If you were as fearful for your family's safety as Harry is....

[PostingForTheFirstTime]

...why would you want to have them participate in a really high-profile public bash?

Particularly one to celebrate an institution you have walked away from.

Genuinely puzzled.

Fair enough, ancientgran, and thanks for answering

@LittleBearPad

Between royal security being offered to non-royal public (Pippa), paid for (Camilla) and private weddings that should be toned down (Kate Moss), in all likelihood Harry will win.

You do know the police presence at Kate Moss’s wedding wouldn’t have been royal protection officers don’t you . They were normal bobbies to manage traffic etc.

As for Camilla information above linked to former police officers and for Pippa it was a security sweep - who knows why. But it wasn’t 24/7 close protection. It’s really not the same at all.

I am well aware of Kate not having 'royal' protection. I linked the post earlier on...........

I also asked the poster where they got the 'ex' or 'former' from, because I linked the article and diid said nothing about that.

I believe Camilla had all round security .

Same, Prince Charles flew in by helicopter he had two CP officers, and his aid with him. That's it.

I will say, his chief of security though/diary management guy who came to visit before and I saw only once, had a real Daniel Craig vibe about him, tall blonde man, piercing blue eyes. I genuinely blushed when he spoke to me 😳🤣 my manager wound me up all day about it.

He was a handsome, handsome man. I think I enjoyed his visit more than meeting Prince Charles 🤣

@LittleBearPad

Between royal security being offered to non-royal public (Pippa), paid for (Camilla) and private weddings that should be toned down (Kate Moss), in all likelihood Harry will win.

You do know the police presence at Kate Moss’s wedding wouldn’t have been royal protection officers don’t you . They were normal bobbies to manage traffic etc.

As for Camilla information above linked to former police officers and for Pippa it was a security sweep - who knows why. But it wasn’t 24/7 close protection. It’s really not the same at all.

I think the general public just think a police officer is a police officer is a police officer. They don't realise all the different specialists and levels for everything from who can drive a panda and who can drive say a transit full of other officers or who can carry guns or whatever. So many different qualifications and experiences.

The level of attention on them is nothing unusual

I don't ever remember there being 26 yes 26 articles in one day in the DFail for one person ever.

Still don't get the Beatlemania comment... there was no SM then. A very different time

What if they don't want to live in Montana? What if they know and are friendly with people where they are? Should they just go somewhere decided by others, and never be heard of again? They can do what they want, we don't pay for them.

[quote Cameleongirl]@rubicscubicle. Let’s hope they don’t try to participate in the Jubilee or do anything public in the UK for a few years, that would really help.[/quote]
Why would they not carry on with their lives as normal?
To appease the tabloids and deranged?

They will do as they please, I hope.

@Roussette

one at a time... 3 to cover 24 hours is what I mean

Not £1m then but still a hefty bill. You'd have to employ 5 officers to be sure there was always one on duty to cover days off, holidays, training days and a bit of leverage for sickness. Not cheap that's for sure and not an easy job. If dog walkers take a bullet for the dogs then protection officers are at risk.

I don't remember the details and I know I joked about Princess Anne and the attempted kidnapping but more than one officer took a bullet that day.

@Roussette

The level of attention on them is nothing unusual

I don't ever remember there being 26 yes 26 articles in one day in the DFail for one person ever.

Still don't get the Beatlemania comment... there was no SM then. A very different time

What if they don't want to live in Montana? What if they know and are friendly with people where they are? Should they just go somewhere decided by others, and never be heard of again? They can do what they want, we don't pay for them.

SM has made it very different, stuff used to be in the papers, on TV or before that on the newsreel at the cinema but nothing like you get now.

TheHairyDinosaur you should have been there when Marrgaret came to the Scout/Guide jamboree at Chatsworth

Remember Oliver Reed in his heyday? Like that, only about 6" taller ... SIGH

Totally agree ancientgran We remember that simple time, don't we?!

Now it's click click copy paste post click like tweet copy click click thumbs up thumbs down click

@ancientgran

William's children are the only GGC of the Queen to have titles though, it isn't like Archie was singled out. I don't know about protection, I'm assuming they don't.

Archie is the son of the future monarch, so you cannot really compare him to cousins.

But the point I was making was that, they said Archie would not get the title when Charles becomes king - that was the sticking point. To top it off, they linked the title to security (security has nothing to do with the title). In other words, if MM goes to tennis, and Harry goes to Senteballe, Archie should have protection while under the care of his nannies or whatever he is doing.

@ChiefInspectorParker

Apologies *@derxa*, humour misfire - upthread it was suggested that stories of policing of other events would be ignored in case they show that the police can be ‘hired’.

Sorry I realised that later

they said Archie would not get the title when Charles becomes king

Did they?

