The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #761  
Old 03-02-2020, 04:06 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: jersey shore, United States
Posts: 1,091
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...
Nor I.

Their over inflated sense of self is beyond greed. Time to “man up”. (I hope his father doesn’t pay for their security either, it’s time to let him stand on his own).
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #762  
Old 03-02-2020, 05:42 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missjersey View Post
Nor I.

Their over inflated sense of self is beyond greed. Time to “man up”. (I hope his father doesn’t pay for their security either, it’s time to let him stand on his own).
Does anyone who comes from money ever really stand on their own two feet? BUT Harry is living in a free house and is basically doing nothing at the moment.

It isn't realistic to continue to ask British security officers to work long term in Canada. Unless it's on placement. Harry's security must go private, and will need to be covered elsewhere and probably by Charles. Also seeing as he won't be appearing in public with the family. It won't be paid for in those big occasions. But on family ones yes.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #763  
Old 03-02-2020, 05:43 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missjersey View Post
Nor I.

Their over inflated sense of self is beyond greed. Time to “man up”. (I hope his father doesn’t pay for their security either, it’s time to let him stand on his own).
But since there are legitimate threats to the family’s safety Charles doesn’t have many options. He can allow the public to assume the security costs for Harry and his family and pray the public will move onto some other news ASAP. He can take his son and daughter in law’s wish for financial independence as legitimate and not pay anything, thereby running the risk that Harry and Meghan will take the public security they’re entitled to, public opinion be damned. Or even worse, they won’t, and then a small child is potentially at risk, (I’m ruling out the option of Meghan and Harry actually being able to come up with the money on their own for now). OR, Charles and maybe The Queen, can announce that they will contribute something to the costs. Maybe they offer to make up the difference between what the cost would be if Harry and Meghan had stayed in the UK and what it will cost to keep them protected abroad.

Also, regarding a post above about private security being subpar, there are very good private security options available. In some/ many cases it’s former government security agents running the show, and the protection provided would be more than adequate for what Harry and Meghan need. The problem isn’t that private security would be “a mess,” it’s that the couple currently can’t afford what they need. This is one more reason I don’t understand the couple rushing their exit - the security issue is one thing, in particular, that should have been worked out in private, before they announced they were leaving.
Reply With Quote
  #764  
Old 03-02-2020, 06:11 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 651
I don't know what they were thinking of. The cost of security question was raised by the Canadian media pretty much as soon as they moved there, and quite reasonably so. Did it genuinely not occur to Harry and Meghan that it was going to be an issue? Then again, did it genuinely not occur to them that using "Sussex Royal" was going to be a issue? Surely security should have been one of their first concerns, especially with Archie to think of.
Reply With Quote
  #765  
Old 03-02-2020, 06:34 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: jersey shore, United States
Posts: 1,091
Poppy7 and camelot23ca...

It looks to me as though Harry is playing “grown up”. Aside from whatever charities they are suppose to be working on, he doesn’t seem to have a career. Either he’s trying to figure that out or he’s waiting for that to be handed to him, couldn’t say.

Regarding security...they left on their own accord. They are responsible (lol saying that about them) for their child’s shelter. They are his parents. I really don’t see why Charles or anyone other than themselves should be expected to do anything for them when they are not representing the Royal Family.

They can well afford to “pay as you go” for their own security , I’ve seen folks say he has 30 million. He is not a pauper. They left, (forget going around in circles as to why), they left. I believe they might have been planning for a few months to do this, financial independence with cake and eat It too. It has backfired. The problem for me is “they expected” and aren’t going to go quietly. They want.

I ache for Charles as a parent watching this play out so publicly while his son “acts up” trying to garner sympathy from the masses. I just don’t think Harry at his age is the responsibility of his father or anyone regardless of his birth right.

Sometimes you have to live with the choices you make, and, as a parent, I can attest, it’s hard to watch at times, no matter what station in life you have.
Reply With Quote
  #766  
Old 03-02-2020, 08:24 PM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
I don't know what they were thinking of. The cost of security question was raised by the Canadian media pretty much as soon as they moved there, and quite reasonably so. Did it genuinely not occur to Harry and Meghan that it was going to be an issue? Then again, did it genuinely not occur to them that using "Sussex Royal" was going to be a issue? Surely security should have been one of their first concerns, especially with Archie to think of.
No, because they were obviously expecting to be part time Royals, part time entrepreneurs with full time Royal benefits. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to them that their plan would be impractical and inappropriate. And no thought for the hardship they were putting upon their RPOs by living overseas.
Reply With Quote
  #767  
Old 03-09-2020, 01:32 PM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: An Iarmhí, Ireland
Posts: 27,442
Two men were arrested outside Westminster Abbey as the queen and other senior royals attended the Commonwealth Service.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...h-Service.html
Reply With Quote
  #768  
Old 03-09-2020, 02:15 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 2,747
Charles will be King later if not sooner. Is it realistic to think that a king’s son and grandson will not have protection unless they can pay for it themselves?
__________________
"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.”

Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #769  
Old 03-10-2020, 12:27 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas View Post
Charles will be King later if not sooner. Is it realistic to think that a king’s son and grandson will not have protection unless they can pay for it themselves?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Andrew (the reigning Queen's son) just lose his taxpayer-funded security? And if I'm not mistaken, Euginie and Beatrice (The Queen's granddaughters) also don't get it. And one of the girl was working (and living?) in USA as well.

Like many have mentioned before, most likely Charles will pay.
Reply With Quote
  #770  
Old 03-10-2020, 01:06 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas View Post
Charles will be King later if not sooner. Is it realistic to think that a king’s son and grandson will not have protection unless they can pay for it themselves?

Is it realistic for a King's son and grandson to live abroad and receive the same protection as if they were living at home and carrying out royal duties? Common sense says that security will change depending on the circumstances.

