Royal Security


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
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:

thanks for the link to the E article Donovan
 
Security most definitely has been bumped up with these riots going on. Can't be too careful.
 
Security most definitely has been bumped up with these riots going on. Can't be too careful.

I suspect few senior members of the BRF are in London at the moment, so hopefully, they should be safe.
 
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?

That's a good question (one I was curious about as well actually). My guess would be that each situation might be treated differently (a child grabbing a tie, or a hand, versus an adult). I remember when I was a para at a summer school for children with disabilities about eight years back, one of the students (a little girl of seven, who had cerebral palsy) liked to talk about going on planes. I discussed that with her Mom (partially because I was a curious individual and wanted to know if perhaps Brianna liked the concept of flying, so that I could find some books to read with her), and her Mom told me that they went to England the summer before. She proceeded to tell me that they had a chance to shake hands with William, Harry and Prince Charles at a public appearance, and that Brianna, in her enthusiasm, grabbed William by the tie (she was verbal, but was considered intellectually disabled [she also had some issues with expressing her emotions in what was considered 'appropriate' fashion']). According to her Mom, there was really no reaction from the PPOs (I guess they were waiting for the parent to react), but William appeared to have been taken aback by the little girl's action. She said that she explained that her daughter was really excited, and due to her ID, didn't express it the way she should have.

I don't know if the same would apply if an a teen or an adult did the same thing.
 
I think the PPO's are trained to tell the difference. Otherwise quite a few babies would have been restrained for grapping the nose of the DoC :). I can understand that Will was a little surpriced, but hopefully he realised it was just a little girl. But I think they have an eye on each finger in case the situation gets out of hand.
 
I think the PPO's are trained to tell the difference. Otherwise quite a few babies would have been restrained for grapping the nose of the DoC :). I can understand that Will was a little surpriced, but hopefully he realised it was just a little girl. But I think they have an eye on each finger in case the situation gets out of hand.

I'm sure he realized that there was no intent to harm him, but I can understand feeling a little startled. From my memory, the child was not mean-spirited at all, though she had a real hard time controlling her emotions.

I don't even want to know what would occur if someone dared to harm either William or Catherine, or any royal. I would want to be as far away from that as humanly possible, because I don't feel comfortable watching someone else get restrained (even if it's for safety reasons).
 
I was just curious, because it seems to me I read somewhere a news story about someone with autism, and who was nonverbal who in their excitement to see Prince Charles lunged forward at him. He was forcibly removed by police, which caused him great trauma.
I know that in some cases, it would be appropriate for the police to take action. But in this case, I think it could and should have been handled differently. Although I was not present, so I am not the best judge.
What also comes to mind is a video of the Countess of Wessex visiting a music class, at a school for mentally challenged children. A little girl reached out, and tapped her on the head with a drumstick. The teacher corrected her, and everybody carried on. Sophie wasn't bothered in the least.
And Diana came into contact with disabled people every day. I have seen videos of her with them- several times people in wheelchairs lunged forward and grabbed her hand. She smiled and carried on. In his book, her PPO, Ken Wharfe said he never had a situation with mentally challenged people that came into contact with Diana in which he had to intervene.
In fact, I only remember him telling in his book of 4 occasions in his book, where he had to remove people. Only 1 time did he have to physically restrain someone. He never had to use his weapon, although he always had a concealed weapon, if ever one had been nessary to protect Diana. He said that PPO's only use their weapons in extreme, life- threatning situtions. They were not in any way mentally challenged, they were just in 1 way or another a threat to Diana's saftey, or made her feel unsafe.
 
Please could I help with a little background information?

The most recent breaches of security i.e. over the past few years that I can remember have been

1. Michael Fagan breaking into BP and the Queen's bedroom. [no joking matter but even he didn't try to hurt her; he did try to cadge a cigarette from her, which was fortuitous in the event because it enabled HM to say that she had not got one and therefore had to ring for 'assistance'. Fagan was mad rather than dangerous. He also revealed later that he came across a collection of 'Queen-Shaped' royal wigs(!) [If you believe him!]

