Royal Security

[Pranter]

Things are different now royal enthusiast. Very different.


LaRae

 

[Osipi]

I would think that any royal today would be very grateful for their RPOs. Not only are they nearby to protect their client, but they also scout out where the royal is going beforehand and knows all the ins and outs and the nooks and the crannies that need to be known.

It most certainly is a different world out there than even in Diana's time. Sure there were threats that needed to be addressed then but nothing compared to the scale of threats faced today.

BTW: RPOs are not hired by the government or the royal family themselves. They are trained and managed by the Metropolitan Police Department and Scotland Yard and are well versed in any intelligence that they need to know ahead of time.

 

[royal_enthusiast]

Do you think royal girlfriends should have RPOs, currently they have to be engaged to their partner to get one but I wonder whether they should have one before they get engaged?

 

[Pranter]

Do you think royal girlfriends should have RPOs, currently they have to be engaged to their partner to get one but I wonder whether they should have one before they get engaged?

No if the g/f needs them then the member of the BRF should pay for their protection or help pay for it.

Once they are engaged yes they should (and do) get RPO's.


LaRae

 

[jacqui24]

Do you think royal girlfriends should have RPOs, currently they have to be engaged to their partner to get one but I wonder whether they should have one before they get engaged?

No. They would have to find other ways of getting that protection. The most recent case is Meghan, and her job paid for her security when she was working at first, and eventually NBC stepped it up to 24/7 except when she's travelling overseas for pleasure as the threat level was deemed to be higher. However, most royal girlfriends probably didn't have that option. I seem to remember that Charles paid for someone before he and Camilla were married.

But I do think royal girlfriend is a terrible position. First, they don't have the weight of the palace behind them, so the newspapers feel like they can say certain things that wouldn't be said if this was a member of the royal family and she would't be able to push back. Second, the threat to their lives is real. I remember reading that Meghan along with Harry was briefed on kidnaps attempts while they were dating. It was a brief article, and didn't get a lot of traction because there were so many other things written at that time, but that'd be terrifying if she was just a random person that worked a 9-5 job.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Diana was offered and for a time accepted the RPOs after her divorce but then she came to believe they were spying on her and so told the RF she didn't want them anymore but was told she would have to have them when she had the boys with her and that any private security could not overrule the RPOs.

Sarah was not offered any RPOs after her divorce.

As for boyfriend/girlfriends - no I don't believe they should get security. As they have cut back the security from Sophie to being only when she is one royal duties and she is married to the son of the monarch I see no reason why Meghan should be getting protection due to marrying the grandson of the monarch who may, in time, become the son of the monarch. Kate is different - the future Queen - but Meghan will become less and less important as the decades go by and Kate's children grow in age (and 20 years will pass quite quickly in many ways.

 

[jacqui24]

As for boyfriend/girlfriends - no I don't believe they should get security. As they have cut back the security from Sophie to being only when she is one royal duties and she is married to the son of the monarch I see no reason why Meghan should be getting protection due to marrying the grandson of the monarch who may, in time, become the son of the monarch. Kate is different - the future Queen - but Meghan will become less and less important as the decades go by and Kate's children grow in age (and 20 years will pass quite quickly in many ways.

Meghan is offered protection as the threat level assessed right now. She does get a lot more public attention than Sophie does. Add that to the fact that the number of stalkers they are monitoring went up drastically in the last year. I don't think she'll always get 24/7 protection. But given that Harry is deemed to be under high threat from terrorists due to his service, I don't think it's a stretch to say his wife, who also generates a high level of interest, needs to be protected. I don't think they are saying only so and so gets protection because of who they are other than those that are in direct line to the throne. For all the other members of the royal family, it is assessed on a security risk basis. And sure, 20 years may pass quickly, but in the meantime, she is deemed to face enough of a security risk that she's been assigned protection.

And yes, Harry might only be a grandson of the monarch right now while Edward is a son of the monarch, but in a lot of official appearances, William and Harry are given precedence over their uncles and aunt in terms of entrance and seating. And that is a decision that would directly be approved by HMQ.

 

[Pranter]

I don't think there should be an issue if the spouses of working royals are given RPO's.


LaRae

 

[jacqui24]

I don't think there should be an issue if the spouses of working royals are given RPO's.


LaRae

I don't either. Nor do I think it's right that the underage grandchildren of a monarch doesn't have RPO.

 

[Pranter]

Yeah I think any of the direct line of the Monarch need different consideration.


LaRae

 

[jacqui24]

Yeah I think any of the direct line of the Monarch need different consideration.


