The Duke of Sussex and Conservation Efforts

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Muhler

The risk is no less, just because they are on vacation. So fewer ROPs would be a serious risk. Apart from the fact that fewer ROPs means more work for the rest. And more work means more tired and less alert ROPs who may eventually be prone to cut too many corners. - Until one day...

Since it's the police and security organizations who asses the threat-level for the individual members of the BRF, it's also the police who determine what level of protection is needed. It would IMO be dangerous to let costs outweigh the threat-level. Also for the protections officers as well as bystanders.
It's logic: Less protection means a higher probability for someone to try to carry out an attack or a kidnapping attempt. Simply because there is a higher probability for a success.

Also, if costs is a decisive factor in providing protection that will apply to everyone. If you cut down on ROP officers you create a good argument for cutting down on other protection jobs the police has.
The natural reaction to that is to take matters into your own hands. I.e. for those who can afford it to either leave Britain or hire private contractors to do the job. Contractors who may have an inferior training or just as bad; be more heavy-handed or even trigger happy.
Another alternative is for people who feel threatened to arm themselves, regardless of whether that is against the law or not.

And why should people who were born into a high-profile, high-risk position like the members of the BRF wish to continue if they feel they don't get adequate protection?
Being royal wasn't something they chose themselves.

Let's toy with the idea. Harry and Meghan get less protection. That saves money and works fine for two or three years. One day, on a vacation in Scotland (because other countries will make sure they are protected!) they are attacked. Whether they are killed, wounded or unhurt is besides the point.
In this scenario however a film of Meghan held hostage released by The Revolutionary Action Committee of Left-handed Toyota Dealers is shown non-stop on every channel...
The subsequent inquiry will show that the amount saved on ROPs is negligible. Certainly in comparison to the huge embarrassment Britain is facing whenever that film is shown.
And those who were most vocal in suggesting the number of ROPs being cut will be lucky if they are hung from the Tower by their necks!

So no one in charge will cut down on royal security, because no one in charge will be remembered for being responsible for a member of the BRF being hurt, killed or kidnapped.

Beatrice and Eugenie don't have royal protection any more - and it was removed when they were higher in the line of succession than Harry is about to become. They haven't been attacked or anything like that - because at 5th and 6th they were too low down the line to be seen as worth it.

Andrew pays for it and employed their former RPOs - so as well trained as Harry's.

Sophie lost her protection except when on official duties - so why any for Meghan?

The costs do have to be considered but Harry and William don't take care about the costs - only about having a good time. They don't care about how much they cost the taxpayers or anything else.

They are supposed to care about the environment - so they fly all over the world preaching about how much they care (as does Charles). If they truly cared they would only go on those visits expressly requested by the FCO or HM and none for their own personal enjoyment or for charities outside the UK (which as the taxpayers of the UK are paying for them they shouldn't be doing anyway).

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Muhler

The risk is no less, just because they are on vacation. So fewer ROPs would be a serious risk. Apart from the fact that fewer ROPs means more work for the rest. And more work means more tired and less alert ROPs who may eventually be prone to cut too many corners. - Until one day...

Since it's the police and security organizations who asses the threat-level for the individual members of the BRF, it's also the police who determine what level of protection is needed. It would IMO be dangerous to let costs outweigh the threat-level. Also for the protections officers as well as bystanders.
It's logic: Less protection means a higher probability for someone to try to carry out an attack or a kidnapping attempt. Simply because there is a higher probability for a success.

Also, if costs is a decisive factor in providing protection that will apply to everyone. If you cut down on ROP officers you create a good argument for cutting down on other protection jobs the police has.
The natural reaction to that is to take matters into your own hands. I.e. for those who can afford it to either leave Britain or hire private contractors to do the job. Contractors who may have an inferior training or just as bad; be more heavy-handed or even trigger happy.
Another alternative is for people who feel threatened to arm themselves, regardless of whether that is against the law or not.

And why should people who were born into a high-profile, high-risk position like the members of the BRF wish to continue if they feel they don't get adequate protection?
Being royal wasn't something they chose themselves.

Let's toy with the idea. Harry and Meghan get less protection. That saves money and works fine for two or three years. One day, on a vacation in Scotland (because other countries will make sure they are protected!) they are attacked. Whether they are killed, wounded or unhurt is besides the point.
In this scenario however a film of Meghan held hostage released by The Revolutionary Action Committee of Left-handed Toyota Dealers is shown non-stop on every channel...
The subsequent inquiry will show that the amount saved on ROPs is negligible. Certainly in comparison to the huge embarrassment Britain is facing whenever that film is shown.
And those who were most vocal in suggesting the number of ROPs being cut will be lucky if they are hung from the Tower by their necks!

So no one in charge will cut down on royal security, because no one in charge will be remembered for being responsible for a member of the BRF being hurt, killed or kidnapped.

