The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #121  
Old 06-16-2010, 09:43 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,427
Discussion of what Beatrice and Eugenie do has been moved to the Duties and Roles of Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie thread.
__________________

__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 07-10-2010, 09:08 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: london, United Kingdom
Posts: 277
Protection officers must pay £70 a night for room and board at Buckingham Palace - then the Royal Family bills the taxpayer | Mail Online

The Royal Family is charging the taxpayer for the room and board of armed police officers protecting the Queen.

The extraordinary fees - including £70 a night for a bed at Buckingham Palace - are levied for officers resting between shifts looking after Her Majesty, Prince Charles and other senior Royals.

The Palace also bills the Metropolitan Police for doing the officers' laundry and providing food for them at the Royal Household's staff canteens.

I have to say as these costs are presumably met by the taxpayer anyway through the Royal Finances it seems rather backwards to charge another department funded by the taxpayer for the costs.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 07-11-2010, 05:45 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,709
It must be remembered though that each department has its own budget and has to keep within that budget so if something can be charged to another department, legally, then it has to be or some other service will need to be cut (I am not just referring to this specific situation but to the general running of any large organisation such as a government).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 07-18-2010, 05:51 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: london, United Kingdom
Posts: 277
BBC News - Prince William policing bill row

The taxpayers of north Wales should not have to pay to protect Prince William if he chooses to live off an RAF base, says a former head of royal protection.
Dai Davies made the comments after a report in the Sunday Times that the policing bill could cost up to £1.4m if the prince lives off the Anglesey base.



New armed team set up to protect Prince William - Telegraph


A unit of armed police officers has been set up to protect Prince William while he undertakes an RAF training course in Wales, it has been disclosed.
The local force, North Wales Police, is spending an estimated £1.4 million a year on the security programme after the Prince decided to live off base at RAF Valley in Anglesey.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 07-19-2010, 07:41 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,287
We need to accept that there are people in the UK who are deemed by the government to require 24 hour security. It is expensive, but thats what it is. You cannot then expect to place restrictions on where these people choose to live or travel, just on the grounds of security costs. A rural cottage in Wales for William probably costs a lot less to "secure" than a flat in London. IMO, it is unfair to expect Wiliam to live on base just because of security costs
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 07-19-2010, 11:37 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: london, United Kingdom
Posts: 277
Fair point but when most other people and places of work are making sacrifices in their finances it seems a bit unfair that William and his family don't have to make sacrifices. William and the RF have to accept that they are held to a higher account than an "ordinary person" and at times this means some small sacrifices.
It should also be said that if William contributed more to local life in North Wales (yes even though he is working, one or two days or even just afternoons here and there) then people here might not mind paying for his security so much.
Of course William needs protection, I am not saying for one minute that he doesn't but when costs can be reduced greatly depending on a decision than that decision needs to be carefully considered.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 07-19-2010, 12:09 PM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,287
I have no doubt that the royal security bill probably needs to be looked at carefully, and areas identified where savings could be made. For example, I do think that security for the more junior members of the BRF could be relooked at. This should include the York girls (recently reduced), Edward & Sophie Wessex, and the Princess Royal.

I also think the expenses of the security staff need to be vetted carefully. Staying in 5 star hotels on reconaissance trips really is not required IMO!

As regards William carrying out "local" engagements in Wales, I guess he could do some, schedule permitting. As he works full time, he may not have that much time available.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 07-19-2010, 05:36 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,709
As the Queen hasn't had a pay rise in 20 years she certainly is aware of the difficulties the country is facing. However it seems that her grandsons in particular don't get the idea that others aren't doing so well. Charles is more aware but not as much as his mother.

William and Harry just seem to think that they can do whatever they please and stuff the monarchy and the public - it is all about them. William has the right to protection - no question - but he also has the responsibility to make decisions that reduces the costs to the taxpaying public of his grandmother's realm. The Queen may need to step in here and say - not on William.

By comparison the cost for Beatrice and Eugenie doesn't seem so much now as they were costing about 1/6 of the extra cost this decision means to the taxpayers.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 07-19-2010, 06:40 PM
October's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: City, United States
Posts: 8
If I were him I’d release a statement saying, “If the tax payer doesn’t want to pay for my protection then don’t,” then I’d insist on all my bodyguards leaving me alone. However, that’s not what people want, they seem to want him protected, but they don’t want to pay for it. Either he is worth protecting and you do it and hush or he isn’t and you don't and let him take his chances with the terrorists, republicans, and lunatics of the world. It’s like I tell my son about his dog, “You wanted that dog, so you are going to take care of it properly with-out complaint, however if you decide that you no longer care enough for the dog to bother with its care then we’ll find another home for it, but we're not going to keep the dog in a cage."

There are probably costs that could be saved, for instance, are 15 officers necessary?...But it’s going too far to tell him he has to live somewhere against his will because while people may not want him endangered they also don’t want to pay for his protection.

If one reads the whole statement released by Clarence House, they say that if he lived on base there would be no where for him to go when he’s not on duty but his room, which begs the question, if he did live on base and decided, “hey, I want a burger,” or if he just needed some breathing air would there have to be guards stationed outside the base 24/7 in case he left? Would he have to call someone and say, “I’d like to grab a bite to eat,” and then wait for bodyguards to come to escort him to burger king….that doesn’t seem logical to me.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 07-19-2010, 07:24 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,709
Even on the base he will have 24/7 protection officers who would escort him to the burger place.

