Originally Posted by Al_bina
Well … Given the fact that flashes can startle a horse and create a life-threatening situation for a rider, why does the Prince Charles’s security allows these things to take place? I assume that Heir Apparent of the stable democratic monarchy would not be against of having some privileges of Presidents from countries with ancient undemocratic regimes.
As for Prince Charles' grudges, it is called “showing human side” in the British Royal family. Reporters should get used to it.
I'm sure none of us really wants to get to the stage where, even taking a horse out means he would have to be surrounded by gun toting security officers.
It would be rather difficult for them to carry a firearm, let alone fire one, whilst tearing about the fields on horseback. His security team would have been mounted on quads or would have followed in Range Rovers, close enough to 'keep an eye open' without 'crowding' him.
As the ghastly media men and women were on a public road, with telephoto lenses, they felt it was their right to hound Charles. What a great pity we couldn't have called in the cavalry with their sabres!