If Harry and Meghan were to live a quiet, private existance in Britain their needs for protection would be different to if they were to continue courting public attention on a World stage. Their fame will bring them need for protection and their fame will bring them income high enough to pay for their own staff. Thus, problem solved.
Reply With Quote
  #771  
Old 03-10-2020, 01:33 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukari View Post
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Andrew (the reigning Queen's son) just lose his taxpayer-funded security? And if I'm not mistaken, Euginie and Beatrice (The Queen's granddaughters) also don't get it. And one of the girl was working (and living?) in USA as well.

Like many have mentioned before, most likely Charles will pay.
I haven't read anywhere that Andrew has lost his security. Every time he is seen he has security with him.

Andrew himself pays for the security for his daughters (even so far as offering the jobs to the teams that had in place and some of those officers took the offer of better pay and conditions to work privately doing the same job they had been doing for the Met).
Reply With Quote
  #772  
Old 03-10-2020, 07:19 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukari View Post
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Andrew (the reigning Queen's son) just lose his taxpayer-funded security? And if I'm not mistaken, Euginie and Beatrice (The Queen's granddaughters) also don't get it. And one of the girl was working (and living?) in USA as well.

Like many have mentioned before, most likely Charles will pay.
yes security for Royals has been cut back over the past yaers. The York girls lost theris, so has Andrew. Sophie Wesex only has secrutiy when on public duties.. so there's no reason why Meg and Harry should have it paid by the tax payer
Reply With Quote
  #773  
Old 03-10-2020, 07:21 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the Jungle View Post
Is it realistic for a King's son and grandson to live abroad and receive the same protection as if they were living at home and carrying out royal duties? Common sense says that security will change depending on the circumstances.

If Harry and Meghan were to live a quiet, private existance in Britain their needs for protection would be different to if they were to continue courting public attention on a World stage. Their fame will bring them need for protection and their fame will bring them income high enough to pay for their own staff. Thus, problem solved.
Maybe. I don't think they will do nearly as well as they expect and the cost of security will fall on Charles. Obviously it is a lot cheaper to provide it from public funds if they were still living in Frogmore or KP and living a private life.. but that is not what they chose to do.
Reply With Quote
  #774  
Old 03-10-2020, 07:24 AM
Blog Real's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 4,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
yes security for Royals has been cut back over the past yaers. The York girls lost theris, so has Andrew. Sophie Wesex only has secrutiy when on public duties.. so there's no reason why Meg and Harry should have it paid by the tax payer

Prince Andrew must be sure of security.
__________________
My blogs about monarchies
Reply With Quote
  #775  
Old 03-10-2020, 07:46 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalriada View Post
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
90% of any poll is a pretty conclusive result...
It is worth noting that, as stated in the quote, the survey was a Twitter poll of the show's followers and did not obtain a representative sample of the general population. A nationally representative poll from YouGov found only 66% opposed to taxpayer funding of the Sussexes' security bill.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics...rry-and-meghan


Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
That 20M figure is an exaggerated number like much things they post.
Could I ask which source claims the figure (an estimate given in this article) to be exaggerated? The official announcements from Buckingham Palace and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex communicated that for security reasons, the true figure will not be made public. It is highly likely that all claimed figures are estimates.

A lower estimate was obtained by the CBC (in Canadian dollars):
Security experts, including retired Met police protection officers, have estimated that the cost of protecting the couple in their new life could fall in the range of $10 million to $30 million a year.
Reply With Quote
  #776  
Old 03-10-2020, 08:00 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blog Real View Post
Prince Andrew must be sure of security.
but he's not. As far as I know he has lost it, or it is now being reviewed. As he is doing public duties I think its not that likely he will continue to receive it
Reply With Quote
  #777  
Old 03-10-2020, 08:07 AM
Blog Real's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 4,390
[/QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
but he's not. As far as I know he has lost it, or it is now being reviewed. As he is doing public duties I think its not that likely he will continue to receive it

He is the Queen's son, it is obvious that he will continue to have security.
__________________
My blogs about monarchies
Reply With Quote
  #778  
Old 03-10-2020, 08:09 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,331

He is the Queen's son, it is obvious that he will continue to have security.[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily. Sophie is the Queens' dagther in law and she only has security on public duties. and as Andrew has behaved pretty badly and is not now doing public duties, he may be expected to lose automatic cover from now on.
Reply With Quote
  #779  
Old 03-12-2020, 10:07 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 58

He is the Queen's son, it is obvious that he will continue to have security.[/QUOTE]

Maybe, but not necessarily taxpayer-funded security. So just like his daughters, Metro can stop providing their personnels to guard him and he will have private-funded security.
Reply With Quote
  #780  
Old 03-12-2020, 11:56 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,821
The Metropolitan police will assess the level of need and given the accusations there are probably some tangible threats meaning he could easily have increased security. He has always had a higher profile than his younger brother and that also makes him more of a target. He will have taxpayer funded security for years to come - as will Harry and Meghan
__________________

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 abu dhabi althorp anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry bangladesh belgian royal family chittagong cht crown princess victoria danish royalty diana princess of wales dna dutch royal family dutch royals emperor family tree games henry v hill house of bourbon house of grimaldi house of orange-nassau intro jacobite jewellery jewelry jumma kids movie list of rulers mailing mary: crown princess of denmark mbs memoir nepalese royal jewels netherlands nobel prize norway palestine popularity princely family of monaco princess chulabhorn walailak princess elizabeth princess margaret princess ribha pronunciation random facts rown royal court royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royal wedding russian court dress snowdon spain spanish history spencer family sweden swedish royalty thailand tracts uae customs united states of america unsubscribe videos wittelsbach working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:58 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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