No one is saying he shouldn't have protection. The question is the extra cost because he is insisting on living off base at a time when the country is in financial distress and others are having to tighten their belts. The country is hurting and he is rubbing their noses in it by not thinking through the consequences.

If he really wants to live off the base then the extra security should be paid for by himself or his father not by the taxpayer. His basic security should still be paid by the taxpayer but the 1.4 million needed to cover the additional costs of living off base shouldn't be. It is called taking some responsibility for the costs he imposes on th British taxpayers who give his the rights that he has that they don't, such as round the clock security.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 07-19-2010, 08:23 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada, Canada
Posts: 1,004
It`s not that they won`t take on responsibility--they just tend not to unless they have to. And unfortunately, it`s very easy not to take on responsibility when there`s always some government program willing to cover for you. This applies to William and Harry in the sense that as heirs to the throne, the government is always going to cover for them to some extent.

I`m withholding judgment on Beatrice and Eugenie until they graduate from university and I don`t object to Harry`s armed forces training because he may still be able to see active service. As for William though, he looks to me like someone who is just putting off an adult life (ie. marriage and royal duties) by just extending his military training. The search and rescue training may actually be a good idea, but if he`s going to live off base, I agree that the taxpayers should not be paying.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 07-20-2010, 05:01 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,287
Its William's decision to live where he wants to - we do not need a referendum in the UK on this! IMO, you can't use security costs as an argument to prevent people the freedoms that normal individuals in this country enjoy.

Also, in my view, the £1.4m number has no public credence, just something a journalist cooked up. Has it been examined if the same level of security can be provided with fewer officers or for lower costs?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 07-20-2010, 05:13 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: london, United Kingdom
Posts: 277
Its not that I don't want William protected, I specifically said I do, but all I am saying is that when there is a choice between two options, one of which will mean the taxpayer (or more specifically the taxpayers on North Wales) having to pay extra costs then William has to act in a mature and sensible way and seriously consider both options. From what is reported in the media (which is all we can go on without knowing the details ourselves) William has never lived on base, choosing instead to live elsewhere so this seems to be businness as usual. I read in one report that when William has finished training he will look at where he lives but that Clarence House said security WOULD NOT be part of that decision, in fairness it should in my opinion by part of the decision, not a massive part but it has to be considered. And there are plenty of places at RAF Valley to go, just as many as where ever he is living now.
William has to accept that he has a duty to be resonable and at least make a few sacrafices when everyone lese is having to.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 07-21-2010, 04:40 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy1716 View Post
Its not that I don't want William protected, I specifically said I do, but all I am saying is that when there is a choice between two options, one of which will mean the taxpayer (or more specifically the taxpayers on North Wales) having to pay extra costs then William has to act in a mature and sensible way and seriously consider both options.
All our taxes are used to pay for royal security, not just those of the people of North Wales. It is only the local police force that provides support the royal security team.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 07-23-2010, 07:33 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 321
Charles' Fear?

I re-watched The Queen last night. And a I wonder, is Charles really afraid of being assassinated as portrayed in the film?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 07-23-2010, 07:34 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 321
Being Alone

I re-watched The Queen last night and I wonder about the scene where she drives herself to catch up with the hunting party. (She wrecks the land rover in the creek.) In the film she is all by herself. Is that realistic? Would she not have had at least one policeman with her?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 07-23-2010, 07:39 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold View Post
I re-watched The Queen last night. And a I wonder, is Charles really afraid of being assassinated as portrayed in the film?

My feelings during that week was that there was a real chance that someone would take a shot at Charles and/or the Queen at the funeral - not from the film but from actually watching the crowds and seeing the way they were being whipped to a frenzy by the press.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 07-23-2010, 11:24 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Madison, United States
Posts: 47
Supposedly, Prince Charles really was afraid someone would take a shot at him at the time of the funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales. One writer claimed that he wrote farewell letters to the Queen and to Princes William and Harry, to be given to them if something happened to him.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 07-23-2010, 12:03 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold View Post
I re-watched The Queen last night and I wonder about the scene where she drives herself to catch up with the hunting party. (She wrecks the land rover in the creek.) In the film she is all by herself. Is that realistic? Would she not have had at least one policeman with her?
I remember the scene very well and thought it was quite poignant. I think it would be realistic to think that when the Queen is at Balmoral there is plenty of security guarding the grounds but its so vast that the Queen and family can be more at ease without having police lurking over their shoulders. I'm sure the party she was to join had officers there and she (as we saw) had communications with the home base at all times. It must be so refreshing for HM to really get some time to be totally alone.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 07-23-2010, 12:07 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
My feelings during that week was that there was a real chance that someone would take a shot at Charles and/or the Queen at the funeral - not from the film but from actually watching the crowds and seeing the way they were being whipped to a frenzy by the press.
I saw and felt the same thing watching the coverage. It was a time of high public emotions that were very angry with the BRF. The chances of just one lunatic in the crowd with an access to a firearm was high.
__________________

__________________
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




Popular Tags
belgium brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:04 PM.

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]