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.

@Jamboree01

Yes as they dropped down the line of succession. Harry had dropped down the line of succession AND has refused to be a working royal.

Williams children are children of the future king. George is a future king. They are in direct line of succession.

It wasn't to do with succession at the time. It was to do with lack of need.

The security bill at the time had to be trimmed massively (loads of royals all had 24 hour security at the time) and, to Andrew's annoyance, B & E were deemed not to be at risk levels that meant they needed security.

Place in succession doesn't matter. If threats suddenly came in specifically against Louise Windsor or Mia Tindall or Margharita Armstron-Jones they'd be given security.

Yes as they dropped down the line of succession. Harry had dropped down the line of succession AND has refused to be a working royal.

Williams children are children of the future king. George is a future king. They are in direct line of succession.

It wasn't to do with succession at the time. It was to do with lack of need.

The security bill at the time had to be trimmed massively (loads of royals all had 24 hour security at the time) and, to Andrew's annoyance, B & E were deemed not to be at risk levels that meant they needed security.

Place in succession doesn't matter. If threats suddenly came in specifically against Louise Windsor or Mia Tindall or Margharita Armstrong-Jones they'd be given security.

@JustLyra I was pointing out to the previous poster this exact point - that Beatrice and Eugenie lost their protection on a risk-assessed basis, not just because they had grown up/gone down the list of succession, and that it was in the context of a review of royal protection following government spending cuts. Over various threads I have seen the misunderstanding over and over again that what happened to them is some sort of blueprint for the protection of royal children but it really isn't, and it's driving me mad to see the same misconception repeated over and over again.

It was all covered (more or less) accurately in the media a decade ago so not secret - although the coverage wasn't entirely right so posting a link would just lead us down different rabbit holes I suspect!

@TooSpotty I think that’s one of the reasons clarity had to be made on Archie and security.

Meghan stated that they were told he wouldn’t have security because he wasn’t having a title.

If that was accurate and someone told them that in that specific way then we should know because a) security isn’t based on title and b) who said it and do they get to choose who had security or not?

Also with the high profile nature of the threats against Harry and Meghan even if they were way further down the line is expected they’d be given security at that time. It’s crazy that people think there is (or should be) some sort of rule that says “No 1-5 get security. 6 onward you’re on your own”.

Now once they moved abroad, that’s fair enough. If you take yourself out of the protection zone then, much like post-Divorce Diana declining security, that’s your choice. While they were here though to say the child didn’t need security is just bizarre.

Sadly I think that Meghan has been proven to misrepresent things so I don't think we can take what she's saying about it as the full truth. It may be "her truth" but it's not necessarily the full facts of the matter. We can debate all we want but as an infant, as a child of working royals, living in royal palaces/homes, Archie would have been well catered for with regard to security and protection for as long as Harry, Meghan and he were regarded as in need of it.

Given current headlines, I’m not exactly sure you want Met Police protection.

@LolaNova

Given current headlines, I’m not exactly sure you want Met Police protection.

We can't judge the entire metropolitan police based on one member of staff.

@JustLyra I was pointing out to the previous poster this exact point - that Beatrice and Eugenie lost their protection on a risk-assessed basis, not just because they had grown up/gone down the list of succession

But the risk assessment would include their ages and status.

@pourmeawine

Sadly I think that Meghan has been proven to misrepresent things so I don't think we can take what she's saying about it as the full truth. It may be "her truth" but it's not necessarily the full facts of the matter. We can debate all we want but as an infant, as a child of working royals, living in royal palaces/homes, Archie would have been well catered for with regard to security and protection for as long as Harry, Meghan and he were regarded as in need of it.

I agree - I genuinely doubt there was a conversation which went "he's not going to be a prince so he'll never be entitled to protection" as we know that's not even how it works. It's not even up to the RF!

As a non-senior, non-working royal he wouldn't (as an independent person) get automatic protection. As the child of senior working royals he'd be covered by their protection and the need for security for him as he grew up would be assessed just like the rest of the family.

I suspect it's more likely they were told that it wouldn't be guaranteed and drew their own conclusions as to why. Probably conflating multiple conversations like they have elsewhere.

It actually seems like Archie's title and status was a big deal to them. Maybe the different treatment vs the Cambridge kids was one of the biggest events which caused Harry to reallly acknowledge the reality that although they'd been treated similarly in the past, the future for his family vs William's was really quite different.

@TenaciousOnePointOne, just to expand on what I meant when I originally said Meghan’s claims Archie wouldn’t be kept safe doing the traditional post birth hospital photo op were not credible, I thought she was saying there would be no security and if so I did not find it credible there would be no security.

However, I learnt from TooSpotty’s helpful comments that there can be different levels of security so when Meghan said Archie would not be safe she was almost certainly not saying as I originally thought she may be doing so - and why I started this thread to seek clarity on what she meant by saying Archie was not safe doing the traditional post birth hospital photo op - that there would be no security, but most likely she assessed the security offered as not safe. She of course has every right to make that assessment, find it not safe enough and not do it.

[quote sashh]**@JustLyra I was pointing out to the previous poster this exact point - that Beatrice and Eugenie lost their protection on a risk-assessed basis, not just because they had grown up/gone down the list of succession

But the risk assessment would include their ages and status.[/quote]
Yes, the risk assessment would include all sorts of factors. But the point I made upthread, and that JustLyra has made, is that their protection was removed as part of a shift in the approach to protection, when it moved to a far more tightly risk assessed model. In fact, their lifestyles as independent young people would probably have made them more deserving of protection than their teenage selves if there had been any threat towards them.

To keep referring to them losing their protection when they became adults, or slid down the line of succession, is just a red herring.

