Question about police protection security for Archie when growing up

[Guylan]

Harry and Meghan implied Archie would not have ever been provided with security, even as a baby, as Meghan said she was very scared of having to offer up their baby for the traditional post hospital photo op knowing that Archie wouldn’t be kept safe.

But I have read as a full-time working royal, Harry and his family would have been entitled to 24-hour security by Metropolitan Police protection officers.

I understand when Archie is an adult he will move further down the succession list if the Cambridge children have their own families and it is reported he would not have been expected to be playing a key role in royal duties when older. So he probably would have been a non working royal in adulthood and so would not then get security. However, if it is true as a full-time working royal, Harry and his family would have been entitled to 24-hour security by Metropolitan Police protection officers, why would Meghan claim Archie would not get security until at least age 18 including as a newborn during the traditional post hospital photo op?

Any knowledgeable folks on this issue? Thank you.

As far as I know, if they'd remained in the UK (as working or non working royals) they will have always had security as Harry is a Prince. This would include security in their homes (eg if Archie was left at home with a nanny) I'm not sure what would have happened once he went to school, however by that point Charles may have been king, which would mean that Archie was then a Prince (as grandson of the monarch) and would be entitled to security. If the Queen was still queen then, something may have been arranged to give him security.

I mean it's not like he would have been wandering the streets on his own as a baby! He didn't really need his own security.

She said there discussions were that a new law would come into place that Archie would not be prince or entitled to anything when PC becomes king.

Thank you pourmeawine

she said there discussions were that a new law would come into place that Archie would not be prince or entitled to anything when PC becomes king.

yes, @mummy195, she did. Presume plan is only grandchildren of first born son or daughter of monarch would become Prince or Princess. However, still remains as a fulll-time working royal, Harry and his family would have been entitled to 24-hour security by Metropolitan Police protection officers. I did wonder how would work with school.

They said there would be no security for Archie if he is not Prince.

Her main point was why this change now, in regards with Archie.

The other main thing was the queen changed the law so that Charlotte and Louis become Prince with the security trappings among other things.

They're so rich I've never understood why they can't pay for their own security?

NONE of the great grandchildren except Williams are prince and princesses.

Zara, Philip, Eugenie and Harry all have children and none of them are entitled to prince and princesses. I’m sure they share their parents security.

@Mummy195

They said there would be no security for Archie if he is not Prince.

Her main point was why this change now, in regards with Archie.

The other main thing was the queen changed the law so that Charlotte and Louis become Prince with the security trappings among other things.

Princess Eugenie and Prince Beatrice don't get protection, they are GC of the monarch just like Archie will be when Charles is king. Princess Anne's kids are GC of the monarch they don't have the titles or protection. Archie isn't being treated any differently is he. I wonder if Harry ever complained about his cousins being badly treated.

They would likely have had security as working royals. They, in fact, did have Met security till they went to Canada and security while there combined with the Canadian forces. It was only withdrawn when it became too expensive when they moved to LA. But Charles may have had plans to cut down security costs when he became king.

@Mummy195

They said there would be no security for Archie if he is not Prince.

Her main point was why this change now, in regards with Archie.

The other main thing was the queen changed the law so that Charlotte and Louis become Prince with the security trappings among other things.

There was no rule change for Kate and Wills kids, them being Prince and Princess is in line with William and Harry having the same treatment.

Anne's children do not have titles because they are a female child's children. Neither should Charlotte have a title, but this has been specifically changed. Edwards and Andre children have titles.

The York girls had security till over 21 when they were long working full jobs.

None of them had Neo nazi threats on top of the usual royal threats.

Someone explains all of this in detail in one of the threads on here.

But they had security when they were in the UK so her comment about the photos after his birth don't make sense. They had security for a transition period when they left the country but it was rightly decided the tax payer wouldn't provide security once they left. The Canadian & US governments also refused to foot the bill

It's nothing to do with Archie the only people who get 24/7 security are The Queen, Phillip, Charles & Camilla and the Cambridges

Prince Edward etc don't get 24/7 nor do Beatrice & Eugenie. Her argument in this case just wasn't valid

With the bank balance they have they're perfectly capable of paying it themselves

It’s nothing to do with the title of Prince , Prince Michael of Kent doesn’t get security neither does Prince Richard Duke of Gloucester , nor the Princesses Beatrice or Eugenie. The Met have come out today and said security is based on a global assessment process in consultation with the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre and via the Five Eyes partnership .

Edward, Sophie, Anne and formerly andrew only get security when on actual working duty. The non- Cambridge grandchildren don’t get any and none of the great grandchildren. That is a decision based on met police risk assessment and has nothing to do with Archie having a title or not. He is not currently, by law, entitled to the title of Prince.
For people who are so keen to Luce privately and authentically, getting this hung up on whether being called a prince is his birthright or not is insane. It’s more of a birthright to know his family, and he’s being deprived of that (on all sides) by his parents not “the firm”.

@Mummy195 Anne’s children do not have titles because their parents refused them; they were entitled and offered.

Which is why they said the threat level has not gone down for the Sussexes.

The press were mad for them so I think as long as they stayed here earning their royal keep then yes, Archie should have got it. The interest in them is far greater than Zara or Beatrice etc.

