Royal Security


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
I agree that there should be a measure of security, but I also firmly feel that they need to do something productive besides partying, traveling abroad, and having their cars stolen right out from under them.
 
I think the "minor royals" need protection. No matter how they are acting, party animals or working princes or princesses. The fact is, they are close relatives to the Chief of State, and its succesor(s). So, any threat to their integrity can put these persons in a weak position. Not a desirable scene for national symbols...
 
But, as national symbols do they not have some form of obligation? They do need protection, that is undisputed, but how much protection is the question.
 
jcbcode99 said:
But, as national symbols do they not have some form of obligation? They do need protection, that is undisputed, but how much protection is the question.
Click to expand...

and, of course, who ends up with the bill.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
and, of course, who ends up with the bill.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

The Associated Press just ran a story on Britain's debt outlook and how it has been downraded from stable to negative. Now, I agree, the Princesses security detail has not plunged the country into their recession, but the public is going to begin looking at expendable expenditures and I would assume that the security detail for partying princesses is going to be one of the first Royal expenditures is closely looked at. I agree, they need security, but until they are higher profile royals, they do not need what they are currently getting. Unless Mummy and Daddy want to foot the bill.
 
BBC NEWS | UK | Reporters 'paid way into Palace'

Buckingham Palace has said it is investigating allegations undercover reporters were given access to highly sensitive areas of the Palace.

Two reporters from the News of the World newspaper are said to have been waved inside, without security checks.
 
This is really serious and quite sad.

If there is a lack of security regardign the Queen and Buckingham Palace, can you imagine what could possibly happen if security is reduced for the royals as a whole?

Again, its Buckingham Palace and these reporters just walked in. No check of the bags, ID's, etc. NOTHING!
 
It appears to me that royal security breaches are a favourite pastime of the British mass media outlets and private citizens. I find British perseverance to breach the royal security again and again peculiar. We do not hear about security breaches in other European royal houses often. One can do it once or twice, but more than a dozen incidents may bespeak incompetence on the part of the people in charge of the Royal security.
 
Should "minor" HRHs have royal security protection?

Just wanted to get people's views on whether some of the more "minor" HRHs (eg Princess Alexandra, the Kents, Gloucesters etc) should still have state funded royal security cover?
 
I was under the impression that they usually only had it when on official duties these days.
And yes I do think they should get it - even more so now - they are the cousins of the Queen and therefore a definite target, possibly more so than those directly descended.

Any terrorist group worth its salt knows that to go directly for the Queen, Charles, William or Harry (or any of the Queen's children or grandchildren) would loose them support amongst their own people but to attack the royals by going after one of her cousins would still show that they can reach that high but not upset so many people (like the IRA going after Mountbatten - Philip's uncle and thus the Queen's uncle by marriage - showed how high they were prepared to go without totally getting people offside by attacking the Queen directly.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If they're deemed to be in enough danger, I think so. But I think any person should be entitled to that if it's truly necessary for their protection.
 
:previous:
Much as I like the Kents to have security, I do not think that they are under immediate threat of physical attack/kidnapping/etc. Additionally,the current economic situation will not allow to justify security of the extended royal family funded by tax payers.
 
My own view is that the title of HRH is not what should determine the level of security provided, but the view of actual or perceived threat by the Home Office or a competent authority. The competent authority may well determine that for example, the Gloucesters and the York girls do not need security but say, Princess Michael does. I do think this sort of review is necessary and will help manage costs better.
 
:previous:
Is there any particular reason for you to think that Prince and Princess Michael need to have a security?
Even if the above couple is threated, providing a taxpayer funded protection will definitely cause an uproar among the British people, who will demand the above couple to hire their own security personnel as other individuals of means do.
 
Firstly, I had used the names (of the Kents, Yorks and Gloucesters) purely as examples, as I stated in the post. Secondly, if I am not mistaken, all HRHs have some level of security protection that is tax payer funded. This includes Prince & Princess Michael.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have not been aware of the fact that HRHs from the Kents and Gloucesters families have got tax-payer funded security. I was under the impression that their security was cut as a measure to reduce costs.
 
I coujld be wrong, but I think they still do have some level of security, though it may have been scaled down.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When they are one official duties e.g. the Duke of Kent at Wimbledon they will have tax-payer funded security.

They no longer have around the clock security.
 
And I think that is the right thing to do....I might even argue that they deserve greater security.

When you have crazy people who stalk and kill regular people (i.e Jill Dando and Rebecca Scaeffer - an relatively unknown American actress) what is being done to stop people from targeting the Duke of Kent. Due to the increased importance and usage of the internet and the dumbing down of society, the world is a scary place. Plus for any terrorist organization, being able to kidnap and potentially harm a member of the BRF could be a bonus and bring a lot of attention to their cause.

Let me explain my comment. In today's society, we have extreme and dangerous type of journalism. The facts don't matter. When you have newspapers coming up with inflammatory headlines and reporting everything but the facts, you have a society who are making opinions based on outdated and erroneous facts. Some of the British newspapers, seem to enjoy reporting on negative facts about the British Royal family. Take for example, Prince Andrew and hitting the man with the car...if you based your opinion on that particular incident in a particular newspaper...Andrew was driving 60 miles an hour and drove over the man, backed up, and drove over him again. Now Andrew is not perfect, and certainly he could have been instructed by Scotland Yard to continue driving and don't stop (cause I am pretty sure he had a bodyguard in the car) but you have potential of DM readers out for blood. What's to stop someone from acting on that particular hate?
 
Additional information about Prince and Princess Michael's security

Scoltand Yard and Buckingham Palace are facing serious questions over Prince and Princess Michael of Kent being given armed police protection costing taxpayers more than £250,000 a year.
The couple carry out no official duties but are given their own Metropolitan Police bodyguards when attending social events both in this country and abroad.
They also receive round-the-clock protection at their five-bedroom, five-reception apartment at Kensington Palace.
Click to expand...
At the same time it is pointed out that
"Unlike other members of the Royal Family they [Prince and Princess Michael] are not given a personal protection officer round the clock,' the source said. 'It is allocated on a project-by-project basis in the UK and overseas based on guidelines that stipulate there should be a "work" aspect to the visit.
Click to expand...
Read more: No official role, so why is Pushy's security bill £14m? | Mail Online
Given the article, does it mean that only Prince and Princess Michael receive tax-payer funded police protection? Do Prince and Princess Michael receive the round-the-clock protection because of the place (i.e. the Kensington Palace) they reside in? I am confused at this point. What about the rest of the Kent clan and the Gloucesters?
 
I am glad to hear they have security on a part-time basis only. I suspect the arrangements from the rest of the Kent clan and the Gloucesters is the same.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:shock: 250,000 for the Kents? :censored: Can anyone, please, total the annual security expenses for the whole BRF? I mean, the real numbers.
 
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
521
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
M
Laws of the House of Grimaldi
Replies
3
Views
411
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
49
Views
7K
iceflower
iceflower

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom