The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #321  
Old 03-25-2013, 11:17 AM
EIIR's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Somewhere, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,624
The role of PPO to the royals is pretty bloody sweet. When Eugenie was on her gap year, like 99% of backpackers she stayed in youth hostels and travelled economy. Her two bodyguards, however, were put up in 4-star hotels and travelled business class as their contracts stipulated, while also getting at least £200 per day 'spending money' above and beyond their normal pay.

If one has small children at home, I can see how the travelling would probably not be ideal, but it's a job that's certainly got very generous terms and conditions.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #322  
Old 05-20-2013, 11:19 PM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,662
Queen's protection reviewed after police worker sold information to newspapers:
Queen's protection reviewed after police worker sold information to newspapers - Telegraph
__________________

__________________
"If you are always trying to be normal you will never know how amazing you can be."

Dr. Maya Angelou
Reply With Quote
  #323  
Old 03-23-2014, 10:40 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Rochester, United States
Posts: 27
Hmm...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Molly2101 View Post
I agree that some of the protection for the family should be taken away...
With all possible respect, I have to ask how you are such an expert on how much security, members of the Royal Family ought to have. Do you work with the Security Services? I have several close relatives in police protection (in the US) who have provided security for a sitting President and two Vice Presidents. Cutting six protection officers in half gives us three. Presuming three protection officers are for Edward, Sophie and the children around-the-clock, that means one protection officer for each eight hour shift. Unfortunately one bodyguard, even if they are highly trained, would never be a match for multiple attackers. The last armed attack on the royals (40 years ago last week), resulted in the one policeman being seriously wounded, with several other unarmed officers and bystanders also being seriously injured. That kidnapping attempt (on the Princess Royal), led to drastic changes in royal security, which is what we are discussing. The Princess Royal admitted herself if there had been more than one attacker, she probably would have gone with them. Imagine Al Qaeda or another terrorist group with automatic weapons opening fire. Two or three bodyguards with semiautomatic handguns, even well-trained, would be no match. Sorry.
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #324  
Old 03-23-2014, 01:29 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,315
Fortunately for thse that live in the UK, there are extremely strict gun laws. There are automatic or semi automatics weapons in the country.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #325  
Old 03-24-2014, 12:11 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Rochester, United States
Posts: 27
I know

I am well aware of the strict gun laws in the UK and that the vast majority of police officers are unarmed and that only those in Specialist divisions like Royalty and Diplomatic Protection, Special Branch, the Nuclear Constabulary, Airport duties and the Police Service of Northern Ireland are armed as a matter of course. The rest of the forces have Authorised Firearms units in the event an armed response is required. Unfortunately terrorists by their very nature, are unconcerned with the rule of law. I am certain that they (unfortunately) can get their hands on automatic weapons and other devices of mayhem if they wish to. That is why places like the Houses of Westminster, Downing Street, Buckingham Palace and Heathrow are patrolled by armed officers 24 hours a day and people like the Prime Minister, the Queen and other senior royals and members of the Cabinet have the benefit of 24-hour armed protection units. They are prime terrorist targets.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #326  
Old 03-24-2014, 01:53 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by democratnmonocole View Post
They are prime terrorist targets.
Yes, as is everyone on the planet. I do not mean to rattle cages but those who died during 9/11 became prime terrorist targets by accident when they all got on those four planes. That made a statement. A local mosque is a prime terrorist target, the local catholic school is a prime terrorist target, a united kingdom serving soldier walking back to his barracks is a prime terrorist target. They would all make headlines, and they would all make a profound statement to whoever was ordering or carrying out the attack.

I'm not by any means saying that the protection of heads of state is not important, however in every day light it should be rationalised and should be used for whom it is needed most desperately and for what can be afforded. We are all prime terrorist targets but we all cannot afford the constant protection that a royal family or president gets.

Protection should be used when and if it is needed IMO. The entire royal family does not need 24/7 armed guarded police watched protection.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #327  
Old 03-24-2014, 03:30 PM
RoyalDaisy's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
...Protection should be used when and if it is needed IMO. The entire royal family does not need 24/7 armed guarded police watched protection.
This subject comes up in the press on a regular basis and the response from the Security Services is that it is constantly reviewed. And with budgetary constraints I think that is true.

Not all the royals have 24/7 protection - but they do have security when on public engagements. It is obviously intrusive and I think that if the royals could cut it back they probably would. However, the police got caught out 40 years ago with 3 people being shot. THey dont want to get caught again

I think that the least said by the Security Services the better, even tho the press and republicans hate that otherwise the arrangements would be leaked.

