The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #681  
Old 01-05-2008, 02:28 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 210
Does busy Bea really need a 250,000-a-year bodyguard? | the Daily Mail

Here's another take on the importance of Royal Security. Princess Beatrice gets $500K per year protection, which many think is unnecessary but Prince Andrew insists on this level of protection. This is for low-level, low risk protection. Diana would have been high risk at often high level activity -- maybe expected to be at least $2 to 3 million / year.

Does busy Bea really need a 250,000-a-year bodyguard? | the Daily Mail

But I can understand there may not have been a lot of money left in the royal coffers with the Queen Mother doing as much as an $8million/yr overdraft.

The Empress of Extravagance: How the Queen Mother left behind more than 7m in debts | the Daily Mail
__________________

  #682  
Old 01-05-2008, 03:36 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhontella View Post
Much has been made of Diana losing her HRH, and I could never see what the big deal was about unless it has to do with automatic royal protection. I know that the HRH was a negotiable item in her divorce settlement.
The HRH was not an option after her divorce, a fact I'm sure Diana was aware of. The thing she fought for, as well as the money was to continue to be called 'princess'. access to her sons would not have been in dispute.
--------------------------
Royal protection costs are paid for by taxpayers and would not have been stopped on the say so of the royal family. It is not the rpyal family calling into question the cost of providing officers for Andrews two minor royals, but the police themselves.

With Diana, the government could have said she is no longer part of the royal family and she will have to pay for her own protection, but I would doubt it. To try to blame the royal family via the back door, is another 'below the belt' attack!
__________________

  #683  
Old 01-05-2008, 04:26 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
The HRH was not an option after her divorce, a fact I'm sure Diana was aware of.
That's not the way I heard it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
Royal protection costs are paid for by taxpayers and would not have been stopped on the say so of the royal family. It is not the rpyal family calling into question the cost of providing officers for Andrews two minor royals, but the police themselves.
And yet the queen could insist that her grandsons William and Harry had royal protection when they were with Diana, and still you claim she had no control over royal protection? Furthermore, Prince Andrew wants royal protection for his daughters and it is done. Are you claiming he has no influence over providing royal protection for his daughters?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
With Diana, the government could have said she is no longer part of the royal family and she will have to pay for her own protection, but I would doubt it. To try to blame the royal family via the back door, is another 'below the belt' attack!
Pot, Kettle, Black, speak for yourself. I have no motive for a 'below the belt' attack. I'd merely like the truth.
  #684  
Old 01-05-2008, 05:15 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhontella View Post
That's not the way I heard it.
May one ask for a link to where you heard it?
Quote:
And yet the queen could insist that her grandsons William and Harry had royal protection when they were with Diana, and still you claim she had no control over royal protection? Furthermore, Prince Andrew wants royal protection for his daughters and it is done. Are you claiming he has no influence over providing royal protection for his daughters?
The Queen rightly asked for protection, if Diana had dug her heels in, then she could have swanned off without any protection for the heir to the heir. Contrary to the belief of some (generic), neither HM, the government or the police could force Diana to take highly trained protection officers with her. The police would have approached Andrew to pick up the tab himself, their next step will be the government who will approach HM's offices. HM as you will know, has no say in what the government says or does.
Quote:
Pot, Kettle, Black, speak for yourself. I have no motive for a 'below the belt' attack. I'd merely like the truth.
I'm sorry if you saw my comments as personal, the reason I drew a line was to disassociate my comments from anything you had written. I have no idea what your pot, kettle, black have to do with anything, I have never attacked the royal family on anything other than absolute provable evidence, personal knowledge or at least articles available for corroboration.
  #685  
Old 01-05-2008, 06:21 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhontella View Post
And yet the queen could insist that her grandsons William and Harry had royal protection when they were with Diana, and still you claim she had no control over royal protection? Furthermore, Prince Andrew wants royal protection for his daughters and it is done. Are you claiming he has no influence over providing royal protection for his daughters?
I don't think anyone's saying that the Queen doesn't have control over royal protection. The princes are ultimately her responsibility, and they were minors at the time; it was entirely appropriate that she step in and insist on protection for them. However, Diana was a grown woman and a divorcee and hence a semi-detached member of the family. According to her friends she refused royal protection because she didn't want to be surrounded by people she thought were spying on her. If the Queen had insisted, it would have reinforced that feeling, and Diana had already proved to be fairly good at evading her protection officers anyway while she was still married. The Queen apparently isn't one to throw her weight around in her family, so it's not surprising that she wasn't keen on yet another battle.