LaRae

I think once they are grown up and are private citizens, that's a different story. However, I'm quite uncomfortable with the fact that children that close to the monarch aren't protected. It's one thing when it's an adult, but I imagine a 10 year old James can't fend off someone the same way Peter Phillips can.

 

[Muhler]

I’ve come up with a list of royals that receive 24/hr police protection. Please correct me if I’m wrong. ......................

I don't think we should go into too many specific details as to who, when and how the individual royals are protected here on an open forum. Stalkers also read the royal forums.

 

[royal_enthusiast]

You’re right, I forgot about the types of people that could read this. I’ve deleted the list and it’s probably right to not go in to great detail about security in order for safety purposes.

 

[Somebody]

No. They would have to find other ways of getting that protection. The most recent case is Meghan, and her job paid for her security when she was working at first, and eventually NBC stepped it up to 24/7 except when she's travelling overseas for pleasure as the threat level was deemed to be higher. However, most royal girlfriends probably didn't have that option. I seem to remember that Charles paid for someone before he and Camilla were married.

But I do think royal girlfriend is a terrible position. First, they don't have the weight of the palace behind them, so the newspapers feel like they can say certain things that wouldn't be said if this was a member of the royal family and she would't be able to push back. Second, the threat to their lives is real. I remember reading that Meghan along with Harry was briefed on kidnaps attempts while they were dating. It was a brief article, and didn't get a lot of traction because there were so many other things written at that time, but that'd be terrifying if she was just a random person that worked a 9-5 job.

I agree it is a complicated position although they might be happy to go about their lives a liitle longer without a protrction officer as it sincerely limits your freedom and privacy.

The article about the kidnap training was from March so she was engaged at that point.

I think once they are grown up and are private citizens, that's a different story. However, I'm quite uncomfortable with the fact that children that close to the monarch aren't protected. It's one thing when it's an adult, but I imagine a 10 year old James can't fend off someone the same way Peter Phillips can.

I am sure that Louise and James are very happy that they don't have one. Now they can just go about their lives (while the adults in their lives take appropriste care). If there was a reason to suspect they might be at risk, I am sure an officer would be assigned.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't think we should go into too many specific details as to who, when and how the individual royals are protected here on an open forum. Stalkers also read the royal forums.

It is in the public record who receives what level of protection within the BRF - not just here but in lots of places. It was officially announced by the Met themselves as to who they were providing protection for:

the monarch, the spouse of the monarch, the children of the monarch, the spouse of the heir apparent, the children of the heir apparent, the spouses of the children of the heir apparent (subject to later assessment over time e.g. Meghan will probably lose it in time as Sophie did), the children of the heir apparent's heir apparent.

Other royals get protection when on official duties but not when on private events any more.

This came about because of the outcry over security costs and an assessment of real threats and it was decided that anyone from Beatrice down didn't need it as they weren't seen as a potential threat - only a grandchild of the monarch through the second son.

Remember that Anne's children never had protection so why do the other grandchildren need protection. Margaret's children didn't have protection either.

 

[jacqui24]

It is in the public record who receives what level of protection within the BRF - not just here but in lots of places. It was officially announced by the Met themselves as to who they were providing protection for:

the monarch, the spouse of the monarch, the children of the monarch, the spouse of the heir apparent, the children of the heir apparent, the spouses of the children of the heir apparent (subject to later assessment over time e.g. Meghan will probably lose it in time as Sophie did), the children of the heir apparent's heir apparent.

Other royals get protection when on official duties but not when on private events any more.

This came about because of the outcry over security costs and an assessment of real threats and it was decided that anyone from Beatrice down didn't need it as they weren't seen as a potential threat - only a grandchild of the monarch through the second son.

Remember that Anne's children never had protection so why do the other grandchildren need protection. Margaret's children didn't have protection either.

My issue with the younger children compared to when Margaret and Anne’s children were younger is that we live in a different world today. Base on most of the estimates I’ve seen for wedding security cost, Meghan and Harry’s wedding is expect to exceed the cost of W&K in 2011 even though it’s at a much smaller venue. That is perfect example of how the security necessary just keeps moving up. And I agree with the assessing risk and provide protection as needed. But I do feel that right now the young children are left in a particular vulnerable position. You quite simply can’t assess the risk associated with children than adults as they can’t react the same way as adults or manage the situation as well. Beatrice and Eugenie lost their security when they were already adults I believe and it’s been pretty much determined that they’ll be private citizens. I agree with them not having government funded security at that point of review of threat level is low.