I accept that security reviews take place and that the level of security is appropriate to the level of threat.
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #328  
Old 03-24-2014, 05:17 PM
Molly2101's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by democratnmonocole View Post
With all possible respect, I have to ask how you are such an expert on how much security, members of the Royal Family ought to have...
I am not an expert but the security of the BRF is a topic that is covered in the press a lot. It's hard not to know a lot about the security of the family.

I think the RF do need protection, but I don't think all of them need it 24/7, which they don't all have now due to cutbacks. I know Anne, Andrew and Edward have one with them all the time, whether they are on duty or out with their family, but Sophie and Tim do not have one. Sophie only has one when she is doing engagements but not when she is doing the school run. I think that's fair enough as she doesn't need one then. I did read an article about her security and her friends used to find it annoying that he would accompany her all the time, as they would have to pay for an extra ticket at the theatre or an extra table at dinner.

Sophie upset as bodyguard axed

"One positive outcome of the removal of Sophie’s policeman is it may be cheaper for her friends.

Explains one: “If you invite her to join you at a restaurant you’re also expected to pay for the bodyguard who sits at the next table. If you take her to the theatre you have to fork out for another ticket for him because he has to be next to her. And Sophie isn’t very good at offering to pay you back.”

What I am saying is I totally agree that not all of them need constant protection. Sophie may have lost hers 24/7 but she gets one by default as her husband has one.
.
__________________
"I am yours, you are mine, of that be sure. You are locked in my heart, the little key is lost and now you must stay there forever."
Written by Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine in the diary of her fiance, Tsarevich Nicholas.
Reply With Quote
  #329  
Old 03-24-2014, 07:14 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molly2101 View Post
... I know Anne, Andrew and Edward have one with them all the time...
Why would you want to spread this info? Why could you not keep this to yourself?
.
__________________
“The two important things I did learn were that you are as powerful and strong as you allow yourself to be, and that the most difficult part of any endeavor is taking the first step, making the first decision"Robyn Davidson
Reply With Quote
  #330  
Old 03-24-2014, 07:35 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 1,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molly2101 View Post
...What I am saying is I totally agree that not all of them need constant protection...
There are likely layers of protection for the families through electronic surveillance as well. Also don't those who live at the Kensington Palace complex need to pass through a guard station to get to their homes?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #331  
Old 03-24-2014, 10:08 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Rochester, United States
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
...Protection should be used when and if it is needed IMO. The entire royal family does not need 24/7 armed guarded police watched protection.
I don't disagree with what you say, but some people are considered politically, strategically, whatever, more important than others. If Peter Phillips, (the Queen's eldest grandchild, who most in the US have never heard of) was kidnapped and held for ransom, do you think the Queen and the Princess Royal wouldn't be dismayed when David Cameron (or Ed Milliband if he takes over next year) tells them "If sorry ma'am, but we do not negotiate with terrorists."? That's the whole reason Georgie Porgie, all of eight months old, has 50+ police officers guarding him and his grandparents (the Middletons).
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #332  
Old 03-24-2014, 10:16 PM
RoyalDaisy's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by democratnmonocole View Post
...That's the whole reason Georgie Porgie, all of eight months old, has 50+ police officers guarding him and his grandparents (the Middletons).
No he doesn't - he has 1 at any single time - 2 at the most (unlikely as he is normally within a secure area).

And people in the Kent family, or the Glos, or the Phillips have no security at all.

Those on royal duties get them when undertaking those - not at any other time.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #333  
Old 03-25-2014, 04:51 AM
Molly2101's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmirerUS View Post
Why would you want to spread this info? Why could you not keep this to yourself?
Are you referring to me or Sophie's so called friend spreading it?
__________________
"I am yours, you are mine, of that be sure. You are locked in my heart, the little key is lost and now you must stay there forever."
Written by Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine in the diary of her fiance, Tsarevich Nicholas.
Reply With Quote
  #334  
Old 03-25-2014, 08:05 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by democratnmonocole View Post
...That's the whole reason Georgie Porgie, all of eight months old, has 50+ police officers guarding him and his grandparents (the Middletons).
As RoyalDaisy said, Prince George (little rude to give him a nickname he doesn't deserve don't you think?) doesn't have 50+ people guarding him. He has 3 at most.

