Royal Security


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
It must be... I know the secret service in the states is very expansive also... I had to get a top secret clerance once and the ss went to my home town and knocked around for months
 
Going too far in my opinion:

THE Princess Royal, Duke of York and Earl of Wessex face losing their 24-hour police protection as part of desperate cost-cutting measures.
Prince Andrew’s daughters Beatrice and Eugenie are already expected to lose their protection, said to cost £500,000 a year.
The latest move comes as the cash-strapped Metropolitan Police Service tries to recoup some of its £8million Royal Wedding costs.
Royals would continue to receive protection for official duties but it would be taken away at other times.


Read more: Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Princess Anne's fury overplans to cut Royal protection police
 
tommy1716 said:
Going too far in my opinion:

THE Princess Royal, Duke of York and Earl of Wessex face losing their 24-hour police protection as part of desperate cost-cutting measures.
Click to expand...

I agree.

It is fair enough the grandchildren of the monarch lose police protection as they will move further and further away from the centre of the royal family and won't do as many royal duties but I think it is dangerous in these times to remove it from actively hardworking members of the royal family.

I think that Princess Anne in particular is right to be concerned as I am sure she can still remember being at the centre of a kidnap attempt which must have been very frightening at the time.
 
I can't believe that this issue is discussed to publicly.

I watched an old 90's movie last night, with Shirley MacLaine and Nicolas Cage called Guarding Tess about the Secret Service guarding a Former First Lady. She had 24 hour protection of 6 to 8 officers who rotated their hours watching. She was a bit of a pain in the butt, and complained about their presence and the cost associated with guarding an old lady (her words not mine) ...until she was kidnapped of course.

My point (and yes I do have one)....in the US....the Secret Service is a part of the Department of Treasury (never made sense to me why that particular department). Anyway, the Secret Service guards the President, Vice Presidents, First and Second Ladies, Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader, Supreme Court Justices, past living Presidents (see above posts) and we hardly NEVER hear how it costs per year. There was some discussion about escalating costs as we were guarding so many former presidents at one time and presidents post Bush only get it for 10 years after leaving office and not lifetime service they had in the past.

But again, we never hear that the US taxpayers pay XXXX million a year to guard all these people.

How come this is being discussed so freely? And does Scotland Yard protect the royals or regular police? Why isn't this included in the regular royal budget?

Again, I hope this doesn't end up being a bad decision with someone being harmed or killed.
 
Zonk said:
....the Secret Service is a part of the Department of Treasury (never made sense to me why that particular department).
Click to expand...

My understanding is that it was the only federal law enforcement agency in existence when it was thought that the president needed security.

Anyway, the Secret Service guards the President, Vice Presidents, First and Second Ladies, Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader, Supreme Court Justices, past living Presidents (see above posts) and we hardly NEVER hear how it costs per year. There was some discussion about escalating costs as we were guarding so many former presidents at one time and presidents post Bush only get it for 10 years after leaving office and not lifetime service they had in the past.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the Congressional leadership is guarded, to the extent that it is, by the Capitol Police not the Secret Service. I am not aware that the Supreme Court Justices receive protection. I believe this because Justice Ginsburg (or O"Connor?) was mugged one night in DC some months ago.

It is also my understanding that W is the first president to receive protection for only 10 years. I believe the law permits the then current president to extend this and I feel certain that it will be routinely extended for all ex-presidents.

If I am incorrect in any of this, please let me know.
 
I think its only consistent. Nobody apart from the core BRF (Queen & Duke, Charles & Camilla as heirs, William & Kate as future heirs & Harry as spare) needs 24 hour protection. They do have protection when on duty and that should be sufficient.

Feel not sure? Well, go and pay for your own bodyguard. The Queens children should be rich enough to pay for their own security. Its not for the taxpayer to pay for the extended Royal Family.

I agree this shouldnt become part of a huge public debate.
 
That's a question - are the Edward, Sophie, Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, Anne, Timothy rich?
 
Lumutqueen said:
That's a question - are the Edward, Sophie, Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, Anne, Timothy rich?
Click to expand...

For a start, Andrew received GBP 15 Mio for Sunninghill Part, that should fund some bodyguards for a while :D

I am sure the others arent poor either, Z-List celebrities pay for bodyguards, Edward or Anne can do as well. As with regard to Timothy - the average Brit has no idea what he looks like or that he even exists, why would he need protection?
 