2. An idiot firing a gun loaded with blanks at The Queen when she was riding Burmese along the Mall on her way to Trooping the Colour

3. A so-called 'comedy terrorist' Aaron Barschak gatecrashed William's private 21st birthday at Windsor Castle.

4. A car containing Charles and Camilla was attacked during the riots following student protests. It was a classic Rolls Royce and not one with additional security measures [bullet proof glass, toughened panels etc] and now each and every journey made by Royals is more thoroughly scrutinised by Security to see that the vehicle chosen is suitable. If Charles was to venture out anywhere at the moment, there would presumably be consideration given to using a helicopter, closing roads, using bullet proof vehicles.


There have also been minor breaches, as for example the Handbag of the Duchess of Kent being stolen on a private shopping trip to a Bond Street shoe-shop.

After the debacle of 1,2,3 and 4 above, security measures have been tightened considerably.

I have been a guest at Buckingham Palace, Kensington Palace and Windsor Castle. On each occasion, some weeks in advance you have to provide full personal details which I presume are checked. You are issued with Admission cards, which, on the day itself are checked against your passport by a police officer OUTSIDE the gates.

There are police stations in the grounds of BP, Windsor Castle and KP. I know that they are all state-of-the art. You can actually spot the Police Station at BP round by the Royal Mews if you know where to look.

At the risk of stating the obvious, there are soldiers 'on guard' too at BP and Windsor. They are not of course just a tourist attraction! The walls at Winsdor Castle are up to 3m thick in places as well, which is pretty secure. KP is of course in a very well guarded area anyway, because that area of Kensington is full of very important Embassies, and so there is a lot of protection for the Diplomats.

There are 'safe rooms' in all palaces and castles. Those in the know also point to the fact that some of the 'gardeners' and 'workmen' visible in the grounds of Royal residences are apparently NOT just concentrating on the flowers or on the building works...


I drove to Windsor Castle [very close to where I live] for a partyand you have to provide - in advance - details of your car, its make, licence plate and colour. A guard checks your ID whilst a Policeman with a long list appears and checks you car against the details you have provided. And that is just to get into the car park, which in itself is through the well-guarded castle gate. Once I had parked my car, I changed from my driving shoes into my evening shoes, all under the watchful eye of a policeman. The police also look quite closely at your car to make sure that you are not trying to 'smuggle in a friend'. The policeman then checks to make sure that only the correct number of people get out of the car. And of course, there are massive security cameras everywhere. And, I daresay, concealed security cameras as well.........

You then have to make your way to the entrance of the castle, where they check your details again.


Incidentally, one lady in front of me was wearing glasses (spectacles). She was not wearing then in her passport photograph and so the Police Officer made her remove them so that he could check her photo against her 'plain' face.

Once you get to the party / reception etc, even though you do get very close to the Royal hosting the event, some of the accompanying 'courtiers' are in fact not Royal Household Members at all but rather charming Police Officers. Don't be fooled by the fact that they may be in black tie or Morning Dress. Sometimes you can spot wires from their earpieces 'snaking' into their radios concealed pockets in their jackets!

At Royal Ascot, you have to submit to security searches of your handbag etc.

Finally, members of the BRF sometimes stay overnight in the Royal Train, which 'parks' in a secluded siding, which is hard for the public to access. It is then surrounded by guards.

Hope some of this helps

Alex
 
Last edited:
I was just curious, because it seems to me I read somewhere a news story about someone with autism, and who was nonverbal who in their excitement to see Prince Charles lunged forward at him. He was forcibly removed by police, which caused him great trauma.
I know that in some cases, it would be appropriate for the police to take action. But in this case, I think it could and should have been handled differently. Although I was not present, so I am not the best judge.
What also comes to mind is a video of the Countess of Wessex visiting a music class, at a school for mentally challenged children. A little girl reached out, and tapped her on the head with a drumstick. The teacher corrected her, and everybody carried on. Sophie wasn't bothered in the least.
And Diana came into contact with disabled people every day. I have seen videos of her with them- several times people in wheelchairs lunged forward and grabbed her hand. She smiled and carried on. In his book, her PPO, Ken Wharfe said he never had a situation with mentally challenged people that came into contact with Diana in which he had to intervene.
In fact, I only remember him telling in his book of 4 occasions in his book, where he had to remove people. Only 1 time did he have to physically restrain someone. He never had to use his weapon, although he always had a concealed weapon, if ever one had been nessary to protect Diana. He said that PPO's only use their weapons in extreme, life- threatning situtions. They were not in any way mentally challenged, they were just in 1 way or another a threat to Diana's saftey, or made her feel unsafe.