Who is 'they' - the Palace?

@Roussette

The level of attention on them is nothing unusual

I don't ever remember there being 26 yes 26 articles in one day in the DFail for one person ever.

Still don't get the Beatlemania comment... there was no SM then. A very different time

What if they don't want to live in Montana? What if they know and are friendly with people where they are? Should they just go somewhere decided by others, and never be heard of again? They can do what they want, we don't pay for them.

@Roussette

No one's saying they have to. They can do as they please.

The point is that you're painting them as persecuted by the tabloids; I'm saying that their behaviour guaranteed tabloid attention.

I said that after the OW interview, even if they had entirely hid away, they still would have had attention on them for years. They starred in one of the most watched interviews of all time, syndicated to 60 plus countries, trashing the RF.

They couldn't have more perfectly guaranteed that they'd remain in the limelight.

I'm not going to count the headlines, but more recently Amy Winehouse, Britney Spears, Adele etc have generated comparable attention. Tabloid attention is cheap; as I say Robbie Williams hasn't had a no.1 in decades and was on the front of The Sun today.

Yes, they're free to do what they want. But if they opt to court celebrity with explosive, globally promoted interviews, intermittent outbursts against the RF, and regular court cases, then there's nothing to complain about when that does generate attention.

No one's saying they have to. They can do as they please

Good
We're agree on something. That's what they're doing thank god.

We differ in our opinions on the rest.

@PostingForTheFirstTime

...why would you want to have them participate in a really high-profile public bash?

Particularly one to celebrate an institution you have walked away from.

Genuinely puzzled.

Ridiculous thread.

None of us can know what it is to be a Prince. Their lives have been scrutinised since they were in their mother's tummy.

You cannot compare your life with theirs, nor should you judge.

Just look at the daily onslaught of abusive posts IN HERE about PH and MM. it is appalling.

What cunning devils they are. They say one thing and do another and never in the way you expect. Making you feel unwelcome by paying for all your clothes and giving you places to live, underhandedly dissing you by inviting you for Christmas and walking you down the aisle at your very expensive second wedding. Sorry I mean unwanted spectacle. Okay I suppose that was rather dreadful of them, to absolutely insist on a such a big wedding despite Meghan’s resolute disdain for the spotlight. Horrid.

It's called PR.
Dan Wootten himself proudly pronounced how the Rf are the ones leaking stories on H&M. He broke the exit story among others.

twitter.com/_mrswanted/status/1228770371156967425

@sweetbellyhigh

The thing is... the mindset with some of the british public is we own members of the RF. And some cannot get their heads round the fact... when a member leaves royal duties and supports themselves... we don't own them anymore. And our views are irrelevant.
But that person will always be related to those that are still in the gilded cage.

I don't think Harry will be the last to walk away. It's hard to keep the institution relevant and the subjects onside. There will be big changes in time to come.

[quote Roussette]@sweetbellyhigh

The thing is... the mindset with some of the british public is we own members of the RF. And some cannot get their heads round the fact... when a member leaves royal duties and supports themselves... we don't own them anymore. And our views are irrelevant.
But that person will always be related to those that are still in the gilded cage.

I don't think Harry will be the last to walk away. It's hard to keep the institution relevant and the subjects onside. There will be big changes in time to come.[/quote]
This ^

@Roussette

No one's saying they have to. They can do as they please

Good
We're agree on something. That's what they're doing thank god.

We differ in our opinions on the rest.

@Roussette

You disagree that they did an interview with Oprah Winfrey which was syndicated in over 60 countries?

You disagree that it was one of the most watched interviews of all time?

• This is factual information. You do seem to be struggling with that again!

Or do you disagree that this was bound to create lasting media attention? That's my opinion, but it seems a logical conclusion that if you have an interview with Oprah, promote it and show it in 60+ countries, then you may get a lot of attention.

I've not read the full thread and am not up to date on my royal family/Meghan and Harry knowledge....

But surely it's understandable that he's sensitive about this. His mum was killed after being chased by paparazzi and if I'm understanding right he and his family were chased by paparazzi on a recent visit?

And wasn't his mum apportioned a degree of blame for her own death because she rejected royal protection and chose instead private security?

www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1442156/rince-harry-claims-oprah-winfrey-no-protection-palace-princess-diana-security-divorce-spt

Isn't what he's asking for fairly understandable in this context?! Again my disclaimer is that this isn't something I've followed/bothered about - I just stumbled upon this thread.

No. I didn't say that as you well know. I disagree with the basic premise of your post.... apart from them being free to live their own lives. We agree on something, I take that as a positive!

I have no idea if it was the most watched interview ever, I'm not obsessed by it. 🤣

Not struggling at all... except with your very lengthy posts to me