I agree that some of the protection for the family should be taken away (Beatrice and Eugenie for a start, as they don't carry out engagements) but for people like Anne, Andrew and Edward...I don't think cutting theirs completely is a good idea. I agree that 6 guards for Edward and Sophie is too much. Half that amount would suffice, but to cut them completely for all the Queen's children? Not such a good idea. Particularly as Edward and Sophie's children are quite young. To be fair, I don't think many people could pick Edward and Sophie out in a line up, as they aren't very well known (probably a good thing on their part) but for people like Princess Anne, people would recognise her.

It is annoying that us tax payers have to pay for it, but at the end of the day we have to pay taxes whether we like it or not, whether it goes towards paying for security for our government and Royal family or funding many hospitals etc. Taxes are a part of life. I imagine Royal members such as Anne etc. could probably afford to pay for their own security but why should they? The Royal family brings in so much tourism for our country, bringing with it money and such. I think SOME security for them is necessary, but cut backs should be made in some areas.

Regarding the question "are they rich?", I am sure they have money hidden away and savings...no?
 
It doesn't matter if they are rich or poor. It's whoever would pay the ransom. eg the Queen.
 
I don't see them being "rich". 15 million? I never read anything like that.
We pay for the protection of the PM who IMO does less to represent the greatness in this country than the BRF.
The reason for bodyguards is protection and if someone wanted to attack any member of the BRF for whatever reason - i'm sure they'd find out who is who. Targetting Timothy would be a dent enough if this protection crap goes up in flames.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
For a start, Andrew received GBP 15 Mio for Sunninghill Part, that should fund some bodyguards for a while :D

I am sure the others arent poor either, Z-List celebrities pay for bodyguards, Edward or Anne can do as well. As with regard to Timothy - the average Brit has no idea what he looks like or that he even exists, why would he need protection?
Click to expand...

I don't see why they should pay for protection themselves, if that were the case then the Prime Minister should pay for the protection of himself and his family. To me if they are performing public duties then they should have security, if I was, for example, Princess Anne after what she went through - let's not forget she was on her way back for a public engagement when she was attacked - then i would refuse to do public duties unless i had security. Performing publid duties makes u a bigger target in my opinion.
Also i doubt that Tim gets much protection, I've certainly never heard of him having protection officers, at the end of teh day he stays in a protected house (Gatcombe or royal apartment) and works for the Navy so would be in a relatively secure area for work)
 
Well, I think they are saying that Anne, Edward, Sophie and Andrew would have protection while doing their royal engagements.
 
tommy1716 said:
I don't see why they should pay for protection themselves, if that were the case then the Prime Minister should pay for the protection of himself and his family. To me if they are performing public duties then they should have security, if I was, for example, Princess Anne after what she went through - let's not forget she was on her way back for a public engagement when she was attacked - then i would refuse to do public duties unless i had security. Performing publid duties makes u a bigger target in my opinion.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference between what you are suggesting they need (what I agree with by the way: escort to, during and from an event) and 24 hour protection.

What I dont get is the comparison between non-core BRF members such as Anne, Edward etc (who in my opinion should never have been on 24 hour protection in the first place) and the Prime Minister. While Royals only represent, the PM actually is the one who has the power and of course he and his family, along with key members of Parliament, should at least receive the same protection than the Head of State.
 
The main reason royals have protection

is so the PM never has to have the following conversation with the Queen. "I'm sorry, Ma'am, we do not negotiate with terrorists."

Princess Anne was almost kidnapped once.

I think making these debates public increases the risk. Terrorists are oportunists and will go after easy targets.

Regarding the Wessexes having 6 officers - they are not all on duty at a time. They need days off like anyone else. If they each had 1 officer who worked 12hr shifts, that would be 4 officers a day.
 
The reason that it is discussed is that the cost is made public by the Metropolitan Police as part of their budget.

The anti-royals then pick on the cost as further examples of the extravagent cost of the royal family. This started in the 90s with a certain dead ex-wife and continues to this day. She set out to destroy the family and will probably succeed in the long run because questions like this are being raised.

Personally I believe that having security when only on royal duties is counter-productive. No one would attack them then due to knowing that they have security (such as it is and it is rather pathetic - two or three men following you around won't do much to a determined killer) but not providing it when they are off duty simply means that any potential attacker simply has to wait until they are off duty and attack then.

I do think that all of the monarch's children should have protection - simply because they are the monarch's children.

I wouldn't go any further than that though - no grandchildren at all - ever.
 
Last edited:
nice told :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Duke of Marmalade said:
There is a big difference between what you are suggesting they need (what I agree with by the way: escort to, during and from an event) and 24 hour protection.