I think the problem for the security officers is that they only have a second or two to assess the situation and decide what action to take. In some situations that's enough time - it only takes a second to realize that a small girl wielding a drum stick doesn't pose much of a threat. Other situations are trickier - a fully grown male is lunging toward your protectee, that's all the information you have and you've got to decide what to do right now. IMO the protection officers in cases like that can't be expected to think every potential outcome of their actions, (what if this guy is autistic and is just really happy to see Charles and we traumatize him by hustling him out? On the other hand, what if he's a schizophrenic who's got it in his head that Charles needs to die right now and is lunging towards him with a knife in the hand we can't see at the moment?) All the protection officers can reasonably be expected to do, IMO, is use their best judgement and stick with the protocols and training they've been given.
 
In your opinion, do you expect the current riots in London will sway the opinion of Parliament to re-consier reinstating government paid protection for the close members of the Royal Family like the Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie
 
A child or an adult who has mental or physically challenges is generally not a threat to anyone, including royals. With a teen or adult unless they show evidence of being physically or mentally challenged, you don't always know.

Perhaps they don't mean to be, but some children, teens and adults who are mentally challenged sometimes come across as aggrestive. I worked part-time at a retail store years ago and a child who had autism greeted me by almost charging me and slamming his head into my shoulder. I almost fell backwards. My shoulder was sore for about an hour. I realized that this child was not behaving normally and this wasn't a case of a normal child out of control. The mother of this child apologized to me and told me that her child had autism and he was greeting me. He didn't intend to hurt me but he could have if I had fallen flat on my back.

I wonder how a security detail would have handled this type of situation which would have been tricky due to the child's mental challenges.

It's a tough call in some cases. If you physically restrain the teen or adult and it wasn't necessary, then security is criticized for overreacting to the situation. If you don't take action and as the result the royal is injured or harmed by the person, they security would be accused of being lax and not taking proper action to protect the royal
 
In your opinion, do you expect the current riots in London will sway the opinion of Parliament to re-consier reinstating government paid protection for the close members of the Royal Family like the Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie


In my opinion, no, because Beatrice and Eugenie are not performing Royal Duties and so it would be a PR nightmare for the BRF when the two young ladies are photographed coming out of nightclubs and holidaying in foreign parts, with a taxpayer-funded couple of royal detectives in tow.

There is a recession on and I think people are becoming unwilling to finance protection for people such as B & E when they are enjoying themselves. That might strike some of us as unfair, but, as they say, perception is reality!! A good few taxpayers would start the familiar refrain of 'why should we pay for the princesses having fun when we have all lost our jobs / had our pay increases capped etc'. This would be accompanied by others suggesting that if B + E need protection, then the BRF should pay for it themselves etc

IMHO the Riots here in the UK are mindless thuggery and nothing else; however there are suggestions from some people that the riots have occurred because of the 'widening gulf between rich and poor' regardless of how accurate or not this may be. Again, I think that the current troubles would make it hard to justify the taxpayer picking up the security tag for the 2 young ladies. Sarah's unpopularity also -unfairly IMHO - also has a slight impact on how her daughters are received, which has a knock-on effect of making it unlikely that the taxpayer would be prepared to finance protection.

