Pranter
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 12,309
- City
- Midwest
- Country
- United States
Things are different now royal enthusiast. Very different.
LaRae
LaRae
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?
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?
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.
I don't think there should be an issue if the spouses of working royals are given RPO's.
LaRae
Yeah I think any of the direct line of the Monarch need different consideration.
LaRae
I’ve come up with a list of royals that receive 24/hr police protection. Please correct me if I’m wrong. ......................
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.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 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 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.
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.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.
Not an RPO though.
LaRae