What I dont get is the comparison between non-core BRF members such as Anne, Edward etc (who in my opinion should never have been on 24 hour protection in the first place) and the Prime Minister. While Royals only represent, the PM actually is the one who has the power and of course he and his family, along with key members of Parliament, should at least receive the same protection than the Head of State.
Click to expand...

i admit the PM is not the best example but I was tired and couldn't think of anyone else. Tony Blair has a massive protection detail becuase he was once PM, he was once in a public position that made him a security risk, exactly the same as Ann, Edward and Andrew. You can't put them in that position one moment and then when finances get tight say carry on but not with security. I'm not a massive fan of Edward and Andrew but they are in a public position and should be protected at all times if the position puts them at risk.
 
Australian said:
Edward and Sophie lose £1m police protection as Royal security costs are cut | Mail Online

This is probably the reason why Sophie was so upset earlier and seen being angry.
Click to expand...

They will still get some protection. Perhaps if they want it the rest of the time they can hire their own. I feel like the public isn't going to change their minds or anyone else for that matter so....they should start looking elsewhere. They are in such an odd position though because they are not high-profile but they still carry out royal duties hence the compromises.
 
So ex Prime Ministers get 24/7 protection but not the Queen's children . . . . except when on official engagements.

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't Princess Ann not on an official engagement when someone attempted to kidnap her? Weren't real bullets fired and real lives ruined?

To me it's a no-brainer. If you want a royal family you protect them because they are in the public eye for no other reason than they are who you made them.
 
Although we are all saying, as the public, we don't want to pay for their security and our minds will not be changed...do the public get a say in the choice? I mean, they wont do a poll for the public to choose whether they want to pay for them or not? They will either decide to lose then or keep them, and the public can just complain about it, but at the end of the day we have no real say in the matter.

MARG said:
So ex Prime Ministers get 24/7 protection but not the Queen's children . . . . except when on official engagements.
Click to expand...

I know, it makes so much sense doesn't it? The Royal family are just as much a "target" as any ex Prime Minister. Perhaps the Queen is the most high profile target, but it wouldn't take certain people long to work out who the Duke of York was if they saw him at an engagement/out and about and then choose to assassinate him. The murder of a Royal family member, of any "level", would cause uproar amongst certain people.

I do agree that they perhaps shouldn't have so much security, but they should have someone with them for engagements and if they wish to go outside anywhere.
 
To me they either get them all the time and never - having for engagements isn't useful when the public are fully aware that when they go shopping, or to the races or anything like that they won't have any security.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have a ?
Royals come into contact with people with disabilities often. I am thinking along the lines of those who are mentally retarded/autism, or those who are nonverbal.
These people sometimes reach out and grab hands, clothes, hair. They don't mean to be rude, or offensive, to them it is normal.
But someone grabbing a member of the BRF could be or signal a problem such as a kidnapping.. Are protection officers trained to know the difference, and deal with these people without having to use force?
 
rioting in London

Reading about the rioting in London, I've been wondering about the security of the Royal Family at this time. I realise its holiday time for them and some are in Scotland, but I wondered if Buckingham Palace, Clarence House and the other palaces are vulnerable?
I trust that with the thinning out of police resources in this emergency that Parliament will factor in this risk.
 
Anyone who is the children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, brother, sister,nephews, or niece of the monarchy should have protection especially nowadays. With so many people out there who are angry, unstable and who lash out at others at a drop of a hat (these days these angry attacks are often against those in power), they need protection. Royalty are not imune from these people.
 
figtreecrossing said:
Reading about the rioting in London, I've been wondering about the security of the Royal Family at this time. I realise its holiday time for them and some are in Scotland, but I wondered if Buckingham Palace, Clarence House and the other palaces are vulnerable?
I trust that with the thinning out of police resources in this emergency that Parliament will factor in this risk.
Click to expand...

Here's an article about that (it's from E! so take it with a grain of salt ;)): Is Kate Middleton Safe While London Burns? - E! Online

I would imagine that the palaces would have contingency plans in place in case the royals were attacked or their homes stormed by angry mobs. Wouldn't it be awesome if someone gave a tour of the secret passageways and hidey-holes they'd use? Of course that would defeat the purpose of them so we can't look forward to seeing that anytime soon. :lol:
 
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
562
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
M
Laws of the House of Grimaldi
Replies
3
Views
515
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
51
Views
8K
iceflower
iceflower

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom