Royal security - who gets it, who should get it?

[wordler]

It seems as though RAVEC will be meeting to reconsider the security needs of the Sussexes I thought it might be interesting to have a thread to contain discussions about it rather than getting lost in the various other topics.

RAVEC = Royal and VIP Executive Committee

For security reasons the entire make-up of the committee isn't usually disclosed but it's thought to be a ten person committee with members from the Home Office, the Metropolitan Police, the Royal household, National Security Secretariat representing the Cabinet office and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.

It's decisions are informed by the Risk Management Board, a sub committee of police officers, security service officials who conduct the risk management and threat assessments.

The board considers and evaluates threat level, public exposure, public profile, and operational considerations (how proportionate should the response be to the threat identified)

Security provided can be full-time 24/7 armed close protection, event specific, or visit-based cover.

24/7 close protection: currently automatic for monarch and heir and their families, PM, some Cabinet members, former PMs, some MPs and former MPs who had specific jobs which put them at risk.

Event-specific: Other working royals when on official business,

Visit-specific: Foreign heads of state and dignitaries coming to the UK, up until the move this is what Harry was offered (he would tell them he was coming and what his plans were and the Risk Management Board would do a risk assessment and provide security if necessary.)

For the 24/7 close protection - apart from the monarch and heir and the former PMs who are currently protected for life, this protection may only last a specific period of time, for example former Northern Ireland secretaries who might be facing a specific targeted threat for a period of time but are downgraded later into their retirement.

It's estimated the the former PMs get a 15 person team to cover their 24/7 needs at a cost of between £1.2 million and £3 million per former PM annually. (Liz Truss!)

Before 2011 these royals all received the 24/7 armed police protection.

Queen, Prince Phillip, Charles, William, Harry, Andrew, Anne, Edward, Sophie, Beatrice and Eugenie.

There was considerable public backlash to the cost of funding this full protection to the non-working royals such as Beatrice and Eugenie particularly after Eugenie had an extensive gap year travelling and partying all over the world.

It led to a huge review which removed 24/7 coverage from everyone apart from Monarch, the immediate heir, and their direct spouses/young children.

Then it was engagements only protection for working royals like Anne, Edward and Sophie, and no public paid security for Beatrice and Eugenie (Andrew was forced to pay for private security when needed.)

The two outliers to this were Andrew and Harry who kept their 24/7 protection through the 2011 review.

Harry was slightly more understandable as he was an active duty army officer at the time and high up the line of succession before William had children. But I suspect that even if he hadn't left with Meghan he would very likely have been downgraded to a situation like Anne and Edward in time as the Wales kids got older.

Andrew stepped down from the trade envoy position in 2011 but was still 4th in line - however it's shocking that he only lost his tax payer security in 2022.

Well I don’t think the non entity that is Liz truss should get it.

i don’t think the Sussex lot need it. Beatrice and Eugenie seem to cope ok without it. Nobody has kidnapped them yet. I’m sure Harry will be ok.

Of course this is about Harry.

Well Harry is the catalyst for this thread because he's been campaigning quite hard for his 24/7 security to be restored - including a very expensive court case.

And this week we have learned that because Harry and his family have relocated to the UK the Risk Management Board will reassess their threat levels and decide what is needed - which might result in no change, some police protection or back to 24/7 (less likely).

However it's an interesting topic in a wider sense when you see just how much it cost the tax payer to cover all the people who currently receive this option.

I think it security like this should be on a needs basis.

Not a wants basis or an exact same set up depending on job title or the likes.

For example if there was a sudden threat against Princess Anne I’d expect her security to be upped. Equally if there was a sudden threat against The Duchess of Gloucester or Gabriella Windsor I’d expect it to be given appropriately.

If their intelligence shows Theresa May needed more security than Tony Blair then I’d expect it to be given appropriately.

Years ago I was a witness in a court case and I was given security for a period as it was necessary, and appropriate, at that time. Wouldn’t get it, or want it, now as it’s not necessary or appropriate.

It should be entirely needs based.

She was head of state and therefore privy to state secrets. (Length of time not really relevant)
She’s therefore a threat to national security if she was kidnapped etc, so gets security, which makes total sense to me.

She was head of state

No she (Liz Truss) wasn't. She was head of government.

Honestly the amount of PMs we go through it must be costing the country a fortune! If the PM was privy to state secrets and therefore needs such security what about every single cabinet member? Because surely they must discuss such stuff before making decisions regarding national and international matters in cabinet meetings? The PM can’t not disclose stuff before expecting the cabinet to make decisions 🤷‍♀️

I think it’s a combination of heightened threat to the person because they are a symbol of the UK for a particular period - not just what they might know.

So a former PM during a particular war might face a rising threat because a terror group wants to get revenge or settle an old score. That’s why other MPs and Cabinet ministers do also qualify sometimes for the 24/7 protection based on a specific role they performed.

But as the PM can be seen as a revenge target for many different areas there is currently a blanket rule for them. Other MPs are on a case by case basis.

Interesting thread @wordler, I will be following along with great curiosity.👍

Why won't Ham pay for their own security if they want it so badly?
King Charles made it crystal clear they won't be doing royal engagements so they should have no need to have any taxpayers money spent on them. They are private citizens (who are now demanding to be called public figures!)

Is the meeting this week the standard 28 advance warning one - or the full review PH has demanded? Or both?

It is interesting that he has let it be known that his only security is the phone number or a liaison officer and that M,A and L currently have no protection from UK (assume they all have their own private security).

Has he given up his demands for armed security? Or does he ‘just’ want 24/7 for each of them.

I think Harrys children need security more than some of the former PMs. (Until adulthood)

Why won't Ham pay for their own security if they want it so badly?

They want armed security with full access to intelligence information. They can't pay for that.

They could pay for gun-toting private security in the us, but not in the uk.

Another reason to not change prime minister every other year.

I thought it was rather interesting to read the relevant sentence from KC3's letter in light of the royal household representation in RAVEC.

'Any operational security issues should continue to be directed to the relevant Police authorities.'

This suggests to me that KC3 is trying to distance himself from such issues - although he does seem to have a (perhaps minor) influence - in the hope that, should the committee decide in Prince Harry's favour given his new circumstances, the public don't think the Monarchy is pulling strings behind the scenes and there is a backlash.

I trust the experts i.e. RAVEC to make this decision on behalf of the general public (and taxpayer) because they may also may be at risk if an attempt was made to harm a member of the RF.

But if they are not working royals there's nothing that can be done. Thry are private citizens & can pay for whatever security they want themselves. Not the taxpayers problem

On what basis do you say that?

And don't say because people are 'frothing' online because that's not a good enough reason.

Maybe they need to go back to America then.

harry’s children are in the same position as Edward’s were back in 2011- grandchildren of the monarch- and they were afforded no security. Edward and Sophie have security at events as working members of the royal family. On this basis no security for the Sussex family.

Because unfortunately for them (the children that is) their parents actions have made them high profile targets for kidnapping.

Yes it is if article 2 is engaged, and that may depend upon whether direct threats have been made or upon the terrorist threat level, or both.

Again, on what basis do you say that? They're not especially rich, and their parents are not in positions of power. It's hard to see why they would be targetted more than the children of other rich or important parents who do not get taxpayer funded protection. After all, they managed fine without it in California, didn't they?

Perhaps the parents should have considered that when they decided to move to the UK. They were fully aware the security situation before they moved as it was all over the media in the summer that it was apparently too unsafe for them to even visit the UK!