Don't forget that any time the two young ladies are with the Queen [Sandringham, Balmoral etc] they will be receiving a certain amount of protection due to their physical proximity to HM

Hope this helps

Alex
 
I think the problem for the security officers is that they only have a second or two to assess the situation and decide what action to take. In some situations that's enough time - it only takes a second to realize that a small girl wielding a drum stick doesn't pose much of a threat. Other situations are trickier - a fully grown male is lunging toward your protectee, that's all the information you have and you've got to decide what to do right now. IMO the protection officers in cases like that can't be expected to think every potential outcome of their actions, (what if this guy is autistic and is just really happy to see Charles and we traumatize him by hustling him out? On the other hand, what if he's a schizophrenic who's got it in his head that Charles needs to die right now and is lunging towards him with a knife in the hand we can't see at the moment?) All the protection officers can reasonably be expected to do, IMO, is use their best judgement and stick with the protocols and training they've been given.

Yo make some excellent points. As I said, I was not there, it was unfair of me to judge perhaps. I admire the job PPOs do, it cannot be easy.
 
A child or an adult who has mental or physically challenges is generally not a threat to anyone, including royals. With a teen or adult unless they show evidence of being physically or mentally challenged, you don't always know.

Perhaps they don't mean to be, but some children, teens and adults who are mentally challenged sometimes come across as aggrestive. I worked part-time at a retail store years ago and a child who had autism greeted me by almost charging me and slamming his head into my shoulder. I almost fell backwards. My shoulder was sore for about an hour. I realized that this child was not behaving normally and this wasn't a case of a normal child out of control. The mother of this child apologized to me and told me that her child had autism and he was greeting me. He didn't intend to hurt me but he could have if I had fallen flat on my back.

I wonder how a security detail would have handled this type of situation which would have been tricky due to the child's mental challenges.

It's a tough call in some cases. If you physically restrain the teen or adult and it wasn't necessary, then security is criticized for overreacting to the situation. If you don't take action and as the result the royal is injured or harmed by the person, they security would be accused of being lax and not taking proper action to protect the royal[*/QUOTE]
I have had autistic students give me the same " greeting" when I volunteered in a classroom for autistic students, nascarlucy. It can be frightening.
You hit the nail on the head. There lies in the difficulty with dealing with mentally challenged people. You don't always know their intentions.
Sometimes you don't have time to fully judge their intentions. It would be a 50/50 dammed if you do- damned if you don't situation for just the reasons you described. The price would be much higher though of course if a royal was harmed. Extremely tough call.
 
Some truth here but not for why you think - I am reacting, I think, to people's fans more than to them. After all, I really don't know William - but I do have occasion to experience his fans, and all this talk of leap-frogging over his father to the throne, etc. Its the animosity I see expressed by fans of Diana and now by fans of William, at what seems to be the expense of Charles - that I react to - and that said: am I becoming that which I abhor? It happens - we turn into that which we judge. Ah so!

Then by your own admission, your apparent dislike of the man is considerably void and your acceptance of it, though clearly aware of it, is rather bewildering.

You're judging him through the people who have an avid interest in his life and who are in no way, a reflection of him. That's odd.

As for William's (and Harry's) coming over to foreign countries and 'looking around' - fine - just don't have 'my' city's police department have to deal with 'you', and have 'me' (taxpayer) pay for what is in effect 'your' PR. Sorry, I am extremely jaded with these things - and I remain annoyed by what William decided to do in what is for him a foreign country. I believe he did it because he believes some of his mother's PR spin and is proceeding under that illusion, which I think is sad.

So really, from what you've said thus far, your issue with William really appears to be that he is his mothers son. Again, that's some well misplaced grudge.

You target William, but any foreign dignitary who should visit the US in an official capacity is accorded the very same protection at the expense of the taxpayer. It's largely the same the world over.

As for pointless PR visits, then look no further than Oprah's visit to Australia last December and just how much the Australian taxpayer had to fork out for Miss Winfrey's security, domestic travel expenses and catering. The economic downturn has meant that her visit here has done nothing for the tourism industry and that all we were left with was having had the "experience" of Oprah visiting Australia and a costly bill for our hospitality.

Sickening!

Now Charles, given he is the actual heir who 'stands in' for HM, and given his life's work - his visiting the down-and-out portions of Washington D.C. as he did some years back with Camilla - when I lived there - was wholly acceptable IMO. Nothing false about it. His interest was believable and his questions and comments bona fide.

You liken William with his mother to a point that you're eager taint him with the same brush.

From all you've written, and I appreciate you taking the time do so, it's evident you have an issue with the late Diana and consequently, her children. They are Charles' children too, 'we' musn't forget, and I think perhaps some people underestimate the influence he has had on them and the way they conduct themselves in the public arena and on behalf of the royal family.
 
Last edited:
Safety of members in the BRF in the Middle East

I have a ?How safe is it for members of the BRF to visit countries in the Middle East?Charles and Diana went on tours there in the 80's, and Diana visited Pakistan several times in the 90's. Pakistan was where Bin Laden was known to hide out, so was it a wise choice to bring Diana to Pakistan?And even today BRF members visit troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. While admirable is it wise? Not meant to be critical..... just asking!;)
 
I have a ?How safe is it for members of the BRF to visit countries in the Middle East?Charles and Diana went on tours there in the 80's, and Diana visited Pakistan several times in the 90's. Pakistan was where Bin Laden was known to hide out, so was it a wise choice to bring Diana to Pakistan?And even today BRF members visit troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. While admirable is it wise? Not meant to be critical..... just asking!;)


As safe as it is for them to travel in open topped vehicles in any major city. There are crackpots everywhere and their security is as good as it gets short of shutting them inside protective bunkers.
 
As safe as it is for them to travel in open topped vehicles in any major city. There are crackpots everywhere and their security is as good as it gets short of shutting them inside protective bunkers.
Yeah, I agree with you... There have been threats for royalty / heads of state in every major city I think...
 
I cannot speak for what happens to the BRF abroad, but I do know from my own experience that as soon as a Royal Engagement to anywhere in Britain is confirmed, the Police are involved at a very high level - not just the PPOs.

Senior staff from BP always visit the location beforehand and there is much liaision with the Lord Lieutenant of the County concerned. A senior staff member will 'walk the route' to be undertaken by the Royal at the engagement, and the local police will be responsible for the security of the royal person. Vantage points are minutely inspected in case of snipers, local and national troublemakers / criminals / anarchists who might attend all have tabs 'kept' on them. On the actual day of the visit, uniformed police are out in force. You often see them with their backs to the visiting Royal so that they can watch the crowd for signs of trouble. On the day, 'Sniffer' police dogs turn up to check for bombs. Only people who are officially invited get close enough to the particular royal; their invitations etc are checked and re-checked, just like your papers are checked if you go to BP or Windsor Castle for a party. The only real 'diversion' takes place when the Royal decides to 'go on a walkabout'.

I always notice the Security at Royal Ascot: prior to 2005, the BRF used to mingle much more feely with racegoers; once or twice an afternoon, they used to leave the Royal box and walk up to the Paddock to inspect the runners. The royals were surrounded by household staff and you could also see that the morning-coated party also included plain-clothed policemen [clue: you could seem the transparent wires from their radios snaking into their ears etc]. Things have changed since the modernisation of the course, with (sadly) the BRF NOT walking to the Paddock in the same way - but nevertheless, when the carriage procession arives in the Paddock each year, uniformed police are carefully stationed round the Paddock with their backs to the Royals, carefully watching the crowd. And then there are senior police inspectors watching that the police officers are being diligent in their observations of the crowd.

Short note on Royal visits to British Forces overseas: announcements of visits to particulary sensitive regions are often kept secret until the actual day. The journey is almost always made by air, and planes containing members of the Royal Family fly in what is known as a 'purple corridor', an area of airspace that must be kept clear the whole time - far wider than the normal aircraft spacing...

