Cycling UK Forum

mjr wrote:

Psamathe wrote:Claims his security was withdrawn "I then got told, short notice, that security was going to be removed" - except now it's transpired

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/harry-and-meghan-were-warned-security-would-go-56ksj3lp7 wrote:The Duke and Duchess of Sussex were given ample warning that they risked losing their security if they stepped down from their royal roles, a police source has said.

The source, who was involved in deciding which royals should receive taxpayer-funded protection, directly contradicted Harry’s claims about the withdrawal of security he made in his interview with Oprah Winfrey.

Hi. I'm not a subscriber to The Times, so cannot see the full article. Does it actually say anywhere what "ample warning" is?

How long do we feel would be ample warning for someone to recruit new bodyguards? Do we expect retiring royals to just phone Rent-a-cop and take whoever turns out?

I have no "inside detail" but Independent says "The source said: “They had already been told that and they were told in advance that if you stopped being royals you can’t be assured that you’ll have automatic protection for the rest of your lives." (https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/meghan-harry-news-live-piers-latest-oprah-b1815657.html) - which says "if you stopped being a Royal" which means before they quit so if security was an issue they could have delayed quitting until they had whoever from wherever they needed in place. And if it's a big thing then you'd expect the person affected to have clarified and taken appropriate steps/adjusted the plan/whatever.

Ian

Psamathe wrote:I have no "inside detail" but Independent says "The source said: “They had already been told that and they were told in advance that if you stopped being royals you can’t be assured that you’ll have automatic protection for the rest of your lives." (https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/meghan-harry-news-live-piers-latest-oprah-b1815657.html) - which says "if you stopped being a Royal" which means before they quit so if security was an issue they could have delayed quitting until they had whoever from wherever they needed in place. And if it's a big thing then you'd expect the person affected to have clarified and taken appropriate steps/adjusted the plan/whatever.

If the allegations in the interview are true, then I don't think delaying quitting is a reasonable demand.

I'm sure you can see that telling them they wouldn't have protection for the rest of their lives isn't the same as notice that it will be withdrawn in less than a year and while Harry is still sixth in line.

I think the English throne has passed to someone who was theoretically even further from the throne at birth, through mixtures of deaths and politics. Since the Act of Union, Queen Victoria stands out as only fifth in line at birth.

mjr wrote:I think the English throne has passed to someone who was theoretically even further from the throne at birth, through mixtures of deaths and politics.

George I, Henry VII, Harold Godwinson, Cnut?

Jonathan

mjr wrote:

Psamathe wrote:I have no "inside detail" but Independent says "The source said: “They had already been told that and they were told in advance that if you stopped being royals you can’t be assured that you’ll have automatic protection for the rest of your lives." (https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/meghan-harry-news-live-piers-latest-oprah-b1815657.html) - which says "if you stopped being a Royal" which means before they quit so if security was an issue they could have delayed quitting until they had whoever from wherever they needed in place. And if it's a big thing then you'd expect the person affected to have clarified and taken appropriate steps/adjusted the plan/whatever.

If the allegations in the interview are true, then I don't think delaying quitting is a reasonable demand.

I'm sure you can see that telling them they wouldn't have protection for the rest of their lives isn't the same as notice that it will be withdrawn in less than a year and while Harry is still sixth in line.....

It's something I'd check on if I felt it was important. Should not be hard to check, just ask "What specific timescales and when will cover be guaranteed until?". Seems they had been warned so I don't see the

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/meghan-harry-oprah-interview-security-b1813818.html wrote:‘I never thought I would have my security removed,’ says Duke of Sussex

- it had been raised with them so why did he think "never" -maybe he just disbelieved what he'd been told ....

And again Ms Merkle "Meghan ‘personally pleaded’ to royal family" https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/meghan-harry-oprah-interview-security-b1813818.html yet it's apparently not the Royal Family who withdrew the security. And it seems it was about the funding of the security rather than anything else which one must assume would mean Harry could have said "I'll fund it short term until we get our own arrangements in place".

Ian

mjr wrote:I'm sure you can see that telling them they wouldn't have protection for the rest of their lives isn't the same as notice that it will be withdrawn in less than a year and while Harry is still sixth in line.

I think the English throne has passed to someone who was theoretically even further from the throne at birth, through mixtures of deaths and politics. Since the Act of Union, Queen Victoria stands out as only fifth in line at birth.

True, but Victoria's father had died relatively young and the three uncles also in line died with no surviving (legitimate) heirs. Right now there are five living heirs, the youngest of whom is likely to be alive in 2100 (born in 2018).

But it would be a can of worms if Harry did succeed....

Psamathe wrote:It's something I'd check on if I felt it was important. Should not be hard to check, just ask "What specific timescales and when will cover be guaranteed until?"

I defer to your greater expertise on how to be a Prince.

Edited to reply to the edit:

Psamathe wrote:And it seems it was about the funding of the security rather than anything else which one must assume would mean Harry could have said "I'll fund it short term until we get our own arrangements in place".

Which is indeed what he says he's done, but as he points out, he could only do that because his mother willed him money.

Perhaps an opportunity to reflect on having a monarch as head of state. Heredity hardly seems the best selection system but we seem to have done quite well with ER II. She has been the face of the country as it has emerged from Empire. Perhaps the problem is more one of all the rest of the cast and all the ceremonial increasingly having the air of Grand Fenwick.

