Royal Security


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
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.
 
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).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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
 
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.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
tommy1716 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
Harold said:
I re-watched The Queen last night. And a I wonder, is Charles really afraid of being assassinated as portrayed in the film?
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
Harold said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Iluvbertie said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Prince Harry security doubled amid fears he is terror target - mirror.co.uk

Security around Prince Harry has been doubled amid fears he is a terror target.

Six SAS-trained gun guards have reportedly been shadowing him after Britain's security services raised the threat of attack against the Royal Family to Level 2, one below "imminent". A similar ring of steel was thrown around Prince Charles and Camilla as they arrived in India to open the Commonwealth Games.
 
Today I was watching All the Queen's Horses and it sad that while Elizabeth II was out on her horse (trooping of the colors) she was shot at but the man missed. I know that there was another attempt in Australia. Are there any other attempted assassinations on Elizabeth II or on any other royals?
 
Last edited:
QEII said:
Today I was watching All the Queen's Horses and it sad that while Elizabeth II was out on her horse she was shot at but the man missed. I know that there was another attempt in Australia. Are there any other attempted assassinations on Elizabeth II or on any other royals?
Click to expand...

From memory, the young man fired blanks at the Queen from a replica gun. There was no chance of his killing or wounding her. He was a teenager who wanted to 'be famous'.

Prince Charles was presumably 'attacked' in Australia by a Cambodian refugee suffering from severe depression. He used a starting pistol, which was harmless, and was sentenced to community service, only, for the fright he gave everyone, and because his psychological illness was accepted as an excuse.

There has never been an attempted assassination of Queen Elizabeth in Australia. However, in 1868, Prince Alfred Ernest Albert, Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Kent and Earl of Ulster and second son of Queen Victoria was shot at in Sydney but only slightly wounded. This was the result of sectarian tensions between Irish immigrants.
 
Your dirty hands off of the glorious Queen...i would die,if anything bad happened to her Majesty...aw Gawd, long live the Queen!
 
Roslyn said:
I'm very glad the train was not derailed because many could have been injured or even killed, but on the basis of that article I'm not persuaded it was an assassination attempt.
Click to expand...

Nor was anyone else, at the time. All trains on that well-known stretch of track have to travel very slowly to cope with its twisting and turning, ergo, it is unlikely that anyone deliberately attempting to derail the trail wouldn't know this.

Further, it is inconceivable that had an attempt been made on the Queen, the investigation would have been left to a local country police sergeant.
 
If I remember rightly this wasn't reported at the time and has only recently surfaced.
I think there is more to this than we have been told.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Had an attempt been made on the Queen (and the then sergeant said that he suspected the IRA) the police would have been obliged to inform Scotland Yard and the Australian Federal Police as a serious security matter. There is nothing in any records to show that this occurred, nor is there any indication that a D notice was issued to silence the press in either government or newspaper records. I can't imagine the press keeping quiet about it today if it were a true story,other than reporting this retiree's opinion and suspicions.

I think it humbug, myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
What is your personal favourite documentry on the british royal family?
Replies
6
Views
525
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
M
Laws of the House of Grimaldi
Replies
3
Views
435
Tatiana Maria
T
Marengo
Royal Family of Bulgaria 3: Aug 2023 -
Replies
20
Views
3K
Blog Real
Blog Real
R
King of Andorra
Replies
5
Views
1K
Blog Real
Blog Real
Zonk
Royal Family of Jordan Current Events 3: Aug 2023 -
2
Replies
50
Views
7K
iceflower
iceflower

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom