Prince Andrew, Duke of York Current Events 7: Feb 2015 - Sep 2022

[Somebody]

August is generally known as "the silly season", when all sorts of non-stories appear in the press.

In the Netherlands, and apparently in many other countries/languages as well, the summer months (July and August) with little news due to holidays are called 'cucumber time'.

 

[Roderick]

I don’t think Andrew actually has RPO’s or personal security and he mostly stays where he should be.

Of course he would retain security - he is still the son of the Queen of England.

 

[tihkon2]

Wouldn't Andrew's grandmother, the Queen Mother have left him something.

 

[hereditarytitles]

evenn if you dislike or hate someone there is quite a jump to I wouldn't care if he got killed.. unless soemone was as bad as Hitler

Excuse me, but a comparison with Hitler is IMO a bit strange. Hitler killed millions of people and did so much damage to my country that generations afterwards can still feel it and are still feeling guilty, even those born after the war (like me).
The world is full of crazy people who want to kill other people, sometimes because they hate them, sometimes because they are really psychotic. Look at all those killings in the US, and it happens everywhere. I understand that harry and Meghan were threatened.

Those prominent royals have to be protected even if they are not favourites of many. I wonder if Fergie and her daughters and other members of the family get protection which is paid by the taxpayer? Where do you draw the line or the limits?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I am sure that the British public would rejoice if Andrew were killed - because he had no protection at all while living and moving around a little bit in the UK.

There is a difference between 'wanting someone to be killed' and 'not caring' if they were killed. No one has suggested anyone wanted Andrew to be killed.

To my ears, the statement that "the British public would rejoice if Andrew were killed" sounded closer to stating that the British public "wants Andrew to be killed" than "not caring". But if that is not what you meant, then I will edit my post.

Those prominent royals have to be protected even if they are not favourites of many. I wonder if Fergie and her daughters and other members of the family get protection which is paid by the taxpayer? Where do you draw the line or the limits?

No, Sarah Duchess of York and her daughters do not have their protection paid by taxpayers. The following summary of taxpayer funding for royal security was published by the Telegraph (the same newspaper which reported the recent decision) in 2021. While it refers to some family members as "without security", taxpayer-paid security is what is meant in context.

Those with security

THE QUEEN: The Monarch is provided with round the clock protection
PRINCE CHARLES AND DUCHESS OF CORNWALL: Heir to the throne and his wife have 24/7 armed protection
DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CAMBRIDGE: Full protection for the couple and their family
PRINCESS ROYAL: Security on all official engagements
EARL AND COUNTESS OF WESSEX: Protection on official duties

Those without security

PRINCESSES BEATRICE AND EUGENIE: Cut due to cost
ZARA TINDALL: No protection despite being a high-profile sportswoman
DUKE OF YORK: Lost armed protection after stepping down
DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX: Stripped after stepping down

 

[Hallo girl]

There is a difference between 'wanting someone to be killed' and 'not caring' if they were killed. No one has suggested anyone wanted Andrew to be killed. I said my British friends wouldn't care - not the same thing. None have ever suggested they wanted that to happen. They are saying 'if' it did they wouldn't care themselves but would be upset for the Queen who would lose her son.

I am British, I care when I hear of somebody killed, whether it be an accident or as a result of violence. If by violence I would care what type of country we are turning into, I maybe wouldn’t grieve for the person but I would care but also grieve for my country.

There is a difference between 'wanting someone to be killed' and 'not caring' if they were killed. No one has suggested anyone wanted Andrew to be killed. I said my British friends wouldn't care - not the same thing. None have ever suggested they wanted that to happen. They are saying 'if' it did they wouldn't care themselves but would be upset for the Queen who would lose her son.

I am British, I care when I hear of somebody killed, whether it be an accident or as a result of violence. If by violence I would care what type of country we are turning into, I maybe wouldn’t grieve for the person but I would care but also grieve for my country.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Of course he would retain security - he is still the son of the Queen of England.

RPO’s are for working royals and Andrew is no longer one so he doesn’t have it.

Im sure he has security men, he does occasionally lave the area, and Im sure he doesnt go iwthout some protection. the question is, who is paying for it. I hope it is the queen.

I’m sure the Queen oversees that herself because he’s definitely not a working royal and I’m sure RAVEC doesn’t want any more issues.

 

[MsJulie]

JMO and thoughts..with all that has gone on with Prince Andrew in the past and currently, and with the age of the Queen, I would not be surprised if the Queen and possibly Prince Phillip too, have set up some sort of monetary income with a lot of stipulations on how much monies can be used by Andrew each year. If left without a legal guide and savings account of sorts, I am afraid Andrew would spend the money very fast and not have enough to live on in later years….to include his ex wife. I dont know if Charles or William or Harry would help to bail Andrew out….and I dont know if his son in laws would either. just thinking….night all.

