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.

I thought I’d was interesting that Meghan said that in the early days there was talk of her keeping her acting job. Maybe they were aiming to have her role similar to that of Jack Brooksbank and Edoardo and Tim Laurence. Married in but not a working royal and no title while the spouse does solo engagements. It would have been tricky though as wives take their husband’s titles automatically but not the other way round.

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.

Thank you. So as Meghan said she was very scared of having to offer up Archie for the traditional post birth hospital photo op knowing that Archie wouldn’t be kept safe, she is in effect saying Archie and his parents were at that time assessed as not needing police protection.

Anyone claiming a tiny newborn baby who's being subject to hundreds of death threats, racially abused by journalists, being sent anthrax in the post, and being targeted by Neo Nazi terrorists, should be denied basic protection just because of some stupid byzantine rule based on birth order, is crackers. Security is based on risk not just status.

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.

FFS, do people not know how to read? Meghan was told Archie would receive no security while she was pregnant, long before they started discussing leaving. Archie being denied security has nothing to do with them leaving. Archie definitely would not have been protected in the UK, that's the entire point. And Santa Barbara is not "far more dangerous" than a country where Neo Nazis get sent to prison for plotting to kill your family.

Andrew still has security and he's no longer a working royal. Beatrice and Eugenie still have security, it's just paid for by Andrew (which means the Queen, since Andrew doesn't have any money of his own) and Beatrice and Eugenie had taxpayer-funded security until they were adults.

NONE of the great grandchildren except Williams are prince and princesses.
The issue wasn't Archie not getting a title as a GREATgrandchild, but the RF wanting to change the law to prevent him from becoming a Prince when his grandfather became King. They literally wanted to change an entire law to single out a baby. The RF also lied that Harry and Meghan had turned down titles.

The RF changed a law to give Charlotte special treatment she was not entitled to, but wanted to change the law to deny Archie a right all monarch's grandchildren are entitled to.

I don't believe for a moment that any decision over protection has been based on Archie's race.
I don't believe for a second it was for any reason except race. They were scared of the optics of the UK's first biracial blood prince.

FFS, do people not know how to read? Meghan was told Archie would receive no security while she was pregnant, long before they started discussing leaving. Archie being denied security has nothing to do with them leaving.

And are you so gullible that you take it as truth everything that she says?

He may not have had his own security in the UK but he would have been protected.

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.

Except those "organisations" have come out and said Archie absolutely did need protection.

The RF decided to overrule the experts and ignore risk assessment, to single out Archie due to who his mother was.

There's no way in a million billion years that a baby who's all over ever newspaper in the world receiving hundreds of death threats from Neo Nazis has less need of protection than benign bowl of oatmeal Sophie Wessex opening a supermarket in Harrogate.

And are you so gullible that you take it as truth everything that she says? He may not have had his own security in the UK but he would have been protected.

And are you so gullible you take everything a notoriously corrupt organisation run on lies as gospel truth?

Archie would have been covered by his parents' security while he was with him but denying him his own security meant they couldn't do normal stuff like leave him with a nanny, have a nanny take him for a walk, or send him to kindergarten.

It’s surely without doubt that Archie would have been protected by default whilst living at either Kensington Palace or Frogmore Cottage. As senior working royals Harry and Meghan would have received protection and it’s likely, just like Beatrice and Eugenie did, Archie would have received protection whilst a child. At present Edward’s underage children do and that’s a reasonable precedent to follow. Once an adult, if not a working royal, why would he be treated any differently than, for example, Margaret’s children who were not titled Prince/ss either?

@PurpleCrocuses

And are you so gullible that you take it as truth everything that she says? He may not have had his own security in the UK but he would have been protected.

And are you so gullible you take everything a notoriously corrupt organisation run on lies as gospel truth?

Archie would have been covered by his parents' security while he was with him but denying him his own security meant they couldn't do normal stuff like leave him with a nanny, have a nanny take him for a walk, or send him to kindergarten.

Surely the only area up for discussion was who would pay for Archie’s protection so it’s ridiculous to say that two multimillionaires would not have been able to leave their child with his nanny or at a childcare setting because he wouldn’t have had protection when they could have simply paid for it if the tax payer didn’t.