It's hard to imagine the monarchy surviving into the next generation in anything like the shape it is now. I suspect that it's only a sort of respect for the present queen that keeps the daggers sheathed. She's been quite canny in some respects eg getting the Commonwealth leaders to anoint the Prince of Wales as the next head of the Commonwealth, but there's a limit.

mjr wrote:

Psamathe wrote:It's something I'd check on if I felt it was important. Should not be hard to check, just ask "What specific timescales and when will cover be guaranteed until?"

I defer to your greater expertise on how to be a Prince. :)

Edited to reply to the edit:

Psamathe wrote:And it seems it was about the funding of the security rather than anything else which one must assume would mean Harry could have said "I'll fund it short term until we get our own arrangements in place".

Which is indeed what he says he's done, but as he points out, he could only do that because his mother willed him money.

I thought they had to go stay in a friends house (Tyler Perry) in Canada and use his security. At one point Canada started paying (at the request of the Metropolitan Police, costing Canadian taxpayer $40,000), but then Canada refused to pay more. Uncertain of the chronology.

Ian

Trevor Phillips commented on some Harry incidents...

Dressing up in a Nazi Uniform at a party which might seem grossly offensive to Jewish people.

And

Calling an Army collegue a " little p*k* friend"!"

For both of which he had to apologise.

Embarrasing...

Al

Hi Al , We meet the old point - "Anti-social behaviour by Hooray Henry's in just high jinks, but if it is lads from the council estate it suddenly becomes loutish, crude behaviour"! Noblesse Oblige?
In these current times when the behaviour, or otherwise, of men is under scrutiny we must not allow any for of exceptions to be made from best practise, no "Boys will be boys" leeway for inappropriate behaviour!
Dressing up in offensive attire is not on, be it Nazi attire or walking the streets as a pole dancer! Some women think it is ok to cavort in a lewd fashion, but complain when men look with eyes on stalks at their attributes? Don't see many chaps doing Chippendale Impersonations! (Borat's excepted, which are offensive and should be dealt with harshly).
We don't need a specific safety code for women, what we need is respectful behaviour from us all. Man section of the society need protection from abuse, we can all cite groups that suffer abuse, even I as a Tricyclist get picked on? Create smiles, not offense! MM

Whether not not you like this couple, because of their status and platform they have given voice to some serious national issues: racism, mental health and misogyny

PS as Al says, Harry apologised. More than Johnson did.

Oldjohnw wrote:Whether not not you like this couple, because of their status and platform they have given voice to some serious national issues: racism, mental health and misogyny

PS as Al says, Harry apologised. More than Johnson did.

But one point seems to be that they have "given voice" in a way calculated to cause maximum reputational damage to the royal family and in a way which makes it impossible to have any sort of investigation because we don't know who's alleged to have said what.

We are left with the situation of reporters shouting questions from the sidelines, the Duke of Cambridge replying in broad terms and on the BBC news programme I was watching we cut to somebody saying that (my words) somebody from his privileged background is unqualified to comment.

Had he declined to comment, it would have been taken as mute acceptance of the allegations.

thirdcrank wrote:But one point seems to be that they have "given voice" in a way calculated to cause maximum reputational damage to the royal family and in a way which makes it impossible to have any sort of investigation because we don't know who's alleged to have said what.

We are left with the situation of reporters shouting questions from the sidelines, the Duke of Cambridge replying in broad terms and on the BBC news programme I was watching we cut to somebody saying that (my words) somebody from his privileged background is unqualified to comment.

Had he declined to comment, it would have been taken as mute acceptance of the allegations.

Yep, the whole thing is a sh t sh w.

Other than having little interest in the royals (not pro or against merely 'meh') it was one of the reasons I didn't care.
I've lived long enough and seen enough to know that even with the best of intentions people can't be relied on. In that respect nothing any of them say can be taken as gospel, all of it has some degree of warping of the truth and probably more importantly I can't rely on the press to tell it as it is.
Accepting that means there's little point in analysing it other than to test one's analytical abilities.

kwackers wrote:Yep, the whole thing is a sh t sh w.

Other than having little interest in the royals (not pro or against merely 'meh') it was one of the reasons I didn't care.
I've lived long enough and seen enough to know that even with the best of intentions people can't be relied on. In that respect nothing any of them say can be taken as gospel, all of it has some degree of warping of the truth and probably more importantly I can't rely on the press to tell it as it is.
Accepting that means there's little point in analysing it other than to test one's analytical abilities.

I would go a little further and say that we would be better off without them.

Their antics have provided us with ten pages of debate, but I am not sure what conclusion to draw from that.
There are other slebs whose doings generate vast realms of useless nonsense, so that may be their main function!

Mike Sales wrote:There are other slebs whose doings generate vast realms of useless nonsense, so that may be their main function!

The other slebs aren't often directing their ire/fire at the slebs who could potentially be heads of state of our countries, though.

I disagree with comrade thirdcrank, yet again, in that I feel that this was probably intended to provoke reform of the palace organisations because of the compassion Harry feels for his "trapped" father and brother, rather than aiming to damage the family. A proper investigation was never likely: who would conduct it anyway?