not going to really "notice a contrast" because they wotn be in the UK long enough. Anyway Hary has had RPOs all his life.. so he's used to what they are like. Hopefully it wont be "like Paris", in that if H has private security, he will listen to them and do what they say and not try and go his own way, so htat his safety will be assured as much as is possible.
Reply With Quote
  #752  
Old 03-02-2020, 07:36 AM
Dalriada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 372
Security costs is still a big debate in UK:

Breakfast telly show Good Morning Britain conducted a poll for followers of the show on Twitter.
Since it surfaced yesterday, 90.6 per cent said taxpayers shouldn't fun security
On the show today, Diana's ex-protection officer suggested Queen pay the bill
Ken Wharfe warned that farming it out to the private sector would be a 'disaster

https://youtu.be/D7IJviOheiw


'Taxpayers should not have to pay Harry and Meghan's security bill'
https://mol.im/a/8064505
Reply With Quote
  #753  
Old 03-02-2020, 08:12 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
It may well be that the Public feels an choice should be presented - return to live in the UK to live [but not necessarily as 'working Royals'] and we will pay for your security, OR live abroad and 'do what you will', but pay for your own security ?

90% of any poll is a pretty conclusive result...
Reply With Quote
  #754  
Old 03-02-2020, 09:09 AM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,758
It is interesting that yet another formal member of the royal protection squad is against them going into the private sector for security. And it makes me wonder if they are that vocal while no longer working in those position, then I would imagine the current ones are just as vocal. And if they are the ones who have the final say then where does it go from there? It seems even if they wanted to do away with their RPOs that they would be advised against it.
Reply With Quote
  #755  
Old 03-02-2020, 09:42 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,469
I wish we could get past this Diana security thing. Her death was very sad, but she did not need Royal Protection Officers to stop her from getting into a car with a drunk driver or to make her fasten her seatbelt.

I bet that the Queen and Prince Charles end up being saddled with the bill. They're not going to want a public row that would damage the monarchy and embarrass the government. It just seems unfair that they should have to pay for the results of Harry and Meghan's choices.
Reply With Quote
  #756  
Old 03-02-2020, 10:20 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
Quote:
seems unfair that they should have to pay for the results of Harry and Meghan's choices.
It certainly does ! They may pay the financial bill, but others will 'also pay', in terms of more onerous workload - nothing will persuade me that the Sussexes are anything but selfish...
Reply With Quote
  #757  
Old 03-02-2020, 01:18 PM
hel hel is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Kitchener, Canada
Posts: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
It certainly does ! They may pay the financial bill, but others will 'also pay', in terms of more onerous workload - nothing will persuade me that the Sussexes are anything but selfish...
It certainly illustrates how wise the Windsors have been to try to instill a sense of duty in family members; when uncoupled from duty, the consequences of being raised with such privilege is apparently a massive sense of entitlement.

I feel terrible for the RPOs who are basically now forced to live half their lives away from their families, hobbies, responsibilities at home, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #758  
Old 03-02-2020, 01:25 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Missouri, United States
Posts: 992
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
It certainly does ! They may pay the financial bill, but others will 'also pay', in terms of more onerous workload - nothing will persuade me that the Sussexes are anything but selfish...
Selfish, yes, but I would also add entitled. Imagine thinking so highly of yourself and believing yourself to be so spectacularly important that you believe yourself to be entitled to millions of dollars in security costs, hassles, and international negotiations. I find myself more and more gobsmacked every single day by these two. I understand that threat assessment, assignment of officers, etc. is done at the discretion of the Met. But, the only right thing to do here is to recognize the hassles and headaches you're heaping onto everyone around you and offer to pay for your own security.
Reply With Quote
  #759  
Old 03-02-2020, 01:30 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
Quote:
is to recognize the hassles and headaches you're heaping onto everyone around you and offer to pay for your own security
That would require a level of self-deprecation and awareness of others [see 'sacking of staff'] that sadly this pair signally LACK...
Reply With Quote
  #760  
Old 03-02-2020, 03:15 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,533
Its also hugely unfair to put pressure on their protection officers having them flying back and forth from UK to Canada. These people may well have or be wanting to start their own family lives and will now have to spend considerable time out the country. Being able to get home each night at the end of their shirt of even being elsewhere in the UK (e.g. at Balmoral in the summer etc) is nothing compared to that.

That is also why the cost will be so high (even if its not £20mill) as the officers won't want to be working all the time in Canada (hence the need for regular flights) and will want to be living somewhere reasonably comfortable to make it all bearable.
__________________

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 08:29 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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