Did I ever say The Queen or Princess Anne wouldn't be dismayed if someone kidnapped Peter Philips? Nope I did not. All I said it everyone is as important and can send the exact same political message around the world as anyone else can. Royal families get protection because of their status. They play no political important royal in everyday life, they are symbolic.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #335  
Old 03-25-2014, 01:20 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Rochester, United States
Posts: 27
what I find more disturbing

Actually no, His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge (if you insist on it for an ugly 8-month-old infant) is being guarded by as I said, 50 armed officers around-the-clock; the police have had to draft firearms officers from other police units (comforting to someone in Surrey confronting an assailant when they dial 999 and get told, "Sorry, we can't dispatch a firearms unit, but at least the THIRD in line to the throne has extra armed guards to watch his mummy change his nappy"). Citations to here: Prince George to be guarded by 50 armed officers - MSN PH Entertainment, here: Prince George to be guarded by 50 armed policemen - The Times of India and here: Prince George Police form ring of steel around Kate Middletons' family home in Bucklebury | Mail Online

And according to one of these articles, the family calls him "Georgie", so I see no reason why others shouldn't. And I find it amazing that an infant gets 50 police officers but senior royals who actually work and help the Queen, such as the Earl and Countess of Wessex, the Duke of York and the Princess Royal have lost most of their protection. I know Georgie is a prime target for kidnapping, but does he really need 50 officers? Doubtful.

But my real point is that no one has mentioned the last two major breaches of security. The first and more serious one was at Buckingham Palace on September 2nd, when a man somehow managed to penetrate both the public cordon, the "layers" of armed and unarmed police and Army soldiers, all of the supposed "sophisticated" alarm systems and penetrate the Palace. He was found wandering around, apparently reconning the place to steal antiques. There was an accomplice waiting outside. A little over a month later, another man with a knife was arrested after jumping the fence. At least then the police did their job and smothered him before he managed to get very far. If that first man had been a suicide bomber, things would have turned out very differently.
Contrast the porous security at Buck House (and Windsor Castle), to the White House, where anyone who hops the fence is lucky to get 20 meters or so before being confronted by the Secret Service Quick Response Team and told to drop to the ground or be shot, no questions asked. Some day there will be a tragedy with the royals because they are so incompetently guarded.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #336  
Old 03-25-2014, 02:08 PM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,771
Lets be clear about one thing: the decision of whether to provide security for certain members of the RF and not for others, and the level of security provided is taken by the Home Office / The Metropolitan Police. It is not the Royal Household that decide that. It is for the Home Office to decide if 3 protection officers are required for George, or 50. Any criticism should be directed to The Home Secretary, and if deemed appropriate, I am sure Theresa May will be in touch directly.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #337  
Old 03-25-2014, 02:30 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,106
To be perfectly honest, neither of those articles has any proof that the recruitment of officers in the Norfolk Division for a house the couple don't actually live in, is to protect George. The Mail Online article says that extra security was provided for George when he visited Bucklebury just after he was born. Which considering the massive interest in him, I see nothing wrong with. Like the articles says the couple just wanted to spend time with their baby and not have a zoom lenses peering through the bushes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by democratnmonocole View Post
Some day there will be a tragedy with the royals because they are so incompetently guarded.
I'm sorry but your total disrespect for the people who serve their country by protecting their Queen and the royal family is appaling. The United States isn't the saviour of all things holy and they certainly don't get it right everytime. .

Whilst I don't think royal protection is needed for certain members of the royal family 24/7, I also don't think the job they do should be disrespected because accidents happen. Those two misses at BP occured when no member of the royal family was home. Would you like police men armed with machine guns forming a uniform block around Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Sandringham, Balmoral, Highgrove, Kensington Palace, Bagshot Park, Gatcome 24/7? It's never going to happen.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #338  
Old 03-25-2014, 04:18 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,445
I think that it is possible that people don't understand why the BRF appear to be less well guarded than the US President.

Not being political and not being elected means that they don't have opponents in the way that a US President does.

Even Republicans respect them and their job - don't agree with them having it by right of birth but do respect that having that role they do it for the benefit of the nation.

That means that the political opponents aren't going to be a real threat so the threats come from the odd-ball or the terrorist type rather than just the run of the mill political based opponent.

I believe that Harry has the most security since serving in Afghanistan as there have been credible threats from some Muslim extremist groups directly targeting him.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #339  
Old 03-25-2014, 05:00 PM
RoyalDaisy's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 194
I wouldnt recommend any of those sources at all. No other newspaper in the UK repeated the report from the Mail so that can be discounted. If it was true, it would have been all over the press.

Please, you cannot believe everything you read about the BRF in the media.

We give our politicians and royalty the security considered necessary to keep them safe. We dont criticise the security given to US politicans and I dont think you should criticise ours.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #340  
Old 03-25-2014, 08:16 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 1,041
The BRF do have less security than a US president. A US president isn't flying commercial like the Queen does. Or getting on a public train like Queen took to Kings Lynn for Christmas. When the last time President Obama came to the UK for a state visit in 2011, the secret service nixed the normal welcome ceremony at Horse Guards and the carriage ride to BP.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, gloucester, kent, kidnapping, minor hrh, royal security, security, terrorism


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Security Aspects Harold Royal Life and Lifestyle 4 10-18-2007 07:36 AM
The Royal Family's Security Helen88 Royal House of Sweden 5 02-11-2005 07:59 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman poland pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:18 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]