The question I have is if Charles’ siblings will loose their security detail once the Queen passes away. At that point, they wouldn’t be children of THE monarch, but children of a monarch.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Why would Charles' siblings lose security? The Met made a decision based on relationship to a monarch not the monarch. As Andrew, Edward and Anne will always be the children of a monarch they will always have security but not their spouses.

That was pretty clear. The same will happen, in time, to Meghan - she will lose it when interest in her diminishes as George, Charlotte and Louis take over in the public's mind - as happened to Sophie in 2012 when she lost security. That is when the did the review and cut right back on who was eligible and cousins and the children of younger sons are to be treated the same as children of daughters - no security. They did evaluate the threat to those positions and James and Louise were considered and deemed not to be threatened.

 

[tommy100]

Surely in this day and age security is based on assessment of the threats not relationship, or kinship to the monarch. There is no way on the day of the Queen's death or Charles' coronation that security will cease for Anne, Edward and Andrew. If they carry on doing public duties they will continue to have security to a certain degree, based on the assessment of the risks to them. The Gloucesters and Kents still have some level of protection provided, as they still carry out public duties for the monarch. Of course it is at a lower level than that of the Queen's own children, just as their protection is in turn lower than that of Charles and William.

Sophie reportedly, lost her 24hour protection, putting her in the same boat the Queen's cousins who receive protection when the are on public duties but not all the time. She still gets police protection when on public duties and her home is protected 24hrs a day. In time I expect the same will happen to degree for Anne, Edward and Andrew especially as/when William's children start official duties.

 

[royal_enthusiast]

Would you say that even though Diana was the ex-wife of the Prince of Wales, her being the mother of the Future King would be a reason that she would have needed protection.

 

[Osipi]

Even after the divorce, Diana drew crowds of people and hoards of press wherever she went. It was Diana, herself, that decided that she no longer needed a RPO dogging her and it actually did prove to be a bad decision in the long run.

If you read Ken Wharfe's book, "Diana: Closely Guarded Secret" (he was Diana's principle RPO for five years), he comes right out and states that if he or any other RPO from the Metropolitan Police/Scotland Yard had still been employed to protect her, the accident in Paris would never have happened.

 

[tommy100]

Diana was given protection by RPOs after her divorce, she asked for it to be withdrawn herself and they were of course obliged to do so. Again this proves its risk based not family ties that determine security. The then head of Met Police says he asked her to reinstate it repeatedly right up to her death.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1575792/Police-begged-Diana-to-have-more-protection.html
Britain’s most senior police officer at the time of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales had repeatedly begged her to reinstate her Scotland Yard security team and believes she would still be alive if that had been done, the Princess’s inquest heard today.
Lord Condon, former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, described how the Princess decided to jettison her police protection team against his wishes in December 1993.

Lord Condon told the hearing at the High Court in London: "Let me be absolutely frank. If as my wish was, she would have had police protection in Paris, then I'm absolutely convinced those three lives would not have been tragically lost.

"Her problem with protection was, sadly, that she did not have police protection. I wish she had."

He described how meetings were held with the Princess on an "almost daily basis" in December 1993 and January 1994 but she was "absolutely adamant" she did not want protection. There were further meetings in 1995.

Lord Condon said: "In 1996 when the IRA ceasefire broke down we very stridently suggested that was a good time to reintroduce her security.

"She was making judgments about who she could believe was on her side and who was not - I suspect she probably thought we were not on her side."

 

[Biri]

Wasn't Trevor Rees-Jones her security man?

 

[Osipi]

Any and all protective detail during that stay in Paris were employed by Dodi's father, Mohamed Al-Fayed. They answered to Dodi at that time and it was Dodi, himself, that made bad decisions.

 

[Pranter]

Wasn't Trevor Rees-Jones her security man?

Not an RPO though.


LaRae

 

[Denville]

Not an RPO though.


LaRae

He was not employed By Diana... She did at times employ protection from private firms.... usually, I think Ex RPOs....

 

[Biri]

What does RPO stand for?

 

[tommy100]

Royal Protection Officer

 

[royal_enthusiast]

Will the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's children receive RPO's?

 

[Curryong]

IMO I think that will depend on what the terrorist threat is like at the time they are growing up. Harry will be the King's only other son (and his security has at times been at very high alert because of Afghanistan. I remember he had six RPOs assigned to him in the weeks after he came back.) Harry and Meghan will still be doing engagements in the public eye for a couple of decades. So they and their family may need RPOs during that time.

 

[royal_enthusiast]

I know the children of the monarch receive 24 hr police protection but does the mother of a monarch receive 24 hour police protection?