The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #781  
Old 03-13-2020, 11:06 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,452
I don't think we can underestimate the threat level for Harry and Meghan. One thing really struck me was when Harry drove Meghan to church last Sunday there was a very large man leaning forward between the two front seats. I am guessing he was security and I have never seen security that obvious.
__________________

__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #782  
Old 05-16-2020, 09:26 PM
Sun Lion's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,840
An increase in the "disregard" for the Royal Family this past year has seen an increase on the register of known stalkers/fixated people that the Metropolitan Police Force have to keep tabs on.

Details below -


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bles-year.html
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #783  
Old 06-07-2020, 06:25 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: n/a, United States
Posts: 53
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art....html#comments

IF this is true. PATHETIC!pathetic! [...] I'm so sick of these entitled spares in this family. One was made to step down the other chose to step down. But both feel they are still entitled to the same privileges as if nothing has happened nothing has changed everything is fine and dandy and their parents are too weak to crack the whip and say no.
Reply With Quote
  #784  
Old 06-07-2020, 06:48 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,195
Considering the dubious source, I'm not really buying into this story. While it may be true that the Queen could have petitioned for Andrew's security to continue, it is never up to the Queen or any of the BRF to have any kind of say in their security detail. In fact, the BRF are not the "bosses" of their security detail. Its the other way around. The BRF listen to and follow what their detail tells them to do or not do.

All security is decided on, provided and paid for by the Specialist Operations directorate of London's Metropolitan Police Service which is funded by the government (aka taxpayers). A RPO doesn't answer to the royal he's protecting but his supervisors at the Met Police.

Can't blame this on the Queen or any member of the royal family.
__________________
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
  #785  
Old 06-07-2020, 06:57 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,103
It says later on that there were "proposed cuts to the security of Andrew, Edward Sophie and Anne" so really if there is any truth in it, the Queen has stepped in for 3/4 of her children and her daughter in law.

I don't like Andrew but security has always been handled rather "clinically" based on threat assessment. If the Police believe there is no threat no amount of protest from the Queen will see it continue, more likely (again if any truth whatsoever) concerns were raised that the cuts were too deep and they were asked to take another look. If the police have agreed to another review then I would imagine there is some merit to the needs for a review.

It may well be that there are concerns now Ed Sophie & Anne are doing more, with the Sussex's overseas and Andrew out of action, that they shouldn't lose some of their protection. It may not even be about Andrew at all.
Reply With Quote
  #786  
Old 06-07-2020, 06:57 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 58
Just clicking the link is enough to make me feel like I've just made an unforgivable sin, so I only read the first few sentences. It stated that 3 security personnel are supposed to be axed but the Queen intervened.

If I'm not mistaken, royal tax-paid security team are Metro personnel, right? I don't think they'll be axed just because they no longer needed to protect a royal, re-assigned yes but not axed. So just like the Sussexes, he may still have those some-thousand-pounds-worth bodyguards, but paid by her mother (hence her intervention). It's their money.
Reply With Quote
  #787  
Old 06-07-2020, 07:23 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukari View Post
Just clicking the link is enough to make me feel like I've just made an unforgivable sin, so I only read the first few sentences. It stated that 3 security personnel are supposed to be axed but the Queen intervened.

If I'm not mistaken, royal tax-paid security team are Metro personnel, right? I don't think they'll be axed just because they no longer needed to protect a royal, re-assigned yes but not axed. So just like the Sussexes, he may still have those some-thousand-pounds-worth bodyguards, but paid by her mother (hence her intervention). It's their money.
You just expressed eloquently how I "check" Daily Mail links for information. I rarely read the whole article as the ads and videos are enough to irritate me to death.

If a protection officer is taken off royal detail, he is reassigned elsewhere and not "axed". I'm sure that any protection officer that were on the Sussex detail are assigned to new duties rather than out of work. When the Met Police deemed that Beatrice and Eugenie no longer needed royal protection, Andrew decided to pay for it out of his own pocket. I don't believe those protection officers that Andrew paid for were employed by the Met Police but independent bodyguards for hire.
__________________
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
  #788  
Old 06-07-2020, 08:37 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
You just expressed eloquently how I "check" Daily Mail links for information. I rarely read the whole article as the ads and videos are enough to irritate me to death.

If a protection officer is taken off royal detail, he is reassigned elsewhere and not "axed". I'm sure that any protection officer that were on the Sussex detail are assigned to new duties rather than out of work. When the Met Police deemed that Beatrice and Eugenie no longer needed royal protection, Andrew decided to pay for it out of his own pocket. I don't believe those protection officers that Andrew paid for were employed by the Met Police but independent bodyguards for hire.
of course they wotn be "axed" and if Andrew needs security, and the queen pays for it, they'll probably hire Ex Met officers who are trained in this sort of work, but are now independently working for private individuals.
Reply With Quote
  #789  
Old 06-07-2020, 09:13 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
You just expressed eloquently how I "check" Daily Mail links for information. I rarely read the whole article as the ads and videos are enough to irritate me to death.