Quote:
Pot, Kettle, Black, speak for yourself. I have no motive for a 'below the belt' attack. I'd merely like the truth.
But if you hear things you don't agree with, you're dismissing them as untrue. Even the case where Diana's friends reported her motive for dispensing with royal protection, you've said you don't believe them. Are you sure you want the truth, or just validation of your opinions?
  #686  
Old 01-06-2008, 01:45 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Diana had already proved to be fairly good at evading her protection officers anyway while she was still married.
Ken Wharfe said Diana was very cooperative and open about her protection, so she was easy to protect (he was with her from '87 to '93). A few weeks after they parted ways, Diana decided to quit public life and let go of her Scotland Yard protection. It must have been a scary time for her.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
The Queen apparently isn't one to throw her weight around in her family, so it's not surprising that she wasn't keen on yet another battle.
It seems the queen knows how to get her way when she wants it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
But if you hear things you don't agree with, you're dismissing them as untrue. Even the case where Diana's friends reported her motive for dispensing with royal protection, you've said you don't believe them.
If you've been paying attention to the inquest, you would know that Diana told different "truths" to different friends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Are you sure you want the truth, or just validation of your opinions?
Is that truly a question?
  #687  
Old 01-06-2008, 06:31 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhontella View Post
If you've been paying attention to the inquest, you would know that Diana told different "truths" to different friends. Is that truly a question?
Zhontella, rather than rabbiting on about this security isssue, can you provide any evidence that Diana told her friends that she requested royal protection and was refused? If not, you have no other option but to accept the fact that Diana's friends state that Diana refused royal protection by her own free will.

There is no conspiracy, no penny-pinching by the Queen, no dark forces manoeuvring Diana into placing herself in mortal danger. Everything that has been presented on this subject shows that Diana refused royal protection. Full stop.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
  #688  
Old 01-06-2008, 09:23 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhontella View Post
Ken Wharfe said Diana was very cooperative and open about her protection, so she was easy to protect (he was with her from '87 to '93).
Ken Wharfe did not state that Diana was cooperative and open about her protection. Have you actually read his book? She was difficult and that's why he eventually asked to be removed as her protection offficer. Diana didn't like the 24 hours being followed by a protection officer and made it quite clear that she didn't. She gave up her protection officer before her divorce came through, that was her choice it wasn't something that was forced upon her.

Ken Wharfe then, as he stated was given the far easier task of being the Duke of Kent's protection officer. The Duke was far easier to work for.
  #689  
Old 01-06-2008, 09:49 AM
TheTruth's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between the first and second floor of the Eiffel Tower, France
Posts: 2,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlotte1 View Post
Ken Wharfe did not state that Diana was cooperative and open about her protection. Have you actually read his book? She was difficult and that's why he eventually asked to be removed as her protection offficer. Diana didn't like the 24 hours being followed by a protection officer and made it quite clear that she didn't. She gave up her protection officer before her divorce came through, that was her choice it wasn't something that was forced upon her.

Ken Wharfe then, as he stated was given the far easier task of being the Duke of Kent's protection officer. The Duke was far easier to work for.
Yeah, well protecting someone is very difficult because you are responsible of his safety but the privacy of the person is very important as well. Ken Wharfe was close to the princess and I respect him because he never made big revelations about her even if he wrote a book. I understand that he eventually quit the job. I wouldn't want to have her death or her injuries on my mind. We'll never know if a protection officer would have saved her. Trevor Rees-Jones, bodyguard of Dodi, was there and he didn't save her or Al-Fayed's son.
__________________

Please, help find a cure for ALS

Because it matters...
  #690  
Old 01-06-2008, 03:20 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhontella View Post
Ken Wharfe said Diana was very cooperative and open about her protection, so she was easy to protect (he was with her from '87 to '93).
Many biographies of her have referred to the way she slipped away from her security people to go off on her own. That would have been the case even more if she felt that her security people weren't trustworthy.


