Royal Security


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Lumutqueen said:
...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.
Click to expand...
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).
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
democratnmonocole said:
...That's the whole reason Georgie Porgie, all of eight months old, has 50+ police officers guarding him and his grandparents (the Middletons).
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
democratnmonocole said:
...That's the whole reason Georgie Porgie, all of eight months old, has 50+ police officers guarding him and his grandparents (the Middletons).
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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.
 
democratnmonocole said:
...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
Click to expand...
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.

democratnmonocole said:
Some day there will be a tragedy with the royals because they are so incompetently guarded.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
[democratnmonocole said:
1651150],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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread now re-opened.

A few points in passing...

❊ The role and policies of the National Rifle Association have no relevance to a discussion about Royal security and those posts have been removed;

❊ Disparaging references to Prince George as "Georgie Porgie" and "an ugly 8-month old" are likely to be counterproductive as they come across as mean-spirited and juvenile;

❊ If the best sources one can produce to back up an argument relating to the British Royal Family are 'MSN PH Entertainment' and 'The Times of India', I'd suggest the argument is already lost.

❊ A big thanks to those members who do put forward their positions in a constructive and rational manner. :flowers:

Warren
British Forums moderator
 
Last edited:
The following quote from the article suggests that this is based on fact:

Buried away in the Monarch’s annual report is the disclosure that the Queen has agreed to pay for some of her own protection costs.

As this report is in the public domain others would be able to find that same section if they bothered to read the entire report.
 
:previous: I'll have a look at the docs. Dont look at DM so wont have seen it.
 
The report is on the British Monarch Website but I haven't go the time to read it today from beginning to end as it is something like 79 pages.
 
As I said earlier, this is not what I would call a credible article, the headline is misleading. I read some of the annual report last night, see page 21.

https://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/Annual review 2013-14/Sovereign Grant Annual Review 201314.pdf

In April 2013 the Royal Household assumed responsibility for the cost of four Access
Control Officers at St James’s Palace and Kensington Palace, who were previously funded by
the Home Office. A further review of access control arrangements at Buckingham Palace in
2013 is expected to result in the Royal Household also taking responsibility for the access
control arrangements at the Royal Mews, Buckingham Palace from the Home Office with
effect from 1 April 2015
Click to expand...
 
:previous:
What its looking like to me is that even if the Sovereign Grant did get a bit of an increase, so did the payload of what the Queen is responsible for also.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
True - the Queen has to pay for the security from her budget rather than it being paid for from the budget of the Metropolitan police so she will have to economise elsewhere.
 
I vaguely remember reading the job description of an Access control Officer on the royal household website when one was advertised, as far as I can remember (i've checked and its not there now) the duties were very office based, such as issuing passes, dealing with contractors who need access etc but it emphasized that any issues would be communicated to the police. This is not a person who is protecting the building in the way the Police do but helping to manage the process for people who should be in the Palace (staff, contractors etc). Whilst I can see why the Police have provided people for this in the past I can equally see why the Household would now pay for this. Its not as if they are loosing active police (the police we see patrolling the Palaces now) they are loosing an office based police post and replacing it with a Household post.
 
They will keep cutting back until there is a burglary, an injury or worse. Then the pointy finger of blame will waggle back and forth between gov. departments.

What is appalling to me is that this information is in the press. Criminals delight!
 
If the royal family end up having to pay for their own security, I do hope they don't get dodgy, private security firms looking after them like something out of an old Ealing Comedy. I can see it now - the Queen alighting from the royal car, being helped by a scar-faced ex con come part-time nightclub bouncer with a dodgy eye who insists on referring to Her Majesty as "my old ma" and shoving wads of fivers towards the media to keep them at bay!?
 
Martin @CourtierUK · 19s 20 seconds ago
A police officer has been arrested after ammunition was discovered in personal lockers at Buckingham Palace, the Met Police say.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite

Martin @CourtierUK · 1m 1 minute ago
The arrested officer, from SO14 Royalty protection, is being questioned regarding misconduct in public office & possession of ammunition.

Martin @CourtierUK · now 11 seconds ago
The Met Police add that the Royal Household is "aware of the on-going investigation and has been briefed on today's development”.

Royal Protection Officer Held Over Ammunition-
http://news.sky.com/story/1359083/royal-protection-officer-held-over-ammunition
 
Last edited:
ROYAL NORWAY said:
SEBASTIAN SHAKESPEARE: Is the Queen paying for her cousin's protection? | Mail Online
Click to expand...

As much as I admire Princess Alexandra, very few members of the public know who she is and she has stepped down the number of public duties she engages in. Due respect to the Princess, I would be willing to believe that the security risk to a widowed elderly woman who is 46th in line of succession, is minimal to nil. The Princess Royal, the Duke of York and even the Earl and Countess of Wessex, on the other hand, do warrant minimal protective measures, if for no other reason than their mother (and in-law) is the Queen.
 
democratnmonocole said:
As much as I admire Princess Alexandra, very few members of the public know who she is and she has stepped down the number of public duties she engages in. Due respect to the Princess, I would be willing to believe that the security risk to a widowed elderly woman who is 46th in line of succession, is minimal to nil. The Princess Royal, the Duke of York and even the Earl and Countess of Wessex, on the other hand, do warrant minimal protective measures, if for no other reason than their mother (and in-law) is the Queen.
Click to expand...

Well, Princess Alexandra is still an HRH and whilst few member of the public know who she is (frankly most people ought to know who she is!), terrorists, muggers, burglars and kidnappers are not ordinary members of the public and will seek out the weakest link in royal security.
 
Jacknch said:
Well, Princess Alexandra is still an HRH and whilst few member of the public know who she is (frankly most people ought to know who she is!), terrorists, muggers, burglars and kidnappers are not ordinary members of the public and will seek out the weakest link in royal security.
Click to expand...

Personally I agree with you but the Government's need to cut down on the royal protection bill and the Prince of Wales' insistence on cutting down on the number of royals doing public duties means that those like the Princess Alexandra are being shed from service. To my mind, Peter and Zara Phillips' families both warrant protection, b/c they have very young children and are both the Queen's grandchildren. With the Internet, all they need is one obsessed person with enough forethought and some type of weapon (like Ian Ball in '74) and regardless of whether they are royals or not, they could be in danger. Apparently the Middletons have armed police officers guarding them and they are NOT royal. Yet royals who have performed useful service to the Crown over several decades are left in the cold, with the Queen paying for them out of her private funds.
 
A Home Office body, the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, reports to Theresa May, the Home Secretary, on Royal security matters.

All protection arrangements are done on a risk-assessed basis to ensure they are reasonable and cost-effective.

Royal protection is handled by a dedicated unit at Scotland Yard known as SO14, with other specialist units guarding politicians such as the Prime Minister and high-risk foreign embassies and diplomats.
 
Last edited:
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
553
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
M
Laws of the House of Grimaldi
Replies
3
Views
501
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