 

[Iluvbertie]

RPO’s are for working royals and Andrew is no longer one so he doesn’t have it.

Philip had RPOs after he retired as a working royal.

Anne doesn't have 24/7 protection.

The decision is based on something far more complicated on whether they are working royals or not but on the perceived threat level - that is the only criteria for protection.

 

[Denville]

Excuse me, but a comparison with Hitler is IMO a bit strange. Hitler killed millions of people and did so much damage to my country that generations afterwards can still feel it and are still feeling guilty, even those born after the war (like me).
The world is full of crazy people who want to kill other people, sometimes because they hate them, sometimes because they are really psychotic. Look at all those killings in the US, and it happens everywhere. I understand that harry and Meghan were threatened.

Those prominent royals have to be protected even if they are not favourites of many. I wonder if Fergie and her daughters and other members of the family get protection which is paid by the taxpayer? Where do you draw the line or the limits?

that is precisely my point. Andrew is not a nice guy, he is pretty appalling and im sure that many royal watchers thoroughly dislike him, but its a big jump to say that people would not mind if he was killed. he ISNT anything like as bad as Hitler.
As fro Sarah and her daughters no they dont get security paid by the tax payer

 

[victor1319]

Andrew is not a nice guy...

I think, that is, why he exactly needs a security detail: He is seen by many as some kind of villain. And self declared justice vigilantes can be very nasty!

 

[Denville]

I think, that is, why he exactly needs a security detail: He is seen by many as some kind of villain. And self declared justice vigilantes can be very nasty!

he can have as much security as he wants, but the question is paying for it. very few of the RF get full time security paid for by the tax payer and Andrew IMO should not be one of the few. In any case, he seems to rarely go out of the enclosure of Windsor area, which is protected so I would imagine that he has coverage most of the time and if he goes away to London or balmoral, he has someone with him... but that's fine provided he does not expect the tax payers to pay for it.

JMO and thoughts..with all that has gone on with Prince Andrew in the past and currently, and with the age of the Queen, I would not be surprised if the Queen and possibly Prince Phillip too, have set up some sort of monetary income with a lot of stipulations on how much monies can be used by Andrew each year. If left without a legal guide and savings account of sorts, I am afraid Andrew would spend the money very fast and not have enough to live on in later years….to include his ex wife. I dont know if Charles or William or Harry would help to bail Andrew out….and I dont know if his son in laws would either. just thinking….night all.

I dont know if its Andrew who mihgt end up over spending but more likely Sarah

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I dont know if its Andrew who mihgt end up over spending but more likely Sarah

The two of them bite off more than can chew given all the past. Hopefully Sarah at least with the latest good news will keep her head up.

 

[Denville]

The two of them bite off more than can chew given all the past. Hopefully Sarah at least with the latest good news will keep her head up.

what good news? not sure what you mean in the first sentence. I am not saying Andrew is not extravagant but i dont think he is quite such a big spender as Sarah... which is parlty why he has takne to using his position to associate with rich and dubious people. he needs the cash for himself and also for Fergie.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

what good news? not sure what you mean in the first sentence. I am not saying Andrew is not extravagant but i dont think he is quite such a big spender as Sarah... which is parlty why he has takne to using his position to associate with rich and dubious people. he needs the cash for himself and also for Fergie.

The good news is that Sarah bought a home for her daughters and it seems some of her “business ventures” did well some way. My point is that regardless the two of them enable one another in their embarrassing and shady financial issues.

 

[hereditarytitles]

The good news is that Sarah bought a home for her daughters and it seems some of her “business ventures” did well some way. My point is that regardless the two of them enable one another in their embarrassing and shady financial issues.

People are wondering about her buying such an expensive house in Mayfair. Where did that money come from? They are still in debt about the Swiss chalet, although the papers wrote it was sold to cover Andrew's lawyers fees.
We are kept in the dark, I assume. I could imagine that the Queen who must own an enormous sum of money privately, paid for a lot of extras without informing the public (which is her right if it is private money)

 

[SirGyamfi1]

People are wondering about her buying such an expensive house in Mayfair. Where did that money come from? They are still in debt about the Swiss chalet, although the papers wrote it was sold to cover Andrew's lawyers fees.
We are kept in the dark, I assume. I could imagine that the Queen who must own an enormous sum of money privately, paid for a lot of extras without informing the public (which is her right if it is private money)

Even the papers got the info wrong about selling the chalet to pay for the legal fees so I’m not sure. Well the Mayfair house is definitely a leasehold.

 

[tommy100]

It wouldn't surprise me if, whilst bought in Sarah's name, some of Beatrice and Eugenie's money is tied up in it.

 

[victor1319]

he can have as much security as he wants, but the question is paying for it. very few of the RF get full time security paid for by the tax payer and Andrew IMO should not be one of the few.