If a protection officer is taken off royal detail, he is reassigned elsewhere and not "axed". I'm sure that any protection officer that were on the Sussex detail are assigned to new duties rather than out of work. When the Met Police deemed that Beatrice and Eugenie no longer needed royal protection, Andrew decided to pay for it out of his own pocket. I don't believe those protection officers that Andrew paid for were employed by the Met Police but independent bodyguards for hire.
My understanding is that Andrew offered the job to the same Met officers who had been protecting the girls before they lost their protection and some, if not all of them, accepted the offer for more money and better conditions and so they left the Met. Many Met officers leave to go into private security and earn a lot more money.
Reply With Quote
  #790  
Old 06-15-2020, 05:24 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Oakland, United States
Posts: 391
Okay, I hope this is the right thread:
According to the article nearly 60k was spend just between November 18 until Jan 19th, and does not include the Mounties salaries Nor the costs until March 14, which according to the article is when Canadian tax funded security ended, which mean that bill must be at least double that!
Add in the amount of British rpo’s pribably costing just as much if not more.

https://www.taxpayer.com/newsroom/rc...8453#gsc.tab=0

RCMP bill for Meghan and Harry topped $50,000
Author: James Wood 15/06/2020
Federal Blog

(Bolded done by me)

Quote:
Security costs for Meghan Markle and Prince Harry hit more than $50,000 in the few months the couple lived in Canada as they stepped back from their royal duties, according to documents obtained by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation through access to information requests.

The costs were piling up even as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau refused to say whether or not Canadians were paying to protect the royal couple.

The documents show the RCMP spent at least $56,384 from Nov. 18, 2019, to Jan. 19, 2020. The email records also show the RCMP was worried about the issue “costing us huge” while attracting a lot of media attention.

“More than $50,000 is nothing to sneeze at, especially when you consider the fact that this is taxpayers’ money covering bills for one of the most famous and wealthy couples in the world,” said Aaron Wudrick, Federal Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. “Had the government not cut them off and had Meghan and Harry stayed in Canada, the bill could have easily turned into millions.”

The current bill does not include the salaries paid to the Mounties on duty and only shows the pay costs such as overtime, travel, meals, incidentals and accommodations.

More than 80,000 Canadians signed the Canadian Taxpayers Federation petition telling Trudeau to welcome the royal couple, but to not pay for their costs with taxpayers’ money.

During the couple’s brief time in Canada, there was much debate over who was to pay for their protection. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation advocated against spending any taxpayers’ money on the couples expenses. The petition drive generated media interest from London to Washington.

“We’re proud to have given voice to the vast majority of Canadians who felt subsidizing the Sussexes’ lifestyle choices was an outrageous use of tax dollars,” said Wudrick.

The RCMP unit in charge of protection recognized the debate at the time, with National Division commanding officer Bernadine Chapman touching on the furor in an email to two colleagues on Jan. 10, 2020.

“Media is on this like a hot potato ... so lots of coverage of the potential of the royals to spend half their time in Canada now, as an independent couple. Media spin is about the cost to Canadians,” wrote Chapman. “We are having a greater conversation next week on the go forward on this. This has a potential to cost us huge!”

The email exchange happened on Jan. 10, 2020, and concerned a briefing note meant for Public Safety Minister Bill Blair. The briefing appears to have been presented to Blair in early February, after multiple public dodges on the issue of paying for the royal couple’s needs by both Blair and Trudeau.

Blair first touched on the issue on Jan. 21 in Winnipeg, telling reporters at the time: “I can tell you now we are not engaged in providing those security services.”

When that turned out to not be the case, Blair later told the CBC in February the contradiction was due to a “misunderstanding,” and taxpayer-funded protection would cease “in the coming weeks.”

According to People Magazine, Meghan and Harry relocated to Los Angeles in March. United States President Donald Trump welcomed the couple on Twitter, but said they’d have to pay their own way.

Asked for comment, the RCMP said their protection of the couple ended on March 14. They refused to provide a total summary of costs for the whole visit.

“For security reasons and to protect our operations, we are not releasing salary costs,” read a statement from the RCMP. “Security costs for protection are covered through the existing operational budget.”

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has filed access to information requests to obtain the total of all public spending on the couple throughout their stay in Canada, including RCMP salary costs.


This is the request for information file mentioned in the article:
https://docs.google.com/document/u/0...RQ/mobilebasic
Reply With Quote
  #791  
Old 06-15-2020, 06:23 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 813
An interesting read. Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #792  
Old 06-16-2020, 01:30 AM
muriel's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by evolvingdoors View Post
Okay, I hope this is the right thread:
According to the article nearly 60k was spend just between November 18 until Jan 19th, and does not include the Mounties salaries Nor the costs until March 14, which according to the article is when Canadian tax funded security ended, which mean that bill must be at least double that!
Add in the amount of British rpo’s pribably costing just as much if not more.

https://www.taxpayer.com/newsroom/rc...8453#gsc.tab=0

RCMP bill for Meghan and Harry topped $50,000
Author: James Wood 15/06/2020
Federal Blog