@PurpleCrocuses

And are you so gullible that you take it as truth everything that she says? He may not have had his own security in the UK but he would have been protected.

And are you so gullible you take everything a notoriously corrupt organisation run on lies as gospel truth?

Archie would have been covered by his parents' security while he was with him but denying him his own security meant they couldn't do normal stuff like leave him with a nanny, have a nanny take him for a walk, or send him to kindergarten.

And I still don't know how if MM was asked to go back to acting, and H was going on his rf work. Who would have protected Archie then?

Seems to me like MM and Archie would have been sitting ducks !

Since she could bail out Andrew with his second house dept, I'm sure she could help out baby Archie.

@PurpleCrocuses

Anyone claiming a tiny newborn baby who's being subject to hundreds of death threats, racially abused by journalists, being sent anthrax in the post, and being targeted by Neo Nazi terrorists, should be denied basic protection just because of some stupid byzantine rule based on birth order, is crackers. Security is based on risk not just status.

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.

FFS, do people not know how to read? Meghan was told Archie would receive no security while she was pregnant, long before they started discussing leaving. Archie being denied security has nothing to do with them leaving. Archie definitely would not have been protected in the UK, that's the entire point. And Santa Barbara is not "far more dangerous" than a country where Neo Nazis get sent to prison for plotting to kill your family.

Andrew still has security and he's no longer a working royal. Beatrice and Eugenie still have security, it's just paid for by Andrew (which means the Queen, since Andrew doesn't have any money of his own) and Beatrice and Eugenie had taxpayer-funded security until they were adults.

NONE of the great grandchildren except Williams are prince and princesses.
The issue wasn't Archie not getting a title as a GREATgrandchild, but the RF wanting to change the law to prevent him from becoming a Prince when his grandfather became King. They literally wanted to change an entire law to single out a baby. The RF also lied that Harry and Meghan had turned down titles.

The RF changed a law to give Charlotte special treatment she was not entitled to, but wanted to change the law to deny Archie a right all monarch's grandchildren are entitled to.

I don't believe for a moment that any decision over protection has been based on Archie's race.
I don't believe for a second it was for any reason except race. They were scared of the optics of the UK's first biracial blood prince.

Why worry about optics? The public went mad for his mother. They flooded to see her on walkabouts and millions watched her wedding. Everyone wanted to see Archie when he was born, there was huge excitement.

@WaggishDancer

It’s surely without doubt that Archie would have been protected by default whilst living at either Kensington Palace or Frogmore Cottage. As senior working royals Harry and Meghan would have received protection and it’s likely, just like Beatrice and Eugenie did, Archie would have received protection whilst a child. At present Edward’s underage children do and that’s a reasonable precedent to follow. Once an adult, if not a working royal, why would he be treated any differently than, for example, Margaret’s children who were not titled Prince/ss either?

E&B had formal protection before 21 for their own, not under their parents. Archie would not have this. That's the whole point.

Charles has wanted to slim down the monarchy for years so I doubt that when they were told that Archie would never be a prince it was about race. Charles has long been annoyed at the antics of his brothers and wants to keep the royal family limited to the core family - that’s William and his family and not Harry and his because they’re in the same position as Edward and Andrew and will become increasingly irrelevant.

The royal family are probably a bunch of racist arseholes but we’ve been hearing about a slimmed down monarchy for years before Meghan married Harry.

@thecapitalsunited

Charles has wanted to slim down the monarchy for years so I doubt that when they were told that Archie would never be a prince it was about race. Charles has long been annoyed at the antics of his brothers and wants to keep the royal family limited to the core family - that’s William and his family and not Harry and his because they’re in the same position as Edward and Andrew and will become increasingly irrelevant.

The royal family are probably a bunch of racist arseholes but we’ve been hearing about a slimmed down monarchy for years before Meghan married Harry.

In that case why were they keeping H working. And why was it an issue for him to get demoted to the same level as his cousins.