Argh. This just keeps being repeated.

I know about this from my professional background.

Public protection is given on the grounds of risk. A threat assessment is done covering every aspect of threat, and kept under continual review. Members of the Royal family who are considered to be at enough risk are protected, some 24 hours a day, some while carrying out duties, some while only carrying out specific duties. Some have protection at their homes, others don’t. There is no rule about who does and who doesn’t get it - the title of an individual is irrelevant.

It is possible to refuse protection if offered.

Around a decade ago the basis of protection moved to prioritise risk assessments over convention and several members of the Royal family subsequently lost their existing protection arrangements. There was no automatic connection to their ages when this happened; it happened more widely that is being discussed on here. Quite rightly the level of protections is generally not common knowledge.

Protecting someone full time is very expensive. It’s not just a bodyguard, it’s far more complicated. When someone with protection travels abroad it is enormously expensive because it triggers all sorts of additional overtime and subsistence costs for police officers. Protection offered by the host country at their own cost would be very unlikely.

Had Archie stayed in this country, his risk would have been assessed on an ongoing basis and protection decided accordingly. The various organisations that put the threat assessment together are very, very thorough.

@MrsTabithaTwitchit

It’s nothing to do with the title of Prince , Prince Michael of Kent doesn’t get security neither does Prince Richard Duke of Gloucester , nor the Princesses Beatrice or Eugenie. The Met have come out today and said security is based on a global assessment process in consultation with the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre and via the Five Eyes partnership .

Sorry, cross posted, and never sure how much to put into the public domain, but JTAC are exactly the people I’m referring to. Although the protection picture really is very nuanced and reflects specific threat so it’s never really the case that ‘x’ does or doesn’t get protection.

They chosen to leave the UK.

They chose to take their child to a far more dangerous country than the UK.

Archie would have been protected in the UK.

Their choices have made the situation impossible.

I am sure some of what she said was true, some she has convinced herself are true and some downright lies. I suspect this falls into the last category!

Anne’s children weren’t entitled to titles because Anne is a woman. They were offered and declined. Edward’s children are a princess and prince really but don’t use the titles. They made a new law for Charlotte and Louis. George was automatically a Prince. They haven’t done anything for Archie but Megan said they were talking about not making him a Prince when Charles becomes King and this should happen automatically.

It is children of the monarch, grandchildren from the monarch’s sons and the first son of the first son of the Prince of Wales.

Archie would be better off not being the the position of Beatrice and Eugenie kind of half in half out. Especially once William is King.

Does anyone else feel like Britain has been unfairly smeared over this issue at any rate? I don't believe for a moment that any decision over protection has been based on Archie's race.

The Met protection wouldn't have worked abroad anyway. Other countries don't like armed police from other jurisdictions unless it's a short, preplanned visit.

Looks like lots of senior royals with the title of prince or princess have limited or no police protection. Harry and Megan could also have stayed in the UK. It was a choice to leave. One that made security difficult. I think they need to take responsibility for their own decisions.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9346083/Meghan-Markle-interview-Members-Royal-Family-dont-police-protection.html

@SerenadeOfTheSchoolRun

Anne’s children weren’t entitled to titles because Anne is a woman. They were offered and declined. Edward’s children are a princess and prince really but don’t use the titles. They made a new law for Charlotte and Louis. George was automatically a Prince. They haven’t done anything for Archie but Megan said they were talking about not making him a Prince when Charles becomes King and this should happen automatically.

It is children of the monarch, grandchildren from the monarch’s sons and the first son of the first son of the Prince of Wales.

Archie would be better off not being the the position of Beatrice and Eugenie kind of half in half out. Especially once William is King.

This is exactly how I understand the situation as has been explained by proper royal historians.

And on that last bit, I would have to agree.

I simply cannot recall anyone as dangerous as the son of a Neo nazi group leader, arrested for threatening B&E. That father was the leader of a group that congregates online as they did with the NZ killings.
So I cannot see how Archie's threat is lower - nor his parents either.

It does not seem that there was any talk of paying his UK based some, then his parents putting in the difference either.

@Mummy195 I just don't think it works like that. The met provide a protection service in the UK. They wouldn't just pay cash instead towards security abroad. In any case it wouldn't be the royal family that would have to decide that it would be the government. I don't think it would have been popular.

Also I imagine that all the time there are public figures who need protection,but there aren't enough resources, so officers who are trained for this work would just be redeployed and so there wouldn't be a cost saving per se.

No 'cash' exchange obviously.

But there is a cost and books have to balance. They were not protected for free obviously, that is why there was a furore about the false £20M per year for security. Remember that?

@TooSpotty is right - it's done on the basis of threat and risk but obviously it's not made public as that would be inviting threats against the very people who don't have protection.

And no you can't pay for the MPS to provide protection. If you're paying it's because there isn't a sufficient threat and risk against you, although people are free to sort private security.

And it's very hard to provide that abroad. First there's the resources and second if they're not on official duty then the status of the protection officers is a grey area. And they have no police powers outside of the UK and again can't really call on resources from the host country if not on an official visit.

It's absolutely nothing to do with what titles people have. As already mentioned B&E no longer get it and they are still Princesses.