Quote:
A few weeks after they parted ways, Diana decided to quit public life and let go of her Scotland Yard protection. It must have been a scary time for her.
Indeed it must, but it hasn't been established that she had to let go her Scotland Yard protection.

Quote:
It seems the queen knows how to get her way when she wants it.
The Queen apparently knows which battles are worth fighting - it seems that she had some experience of thinking she'd agreed something in private with Diana only to have things, sometimes contradicting the agreement, splashed all over the headlines the next day. Diana was complaining about being spied on by the Establishment, and having the Queen insist on her keeping the royal protection officers would have reinforced that. The Queen was responsible for William and Harry; she wasn't responsible for Diana. If Diana was determined to get rid of her royal protection officers after her divorce, why should the Queen try to overrule her?

Quote:
If you've been paying attention to the inquest, you would know that Diana told different "truths" to different friends.
That's been known for a long time. However, which friend did she tell the "truth" to about how she couldn't (or didn't want to) afford to pay for royal protection much as she wanted to have it?

Quote:
Is that truly a question?
Yes, it is.
  #691  
Old 01-06-2008, 03:29 PM
TheTruth's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between the first and second floor of the Eiffel Tower, France
Posts: 2,680
If you follow Diana's philosophy and the way she wanted to lead her life, it's no surprise that she gave up her personal protection. After splitting up with Charles her desire to live a normal life was very high. When you wish that, you don't want to have a bodyguard standing 24 hours a day next to you.
__________________

Please, help find a cure for ALS

Because it matters...
  #692  
Old 01-06-2008, 03:50 PM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTruth View Post
If you follow Diana's philosophy and the way she wanted to lead her life, it's no surprise that she gave up her personal protection. After splitting up with Charles her desire to live a normal life was very high. When you wish that, you don't want to have a bodyguard standing 24 hours a day next to you.
But then she dreamt of becoming the US First Lady... now that would be a nightmare for any protection resistant person....

I can only explain the opinion of Diana that she needed no protection with the fact that very often she herself was behind the extensive media coverage, so thought she controlled the public - if she wanted to be private, she could. I doubt she ever felt really threatened by terrorists etc.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #693  
Old 01-06-2008, 05:27 PM
TheTruth's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between the first and second floor of the Eiffel Tower, France
Posts: 2,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
But then she dreamt of becoming the US First Lady... now that would be a nightmare for any protection resistant person....

I can only explain the opinion of Diana that she needed no protection with the fact that very often she herself was behind the extensive media coverage, so thought she controlled the public - if she wanted to be private, she could. I doubt she ever felt really threatened by terrorists etc.
Well the sight of Jackie Kennedy almost shot in Dallas should have dissuaded her to give up her personal protection

There's also the theory of being "too" protected. If you have a troop of bodyguards around, people will find you too inaccessible. She may have thought a personal protection was avoiding her of being close of the crowd.
__________________

Please, help find a cure for ALS

Because it matters...
  #694  
Old 01-06-2008, 08:52 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTruth View Post
We'll never know if a protection officer would have saved her. Trevor Rees-Jones, bodyguard of Dodi, was there and he didn't save her or Al-Fayed's son.
A Scotland Yard protection officer would have a greater chance of keeping their client safe than a private security guard like Trevor Rees-Jones. He was a paid employee, he had to go with whatever his employer ( Dodi) wanted. The Scotland yard protection officer ( Ken Wharfe) is a police officer not an employee of the client, therefore he can disagree, refuse to do what the clients insisting on if its unsafe.
Ken Wharfe has been very critical of the Fayed security. He's stated that as protection officer would not allow the car to move until all seat belts were fastened. The protection officers would have liased with the French police for extra support, private security don't have that ablity. Also he wouldn't allowed all the changes that happened that night, a protection officer goes to a place beforehand and accesses the risks.
There was a big difference in what a private security guard whose employment is dependent on his client to a protection officer whose employment isn't dependednt on his client is capable off and the level of security that is offered.
  #695  
Old 01-07-2008, 10:46 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
A friend of Princess Diana claims the former royal had said her relationship with Dodi Fayed was "all over" - two weeks before the couple died in a Paris car crash