W&K married ages ago, so plenty of opportunity to take everything away from him back then. I would question the timing too if I were H&M

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.”

it’s only dangerous when people know each other. So if Meghan and Harry know they are not safe around each other, it is very wise not to get a gun. The killing from outsiders can happen anywhere

PurpleCrocuses. Given that virtually no recent photos of Archie’s face exist, how can he be in newspapers around the world ?
You seem very knowledgeable about threats issued against Archie. How is that? Surely such information is not circulated widely?
There has been no indication of a my change in status for grandchildren of a monarch other than what Meghan said. Given she said she knew nothing of the RF, perhaps she was just confused (or lied)

@TooSpotty thank you for explaining that, I had missed it on other threads.

I'm presuming long term it'd be very hard to use met police security abroad? For arguments sake if Charles and Camilla decided to live in Canada, it's not realistic to send met police officers to be there security there?

Erm, there are court cases on ppl actually convicted for the threats. It's all over the papers who has the most threats (and thanks to the vicious papers and racists, H,M & C top the list). That is well known.

For reference which papers and when.? Not anything I’ve ever been interested in so would save readers here going on a wild goose chase for information

They can't have U.K. security abroad because U.K. police have no rights & can't bear arms legally. As this wasn't even a consideration at the time of Archies birth (as far as we're aware...) he would have been covered by his parents' security in the U.K.. Harry was an international protected person as a working royal and therefore any child of his was as well. (Considering that most children under 18 spend a lot of time with their parents and they were also living on protected properties - eg there is a no fly zone over Windsor grounds).

I didn't say this earlier but a lot of what Meghan said in the interview has been proven false or intentionally misleading (perpetuating falsehoods, as Meghan would say...). This is just one of the many things.

Pourmeawine. Does being an IPP confer higher levels of security or are all senior working royals classed as IPPs?

I think the issue is that Charlotte and Louis should not technically have been titled HRH either, until Charles becomes king. The rule is that children and grandchildren of the monarch are titled HRH, and the eldest child of the eldest child of the Prince of Wales, so George.

The queen granted Charlotte and Louis their HRH titles at birth which goes against convention, so why not Archie?

@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.

The Queen changed the first son rule to first child when Kate was pregnant with George.

Because they changed the rules about primogeniture, so they had to make all of William’s children prince or princess. Otherwise if the first had been a girl she would have been ‘only’ a Lady but heir to the throne and simultaneously outranked by a younger brother who was a prince.

@PurpleCrocuses

Anyone claiming a tiny newborn baby who's being subject to hundreds of death threats, racially abused by journalists, being sent anthrax in the post, and being targeted by Neo Nazi terrorists, should be denied basic protection just because of some stupid byzantine rule based on birth order, is crackers. Security is based on risk not just status.

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.

FFS, do people not know how to read? Meghan was told Archie would receive no security while she was pregnant, long before they started discussing leaving. Archie being denied security has nothing to do with them leaving. Archie definitely would not have been protected in the UK, that's the entire point. And Santa Barbara is not "far more dangerous" than a country where Neo Nazis get sent to prison for plotting to kill your family.

Andrew still has security and he's no longer a working royal. Beatrice and Eugenie still have security, it's just paid for by Andrew (which means the Queen, since Andrew doesn't have any money of his own) and Beatrice and Eugenie had taxpayer-funded security until they were adults.

NONE of the great grandchildren except Williams are prince and princesses.
The issue wasn't Archie not getting a title as a GREATgrandchild, but the RF wanting to change the law to prevent him from becoming a Prince when his grandfather became King. They literally wanted to change an entire law to single out a baby. The RF also lied that Harry and Meghan had turned down titles.

The RF changed a law to give Charlotte special treatment she was not entitled to, but wanted to change the law to deny Archie a right all monarch's grandchildren are entitled to.

I don't believe for a moment that any decision over protection has been based on Archie's race.
I don't believe for a second it was for any reason except race. They were scared of the optics of the UK's first biracial blood prince.

Yes!

Thank god someone has actually cleared it up!!!

This is it in a nutshell.
Absolute promonarchy spin by others trying to justify the shitty and racist behaviour being outted.

If Meghan had been standing on the steps holding Archie then he would have been protected by her security. Not suggesting she should have done that if she didn’t want to.

The security provided to the a royals is very high quality and Meghan is being ridiculous implying that Archie needed independent protection from his parents . For minor children it is provided on a household basis.