Thanks for the descriptive scenario. But, for all moaning about security, Princess Anne's situation proves it can happen any time, any place. Remembering RPO's seriously wounded by a single nutter, not to mention nearly losing their charge by death or abduction is, I believe, enough to keep those in charge very proactive in their budget projections.

As to Harry flying budget, that merely inconveniences the RPO's which is why it took six rows of secure seating as those particular flights don't have First Class on that route.

[Muhler]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Beatrice and Eugenie don't have royal protection any more - and it was removed when they were higher in the line of succession than Harry is about to become. They haven't been attacked or anything like that - because at 5th and 6th they were too low down the line to be seen as worth it.

Andrew pays for it and employed their former RPOs - so as well trained as Harry's.

Sophie lost her protection except when on official duties - so why any for Meghan?

The costs do have to be considered but Harry and William don't take care about the costs - only about having a good time. They don't care about how much they cost the taxpayers or anything else.

They are supposed to care about the environment - so they fly all over the world preaching about how much they care (as does Charles). If they truly cared they would only go on those visits expressly requested by the FCO or HM and none for their own personal enjoyment or for charities outside the UK (which as the taxpayers of the UK are paying for them they shouldn't be doing anyway).

There is IMO a considerable difference.

QEII won't be around forever and as Charles is getting older the undisputed superstars of the BRF, who also happens to be in their prime, work wise, are William and Harry and of course their wives and children.

They are the ones who will profile the BRF in the future, at least until W&K's children are old enough to take over and that won't be for another 20 years.
Also, Harry is basically only one plane crash away from being a future monarch. Apart from that he is a vital reserve, backup, alternative and support for his brother in particular. - Based on that it is simply too insane a risk to gamble with his security - which naturally also include Meghan. What husband would say: Okay, I get adequate protection, but my wife has to settle for less.
But no matter how we look at Harry, whether we like him or not, believe he works enough or not, he and Meghan are among the top ten most highly profiled persons in Britain right now, simply because of their marriage. That makes them high profile targets as well.

Beatrice and Eugenie cannot be compared. They were never the daughters of the heir and they have never had a particular high profile within the BRF. They are, as I see it, secondary members of the BRF. So is Andrew and his younger brother as well as Sophie. especially as they get older.
At least Andrew seems to have concluded that it would be a good idea to have a couple of bodyguards close at hand.

But let us look at your proposal: Withdrawing security from Meghan, except when she's on the job or with Harry, who still has security in this hypothetical example.
Okay, during a visit to a friend, a car drives by while Meghan is walking to her car. A number of shots are fired, Meghan is hit.
How will you justify her RPO officers being taken away in order to save costs? Because that is what you will have to do.

That she might have been hit anyway, despite the presence of RPO? (why on earth have I written ROP?? - Must be getting senile.)
That likely nothing would ever happen?
That she had to take a risk like everybody else?

- To that I will ask: Despite knowing she's a potential target you feel it's better to gamble with Meghan's life, in order to save money?

[TLLK]

Excellent explanations Muhler about a sobering topic. I always appreciate your insight.

In this scenario however a film of Meghan held hostage released by The Revolutionary Action Committee of Left-handed Toyota Dealers is shown non-stop on every channel.

Glad that world is finally being made aware of this group's activities! Fortunately in the Southern California we have the "Helpful Honda Dealers" to aid and protect us. (This is a real ad campaign.)

https://www.socalhondadealers.com/ra...cal-residents/

[Osipi]

To emphasize on Muhler's excellent examples, there is a very good example of what happens when there is no RPO. I've read in several places and this statement was even made by a RPO himself. If Diana, Princess of Wales had not given up her RPO (it was her choice to), she most likely would still be alive today. Any RPO worth his salt wouldn't have allowed his charge to be transported the way she was playing musical cars and most definitely would have insisted on a seat belt.

The RPO situation cannot be blamed on the BRF or the younger royals who travel. Everything about a RPO is handled through the Metropolitan Police/Scotland Yard. They set the rules. They pay the RPO's paychecks. They're responsible for scheduling who works where. Whether Harry stays home in his own backyard or goes to Timbuktu for a month, its not on him how the RPOs are handled in the matter.

We've recently seen how they're going to be switching RPOs around. This has absolutely nothing to do with a decision the BRF has made.

[cepe]

Update

the entry in the online CC re Harrys trip to Botswana has been deleted. This is not an official event.

Reporters queried the entry with KP who said that H is on a ‘private working holiday’. This means no public money has been spent (except RPOs)

H is now in South Africa, again for one of his charities. Sources - KP via a couple of royal journos.

It isnt unusual for royals to have a single meeting with Head of State or Minister while on a private trip. Examples are Charles, William, Wessexes and Harry previously.

.