(Bolded done by me)





This is the request for information file mentioned in the article:
https://docs.google.com/document/u/0...RQ/mobilebasic
Security costs for members of the royal family can sometimes be a contentious topic. When those family members cease to be working royals, there is clearly no debate in the minds of most members of the public.
Reply With Quote
  #793  
Old 06-16-2020, 02:25 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,308
Harry and Meghan did not cease to be senior working royals until after March 30th 2020. The period from Jan to March mentioned in the account above is therefore before that date.
Reply With Quote
  #794  
Old 06-16-2020, 04:49 AM
muriel's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Harry and Meghan did not cease to be senior working royals until after March 30th 2020. The period from Jan to March mentioned in the account above is therefore before that date.
Whilst technically that may indeed be correct, I can see why the good people of Canada may resent having to fund security for a couple who, barring a few engagements in March in London, had for all intents ceased to be working royals.
Reply With Quote
  #795  
Old 06-16-2020, 05:12 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
Whilst technically that may indeed be correct, I can see why the good people of Canada may resent having to fund security for a couple who, barring a few engagements in March in London, had for all intents ceased to be working royals.
More to the point it was known from January that they wernet going to be working royals any more.. after March.
I think that the Canadian people probably weren't too pleased when Justin T was very welcoming and it seemed like there was a commitment to provide them with free security indefinitely.
I think that's the reason for the sudden departure to LA at the end of March.. that they had thought they could settle in Can for as long as they liked and they'd have the free house, and free security and no problems about staying.. but reality began to bite as neither of them are Canadian, borders were closing, and the free security was about to stop...
Reply With Quote
  #796  
Old 06-16-2020, 07:06 AM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
...
I think that's the reason for the sudden departure to LA at the end of March.. that they had thought they could settle in Can for as long as they liked and they'd have the free house, and free security and no problems about staying.. but reality began to bite as neither of them are Canadian, borders were closing, and the free security was about to stop...

.. which confirms the observertion, that their move out of the Firm wasn't thought throu properly on their part, and they rushed in - not heeding the advice of their family and the palace consultant.


A very sad story. They are not rich enough to pay for their security and the way of life they like to live - and surely not in LA or any other hotspot of the world. That is why so many of the 'minor' royals are living at St Jameses, Kensington or Windsor etc. because there is allready security in place and no extra security for the home is needed - only when they go out.
Reply With Quote
  #797  
Old 06-16-2020, 10:54 AM
Eskimo's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
More to the point it was known from January that they wernet going to be working royals any more.. after March.
I think that the Canadian people probably weren't too pleased when Justin T was very welcoming and it seemed like there was a commitment to provide them with free security indefinitely.
I think that's the reason for the sudden departure to LA at the end of March.. that they had thought they could settle in Can for as long as they liked and they'd have the free house, and free security and no problems about staying.. but reality began to bite as neither of them are Canadian, borders were closing, and the free security was about to stop...
This was a big part of it. Justin Trudeau tried to fanboy by trying to get the Canadian Taxpayers to foot the bill for security for the long term, but backed down when his position proved extremely unpopular (and damaging to him and his party).

As a Canadian, I want, no I demand, that Canada be reimbursed for security costs for their time in Canada. They were on a private "vacation" from late last year and were in no way invited by the Canadian Govt or people to stay in Canada. They did not perform any significant representative functions while there and there is/was no need for the Canadian taxpayer to foot the bill for their whims and follies.
Reply With Quote
  #798  
Old 06-16-2020, 11:21 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 21,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo View Post



As a Canadian, I want, no I demand, that Canada be reimbursed for security costs for their time in Canada. They were on a private "vacation" from late last year and were in no way invited by the Canadian Govt or people to stay in Canada. They did not perform any significant representative functions while there and there is/was no need for the Canadian taxpayer to foot the bill for their whims and follies.

This won’t ever happen, but I’m intrigued if you’d have the same mindset were any other royal had done the same?
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #799  
Old 06-16-2020, 11:50 AM
Eskimo's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
This won’t ever happen, but I’m intrigued if you’d have the same mindset were any other royal had done the same?
Yes. Why not? The BRF are rich enough to afford to pay for their own security when they are travelling for extended private vacations. With everything going on that is a drain on public finances, there is no need for the taxpayers to pay for extremely wealthy people to have a vacation
Reply With Quote
  #800  
Old 06-16-2020, 01:13 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 21,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo View Post
Yes. Why not? The BRF are rich enough to afford to pay for their own security when they are travelling for extended private vacations.

Are they indeed? I’d like to see some sources of this information as it’s well the royal family aren’t truthfully “cash rich”.
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
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 crown princess victoria danish royalty diana princess of wales dna dutch royal family dutch royals emperor family tree games haakon vii henry v hill history house of bourbon house of glucksburg house of grimaldi interesting intro israel 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 rown royal balls royal court royal events royal jewels royal wedding russian court dress shakespeare snowdon spain spencer family sweden swedish royalty thailand tracts uae customs united states of america unsubscribe videos wedding gown wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:40 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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