What you say makes sense - but imagine: What if Prince gets stabbed by a nutty conspiracy dude, who got enraged by what he did read in the papers?

This would be a desaster for England!

And couldn't Prince Andrew afford to pay for his own security? Well... There are rumours about financial difficulties of the Yorks...

 

[Alison H]

Where do you draw the line, though? Look at what's just happened to Salman Rushdie. You could argue that he was entitled to state-funded security because he was under an Iranian fatwa. A nutty conspiracy theorist could attack any well-known person - a politician, a scientist, a sportsperson, a film star, a singer, an actor, an author. The state can't fund security for all of them.

 

[tommy100]

Again, everyone is jumping to conclusions based on some media reports and when it comes to royal security they can "report" pretty much what they want without correction because the Royal Household and Met Police will never comment on royal security. Each person undergoes an in-depth risk assessment and protection is provided accordingly. That is the same as was offered to Harry, security as and when the risk required it. Basically the RF have moved on from the 80s/90s when every HRH had a team of 24hr full time officers protecting them and their homes. That is seemingly now reserved for HM (and Philip), Charles and Camilla, William and Catherine (and likely their children for now). Purely my opinion but my gut says Andrew wouldn't be getting 365 day a year 24hr PPOs anyway unless there really are a number of threats made against him (TBH given that the lawyers for Giuffre sent a bus round BP calling on Andrew to talk I wouldn't be surprised if further 'threats' or at least targeting of Andrew in some way is considered likely) I can also fully imagine Andrew paying for private security for himself as he did for his daughters. He may well have done as he did for them and privately employed his own former PPOs.

Basically, if Andrew has security for now it is likely because there is deemed to be a threat not just because the Queen or Andrew demand it (or that story would have leaked by now - after all many more people dislike Andrew so would find it in their interest to leak any "demand" for security for him against official risk assessments) but likewise we don't know he is getting the security discussed.

 

[Denville]

What you say makes sense - but imagine: What if Prince gets stabbed by a nutty conspiracy dude, who got enraged by what he did read in the papers?

This would be a desaster for England!

And couldn't Prince Andrew afford to pay for his own security? Well... There are rumours about financial difficulties of the Yorks...

that's not the point. Im sure Andrew has enough sense to ensure that he takes reasonable precautions against someone tyring to kil him, if there is any one oout there who wants to, but he or hte queen should pay for it, not the tax payer

 

[Iluvbertie]

that's not the point. Im sure Andrew has enough sense to ensure that he takes reasonable precautions against someone tyring to kil him, if there is any one oout there who wants to, but he or hte queen should pay for it, not the tax payer

Like all civilised countries security is a matter for the police and if they determine that there is a direct threat to a citizen they provide security - as the British did for Salmon Rushdie for so many years. He didn't pay for it himself but the British taxpayers did. Surely the son of the Queen is as eligible for security - if so determined by the police - as any other citizen?

As the police guards at Royal Lodge have already allowed one person to wander around the grounds of the Lodge and another to actually walk into the Lodge while Andrew was in the house I am not sure how good the UK police is at providing decent security (those two events happened last year).

 

[Denville]

Like all civilised countries security is a matter for the police and if they determine that there is a direct threat to a citizen they provide security - as the British did for Salmon Rushdie for so many years. He didn't pay for it himself but the British taxpayers did. Surely the son of the Queen is as eligible for security - if so determined by the police - as any other citizen?

As the police guards at Royal Lodge have already allowed one person to wander around the grounds of the Lodge and another to actually walk into the Lodge while Andrew was in the house I am not sure how good the UK police is at providing decent security (those two events happened last year).

if Andrew isn't satisifed iwth the british police then he can find his own security men and pay for them. Salman Rushdie had protection for some years, he did not get it for life.

 

[Iluvbertie]

if Andrew isn't satisifed iwth the british police then he can find his own security men and pay for them. Salman Rushdie had protection for some years, he did not get it for life.

The point is that it was the police that decided the level of security given to Rushdie. It seems that you don't want the same standard applied to Andrew - that he has to pay for his own security even if he is facing threats.

 

[Hallo girl]

This all just speculation, we do not know for certain any of this.

 

[Denville]

The point is that it was the police that decided the level of security given to Rushdie. It seems that you don't want the same standard applied to Andrew - that he has to pay for his own security even if he is facing threats.

yes the police decide.. but most royals do not have full 100 per cent security nowadays, even senior royals like Anne only get it if they are on duty. Andrew is not doing any royal duties.. and he's deeply unpopular. he is in a secure zone at Windsor, if he does not feel safe enough there, he can hire his own staff to be with him, and if he goes off site, he can do the same. Or the queen can pay. the public do not want to pay for him.

 

[Marengo]

It's time to close this thread. You can find the new one here.