I think that we need to remember that Government members in these countries may ask to meet BRF member and courtesy demands that they do.

It would help if Royal press offices and PRs would just be clear about it. A few years ago when there was an investigation re Andrew’s travelling, it was made clear that public and private trips were not to be mixed (Harry did get into a row when he tacked on a holiday to a trip to the Caribbean) and that private engagements were never in the CC.

[cepe]

Having posted I am now officially confused!

From the Times published 26/1 (I get it at midnight(

22nd January, 2018
Prince Henry of Wales, Patron, Rhino Conservation Botswana, this afternoon visited Chobe Game Lodge, Kasane, Botswana, and was received by the Hon Tshekedi Khama (Minister of Environment, Natural Resources, Conservation and Tourism).

25th January, 2018
Prince Henry of Wales, Patron, Rhino Conservation Botswana, this morning visited the headquarters in Maun, Botswana.

His Royal Highness, President, African Parks, later visited the headquarters in Johannesburg, South Africa.


The one on the 22nd is the one that was in the online Royal website and deleted.

What a mess

[ACO]

I guess they made it official? Maybe it was posted before intended?

[Abbigail]

Who knows what the issue was but I think this is how it should have been from the start, counted as official engagements.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by cepe

Having posted I am now officially confused!

From the Times published 26/1 (I get it at midnight(

22nd January, 2018
Prince Henry of Wales, Patron, Rhino Conservation Botswana, this afternoon visited Chobe Game Lodge, Kasane, Botswana, and was received by the Hon Tshekedi Khama (Minister of Environment, Natural Resources, Conservation and Tourism).

25th January, 2018
Prince Henry of Wales, Patron, Rhino Conservation Botswana, this morning visited the headquarters in Maun, Botswana.

His Royal Highness, President, African Parks, later visited the headquarters in Johannesburg, South Africa.


The one on the 22nd is the one that was in the online Royal website and deleted.

What a mess

They have moved it from the 22nd to the 25th but it is in the online CC. The entry online now matches The Times.

[Princess Larisa]

Court Circular 31st January:
Prince Henry of Wales, Patron, African Parks, this afternoon received Mr. Peter Fearnhead (Chief Executive).

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Beatrice and Eugenie don't have royal protection any more - and it was removed when they were higher in the line of succession than Harry is about to become. They haven't been attacked or anything like that - because at 5th and 6th they were too low down the line to be seen as worth it.

Andrew pays for it and employed their former RPOs - so as well trained as Harry's.

Sophie lost her protection except when on official duties - so why any for Meghan?

I don't think that position in line to the throne is the deciding factor in terms of security risk. Exposure is far more relevant, so of course Harry is higher risk as son of the heir than Beatrice and Eunice ever were as grandchildren of the monarch. And right now Meghan is the top story in terms of royal news and exposure so high risk.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Somebody

I don't think that position in line to the throne is the deciding factor in terms of security risk. Exposure is far more relevant, so of course Harry is higher risk as son of the heir than Beatrice and Eunice ever were as grandchildren of the monarch. And right now Meghan is the top story in terms of royal news and exposure so high risk.

Exactly. And just to point out that while Princess Anne and Prince Edward are both further down the line than Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, they both have round the clock protection. Obviously, the risk related to the monarch’s children is deemed to be great enough to provide such security. Harry will one day be the child of a monarch, which neither of the York girls will be. I don’t anticipate Harry’s round the clock protection to be withdrawn while Charles’ still alive. Even afterwards, I’d expect him to have a much lower profile before it’s withdrawn to a limited basis.

[Princess Larisa]

Court Circular 25th June:
The Duke of Sussex, Patron, today attended an African Parks Board Meeting in Johannesburg, South Africa.

[Curryong]

Originally Posted by Princess Larisa

Court Circular 25th June:
The Duke of Sussex, Patron, today attended an African Parks Board Meeting in Johannesburg, South Africa.

So Harry was in South Africa as well as Lesotho? Busy boy!

[Dman]

Seems like Harry is in Botswana for the annual meeting for Rhino Conservation Botswana:
https://mobile.twitter.com/CarolynDu...27646263566336

https://mobile.twitter.com/CarolynDu...29054127841280

[TLLK]

Both of the brothers seem to be very dedicated to working with organizations that are trying to save the continents most endangered animals.

[Curryong]

He's certainly dedicated to the cause of endangered species. Wonder whether Harry is going to stay on in Botswana for a while and help out with some practical work in the field?

[Zaira]

Great pictures! It seems this visit will indeed be a yearly one for Harry. He is so involved with his charities and abroad and in the UK!

[Osipi]

I think this will be a yearly thing for Harry. Traveling to Africa in support of endangered animals. It strengthens my belief that when Harry decides he's going to back something, he doesn't do it half heartedly but really commits himself to what he's taken on. That's a huge strength of character in my book.