We know that Harry has a strong dislike of the media.

Meghan seems to want to control her engagements but isn't anti spotlight per se.

Meghan says she believes Archie would not have been entitled to security because he wouldn't be a prince.
We know this isn't true. He would / may still become a Prince once his Grandfather accedes to the throne & as spotty explains upthread, security is based on risk assessment and not titles

So the question for me, is how did Meghan come to believe these things were a) true and b) linked?

Could someone have told her?
And could that someone be close to home?

My family don't understand me is one of the oldest lines in the book after all.

Non working royals, quite rightly, don’t get security paid for by the public. They are wealthy enough to provide their own security. I doubt very much that they weren’t offered it privately in some way if there was a perceived threat.

And there’s the difference- I don’t know who those other two children are because they are never in front of the cameras or spoken about in public. That’s the difference.

Things weren’t changed because the RF are so racist and despise a tiny little child so much that they prevented him from having security. I’m not royalist and even I don’t believe that.

If they went and lived the private, non royal, life that they claim to desire so much (without titles)- they wouldn’t need security so much.

They have everything they could possibly want and another little beautiful child on the way so I don’t know why they are continuing to court networks and shout ‘woe is me.’

But they won’t as they have deals and 💰 to make out of who Harry is.

If they think that Oprah and other network bigwigs are going to look after their interests any more than the RF do, I think they will be very sadly mistaken.

They will be chewed up and spat out once they’ve squeezed the last little bit of information/ disinformation about The RF.

There was one winner from this interview and it was Oprah.

There was one winner from this interview and it was Oprah.

Indeed

Slightly off topic but If Charles dies before the Queen would that mean Archie would not be entitled to be a Prince? It would mean he would only ever be the great grandson and an nephew of the monarch and those relationships aren't covered in the letters patent.

Interesting one Petunia! I think you're right, it would skip him unless William issued a specific variation. Which he might not be feeling very inclined to do!

@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.

Prince Edward's children aren't a prince and princess - they're Lady Louise and Viscount Severn: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Edward,_Earl_of_Wessex

Archie could use the title Earl of Dumbarton. But it seems that they'd rather him not have a title than have a title which isn't Prince.

@bakingdemon Edward’s children are HRH Prince and Princess, but their parents opted to use the style of Earl’s children. I posted a quote from and interview Sophie Wessex confirming that earlier in the thread (I don’t have the link handy just now).

Archie couldn’t use Earl of Dumbarton as Harry uses that title in Scotland (similar to Charles using Duke of Rothesay and William using his Strathearn title).

@PetuniaButterworth

Slightly off topic but If Charles dies before the Queen would that mean Archie would not be entitled to be a Prince? It would mean he would only ever be the great grandson and an nephew of the monarch and those relationships aren't covered in the letters patent.

Yes, it means he’d never be Prince.

Also Harry would never be HRH The Prince Henry either as only children of the monarch have the “The” designation

It also would mean William would never be Duke of Cornwall as that is specifically for the eldest son of the Monarch.

[quote JustLyra]@bakingdemon Edward’s children are HRH Prince and Princess, but their parents opted to use the style of Earl’s children. I posted a quote from and interview Sophie Wessex confirming that earlier in the thread (I don’t have the link handy just now).

Archie couldn’t use Earl of Dumbarton as Harry uses that title in Scotland (similar to Charles using Duke of Rothesay and William using his Strathearn title).[/quote]
This (and various other articles I found) say that Archie could use the Dumbarton title - if he's not using it then it's probably a result of Harry and Meghan's decision:
time.com/5585816/royal-baby-archie-harrison-title/

The number of posts shows how complex this is! I'm sure the RF would have offered protocol lessons - I saw one report that one of the Queen's senior ladies in waiting was made available to Meghan to help her navigate all this stuff, but she wasn't interested. She thought she could reshape protocol to suit her.

British security aren't permitted to be armed in the states unless for state visits, which would mean a huge risk to both the royals who move there and the security force guarding them.

Sensible option if they were so worried was to stay put.

Maybe they need to look up parenting courses. If I could suggest one that several Celebrity parents might take:

'How To Be a Boring Fart and Resist the Temptation to Use Your Child for Media-Exposure Cunningly Disguised as Good Parenting'.

@bakingdemon I know there’s a few that have said he could use it, but he’d have to use Baron Kilkeel. Harry was listed as Earl of Dumbarton in a court circular for a trip to Scotland so he’s using it as his Scottish title.

I think the articles have just assumed a Archie could use Harry’s next down title, like Viscount Severn, without realising that as it’s a Scottish one Harry could be using it as Charles and William do with theirs.

As far as I understand it, Beatrice and Eugenie were entitled as grandchildren of the current monarch.
Archie is a great-grandchild, therefore the comparison isn’t valid.
The law changed for Williams children before George was born.
This was done to correct the sexism of the laws as they were, which meant had the first Cambridge child been a girl, she would have been outranked by any subsequent boys, even though she was the heir to the throne.
The fact the first baby was a boy made this irrelevant, and I wonder if that’s why people are getting confused, and instead are seeing it as ‘well, she did it for Williams kids, so why not Harrys’

The law change for Williams children has far reaching effects, (or could do, depending if the monarchy survives).

The law change for Harry would have been nothing but a law change for Harry.

I think the one thing that bugged me from the interview was the conflation between the security thing, and the Charles ‘slimming down the monarchy’ thing.

She’s saying that they wanted to change the law about making him a prince when Charles became king.
Even if that was the case, it’s not surprising as 1, Charles has been saying that for years, and 2, even if that was the case, it has no bearing on the security issue as it stands anyway.