Princess Diana's Friend: Relationship Over Before Crash |Sky News|UK News

Relationship with Dodi was 'all over' Diana told friend two weeks before her death | the Daily Mail
  #696  
Old 01-07-2008, 05:42 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
What I find interesting about the articles Skydragon has posted links to, is that Hasnat Khan is apparently going to give evidence. That will certainly be interesting!

As for that "friend" saying Diana said the relationship with Dodi was over, it seems to me she was telling him what he wanted to hear to shut him up. I think she tended to do that.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
  #697  
Old 01-07-2008, 08:14 PM
ghost_night554's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,785
Diana told 'without any doubt' that she was being bugged by a five-strong surveillance team | the Daily Mail

Well this is certainly true I remember the MI6 confirming that they did listen into Diana's calls but for "other reasons" not to track where she was but was it them listening in or someone else I wonder.
  #698  
Old 01-07-2008, 11:49 PM
pinkie40's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 423
Diana's decision to not have security was totally insane. IMO, Diana should have been placed in a mental facility or some other lock-up because giving up her security was tantamount to her security and that of her sons..but by that time she had burned so many bridges with the royal family and others (like Ken Wharfe) who had tried to help her they probably didn't really care one way or another. I don't understand why Paul Burrell didn't insist she have personal protection. That is a criticism I have of Mr. Burrell.
  #699  
Old 01-08-2008, 06:25 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost_night554 View Post
Diana told 'without any doubt' that she was being bugged by a five-strong surveillance team | the Daily Mail

Well this is certainly true I remember the MI6 confirming that they did listen into Diana's calls but for "other reasons" not to track where she was but was it them listening in or someone else I wonder.
Another very misleading headline! From the article -
"He said was unable to get behind the wall to examine the device. But there was "no indication" that the fabric of the wall had been altered."

"It could have been innocent electronic equipment in another room. But the noise behind the wall was very similar to a transmitter device"

"The inquest also heard Diana had been told by well-placed "friends" that there was a five-strong team in an "organisation" she believed the security service had instructed to conduct a surveillance operation on her" The allegation emerged in notes made by a senior officer about a 1994 meeting between Diana and the head of the royalty and diplomatic protection department"
-------------
All that seems to boil down to is that Diana told people she thought she was being bugged etc, the same way she tried to convince 'people' that Manakee was deliberately killed by a 17 year old learner driver.
  #700  
Old 01-08-2008, 09:50 PM
ghost_night554's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,785
Ok then forget what I said I musta not read the article correctly anyways Diana seemed very paranoid I think, in a way I don't blame her but still..
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
diana princess of wales, diana's death and funeral, duke of edinburgh, inquest, mohamed al fayed, prince philip, princess diana


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Verdict of the Diana Inquest, April 2008, and Aftermath wbenson Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 325 05-31-2012 08:33 PM
The Late Diana, Princess of Wales News Thread 7: October 2007-June 2008 Warren Current Events Archive 237 06-15-2008 07:18 AM
The Chelsy Davy Thread 6: April-October 2007 Avalon Current Events Archive 212 10-07-2007 03:26 AM
The Late Diana, Princess of Wales News Thread 5: April-June 2007 sirhon11234 Current Events Archive 210 06-06-2007 03:03 AM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit best outfit september 2016 catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events diana duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander lists member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess victoria birthday queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen mathildes style queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats visit to canada


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:50 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises