goudie,
I wasn't comparing the "the Royal family exposure to risks, with that of innocent children".
I was, fairly obviously in my opinion, comparing the risks run by children meeting members of the Royal Family to the risks run by children visiting a military establishment, or any other possible terrorist target.
These days possible terorist targets that might be visited by children could include, railway/tube/bus stations, museums, sporting events, hospitals, airports, etc, etc. One could argue that terrorists may be more likely to attack targets that they know not to be defended at all, in which case a military facility could be seen as a safer place for children to visit than a crowded but unprotected railway station in a city centre.
If you deliberately wish to misinterpret would other posters say, I would suggest that you will rapidly run out of sympathy from anyone else posting on this thread.
I have taken the time and effort to try to meaningfully explain my point of view, as opposed to your, "work it out yourself" type comment to Alpineskier.
Given that this is obviously a serious discussion, as opposed to one where humour and banter are loose and running, perhaps you could give your responses equal care and consideration.