Hope this helps

Alex
 
Last edited:
Thank you so much :flowers:. As always, very informative.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Alex, does this level of security only apply to the very most senior royals? What about the Queen's cousins?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What I know about Royal security I have gathered from attendance at royal events and engagments, including the planning stages of some of the latter. I have no 'inside' information, as of course, one of the main aspects of security is to keep the details as secret as possible, releasing them only on a need-to-know basis. However, as I understand it, all Royals who undertake formal royal engagements have personal protection officers and the above-mentioned security arrangements with regard to preparations will apply when any royal undertakes a formal royal engagement. I believe that the Queen and Prince Philip and The Prince of Wales have the tightest security and the greatest number of personal protection officers, and that the less-high profile royals have less. It will also presumably depend on the event; if Princess Alexandra is going to open an old folks' home in leafy hampshire, my common sense tells me that it will be less of a risk, and therefore require less policing than (say) a visit to a deprived area where a strong political protest is scheduled. From my own personal observations at Hampton Court Flower Show this year [a leafy corner of south west london], Camilla was accompanied by minimal security as she toured the show.

Nowadays, I do not think royal security extends down as far as those royals who do not perform official duties. As I understand it, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie have just lost their own personal protection officers. Royal children who are minors [the son and daughter of the Earl and Countess of Wessex] will of course receive police protection as their parents' offspring, if you see what I mean. I do not think that Prince and Princess Michael of Kent have the services of their own personal protection officers, but this is based on my own personal observations and I stand to be corrected: before Ascot racecourse was redeveloped, during Royal Ascot, the Royals used to stroll around in the Royal Enclosure: the Michaels, when going on a little jaunt of their own through the enclosure NEVER seemed to be accompanied; other members of the BRF were always accompanied. I did however once see the queen break away from the household party and her detectives to run up to a friend, who she tapped on the back. I was very impressed by the friend who turned round, saw that it was the Queen who had tapped her on the back and despite the fact that this was an unexpected informal moment, immediately executed a perfect curtsey despite being 'caught on the hop' as it were.

Although I have said that the Michaels don't apper to have their own PPOs, in practice, if they undertake visits etc [I hestitate to refer to them as 'Engagements', because, strictly speaking, the Michaels do not undertake official enagements, nevertheless there will almost always be some sort of police presence when they are out-and-about, even if it is only for crowd-control purposes.

From memory, during the days when the Duchess of Kent undertook Royal duties, when she was ot privately shopping, she did not tend to be accompanied by her PPO.

Royal residences are always well-guarded: police and soldiers at official royal residences such as BP and Windsor and St James' Palace, police at Kensington Palace. The latter is in a very secure part of London anyway, because of all the Embassies and Diplomatic residences in that area. On a personal level, Windsor Castle, which I have visited a number of times for parties, always seems very secure to me - it is all those huge THICK walls, I think!

Finally, I would add that protection is enhanced by the fact that any member of the public who is visiting a royal residence has his or her details checked out in advance and at the gate.

Hope this is of some help,

Alex
Hope this helps

Alex
 
Last edited:
So, we want to complain that her (Neanderthal) minder, more used to dealing with "celebrities" rather than royalty, was incredibly rude and disrespectful to Thai Princess Sirivannavari ? Well, Protection Officers are pretty sharp at navigating diplomatic waters and if this is a problem guess whose fault it isn't . . . . . Beatrice's, who by all reports is a very polite young woman.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think he's a bodyguard, not a protection officer. A protection officer would be more diplomatic IMO.

Well, Protection Officers are pretty sharp at navigating diplomatic waters and if this is a problem guess whose fault it isn't . . . . . Beatrice's, who by all reports is a very polite young woman.
 
I think he's a bodyguard, not a protection officer. A protection officer would be more diplomatic IMO.
That's why I called him a "Minder" with no nous, because he is not from the Protection Squad.
 
IMO it doesn't sound real. It does not have an authentic ring to it. I don't think it happened. Somebody made this up to try to reflect badly on the BRF. My opinion.
 
Last edited:
IMO it doesn't sound real. It does not have an authentic ring to it. I don't think it happened. Somebody made this up to try to reflect badly on the BRF. My opinion.
If it hadn't been for the fact that Eugenie was walking around London in the wee small hours wearing socks and looking for a taxi, I wouldn't have believed it either.

I don't think the new "Bodyguard" situation is working out for the York girls or for the BRF. In fact, it is a disaster.
 
Back
Top Bottom