HRH Prince Archie Harrison 0f Sussex and HRH Princess Lilibet Diana of Sussex

[Price21210]

Will Sussex be their last names? How does that work?

When they were working royals, Harry and Meghan both had round the clock security. I'm not sure where you heard otherwise, but it's not true.

Meghan said a lot of things during the interview, but I'm surprised that anyone would still take them at face value, especially at this point in time. Babies don't generally get a private security detail. Did she think an elite armed police officer would be assigned to stand around his cot?

• Queen, Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Charles, Camilla, Prince William and Kate all get 24/7 police protection.
• Princess Anne, Prince Edward and Sophie are guarded only when on official duties and engagements.
• Queen's granddaughters Zara Tindall, Princess Beatrice and Eugenie do not have state-funded security.

More items...•10 Mar 2021 www.dailymail.co.uk › news Royal Family members who DON'T get police protection ... - Daily Mail

Inteteresting choice of source!

Please check the date and tell me how this contradicts my claim that Harry and Meghan got full police protection while working royals.

Did she think an elite armed police officer would be assigned to stand around his cot?

I think it was more about when he attended school/preschool etc..

You 'think' that's what it was about? Or did she actually say that? What evidence did she offer, or are you just uncritically believing her, despite all the, shall we say, 'inconsistencies' shown in the Oprah interview over the past two years?

In any case, Archie's school days were several years in the future. The security requirements for members of the royal family are under constant review. I find it extremely hard to believe that the British security services would ignore any genuine risks to the grandson of a king.

George and his siblings had a security guard going to school and staying there with him. Same with Charles, I recall. Presumably that has not changed.

When they were working, if H&M were to go away somewhere and leave Archie, he would have needed a guard. Same when his nanny takes him out for walks.

So no matter what, he was supposed to have his own security.

As I said, I’m happy to stand corrected.

You 'think' that's what it was about? Or did she actually say that? What evidence did she offer, or are you just uncritically believing her, despite all the, shall we say, 'inconsistencies' shown in the Oprah interview over the past two years?

Yes, ‘I think’. What is wrong with writing that? I do admit I am a bit biased about Meghan. While I think she can sound a bit silly at times (the cut interview) I still have enormous regard for her work ethic and also a lot of empathy for the racism she has experienced from the tabloid media rags and social media.

Work ethic? Is that a joke?

No

I guess what's 'wrong with writing that' is the fact that Meghan was strongly implying that her son would be 'denied security' because one of his grandparents is black. That's a very serious accusation. Surely serious accusations, or implications, should be backed up by evidence, no matter how impressed some might be by the supposed 'work ethic' of the person making them?

George and his siblings had a security guard going to school and staying there with him. Same with Charles, I recall. Presumably that has not changed.

Can you even begin to imagine how boring that is for a fully trained PPO.
Listening to the wheels on the bus day in day out.
What a job

As I said before I’m happy to stand corrected, IcedPurple

I’ve looked and you are right Meghan did have full time security before they left.

But she seems to have sincerely believed Archie would not get the same, and that she had been told he would not.

I choose to believe her.

I don't think 'sincere' is a word I'd use about any of the claims made in that 'interview'.

But couldn't Meghan have used her outstanding 'work ethic' to do some basic research? Even I know that the security needs of the royal family are under constant review. Unless you're one of the most senior royals, a group which does not include Harry or Meghan, and certainly not their children, there's no guarantee that you'll have full taxpayer funded security at any time in the future. So nobody could have said what security arrangements would or would not be made for Archie by the time he started school. Being generous, Meghan's claims were either poorly informed or disingenuous.

As she only works 1 hour a week for archwell you're probably not wrong on casting aspersions 🤣🤣

Unless you're one of the most senior royals, a group which does not include Harry or Meghan,

On earth are talking about.
H&M were among the most senior royals. Infact their office was with KP. The hierarchy was literally HMQE at BK, C&C at CH, K&M heading KP and H&M working at KP then the rest all falling under BK.

This means that BK/CH/KP had their own comms depts etc. But even Edward had to fall with the rest(with Beatrice, Andrew, Eugenie and everyone else) under BK.

H&M were even given their own SR.

Lol, I did think of that.

But on the flip side, how amused would you be by the reminder of wide eyed little ones. At least, you're not the one changing nappies 😄

I thought you were ignoring me?

If you look at the court documents for Harry's case against the Home Office, you will see that RAVEC place people into several different categories. The first category is those who receive security regardless of the perceived level of risk. The names were redacted but presumably it includes the most senior royals and high level political figures. Harry and Meghan never belonged to that group, even when working royals. They were at 'level two', which means that their security requirements were subject to review and possible downgrading, depending on intelligence assessments.

If you've got an issue with that, take it up with RAVEC and ask them "On earth are talking about."