Prince Andrew, Duke of York News and Events 8: Sep 2022 -


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
I thought that Anne, Edward & Sophie only got protection when carrying out Royal Duties. The King & Queen and the Prince and Princess of Wales have it 24-7.
Why would Andrew be deemed as requiring this ? AND to the tune of 3 million a year if the reports are correct.
Cutting that ridiculous and unnecessary expenditure in these very troubled economic times is a smart PR move, for someone as toxic as Andrew is especially.

I'm not a fan of Andrew's anyway. Not just the scandals around Epstein, but from what I have read about him for decades, its his unbridled arrogance and entitlement attitude that I find shocking. I believe the allegations of him treating staff and subordinates in dismissive and downright rude and mean ways to be true. A boor and a jerk. Who made a ton of money off of shady deals like the sale of his Sunninghill Park home.
And lots of wheeling-dealings with People like Dictators, Middle East despots and Kazakh billionaires.

I believe Andrew is worth more than anyone knows from profitable time as Britain Trade Ambassador. Side deals for big cash.
He is nearly 62 and should consider himself officially retired. He is very fortunate for the blessings he has. His daughters love him and whatever the *odd* relationship him and Sarah have, it works for them. He is a grandfather of two and lives in unparalleled luxury in a gorgeous mansion.

Be grateful for that, and accept that the days of running to your Mother for requests and favors is DONE. OVER.
There is no need for Taxpayer funded security. If ego maniac Andrew thinks he needs it, pay for it yourself or go without.
Many, many of your fellow Brits are being forced to make hard decisions about cost cutting measures in their own personal lives.

Sooooo, welcome to the Club Andrew !
 
Last edited:
I think security is always based on a threat assessment - with some in built factors for the senior royals getting 24/7 protection all the time.

It has been widely reported that Anne and Edward and Sophie only get protection when on public duties rather than round the clock as they use to. No one knows how true that is and BP will never comment on it. Certainly there was a massive reduction in personal protection a few years ago, especially the number of senior government ministers and royals getting armed protection (as this is more expensive).

If Andrew did get 24/7 protection there are 3 possible explanations - 1) he didn't but it makes a better story to say he did 2) he does because the threat assessment of him puts him higher risk than Anne and Edward 3) it looks like he does because he pays for former protection officers to protect him when "official" ones won't / don't

The reality is none of us know the security around the royals - just the way the Palace and Police like it.

Like with other now no longer working royals, the reality is the police would probably always do a threat assessment - at large family events of course protection is provided to all "well known" royals as they are very much in the public eye at that time but the assessment may be that as a no longer working royal Andrew can drive to ride his horses, play golf etc without protection officers with him. Without talking about those off topic people it was pointed out this was what was done with them - each set of circumstances was assessed - there is no blanket ban of them getting security just a case to say they can live in a well protected home and pop to the shops etc without a car of armed officers behind them. The same is now being said of Andrew - his day to day life requires no full time protection.
 
Blog Real said:
But doing so will put his life in danger. What is the need? Andrew has not been arrested or taken to court. These are very drastic measures...
Click to expand...

Because it apparently costs £3 million per year.
And in these times of financial difficulties for everyone across the globe, if he wants to retain this privilege, he can pay for it by himself - the British taxpayer can no longer afford to do so.
I'm afraid his days of running to Mummy for help, at the age of 62, are over!
 
sophie25 said:
He found 12 million pounds in a relatively short space of time to pay off his accuser. If he can do that he can pay for his own security.
Click to expand...
No one knows the amount that Virginia was paid, that’s just speculation from the media. All I can say was money was paid to a charity run by Virginia, but no one knows the amount. Most likely Andrew himself didn’t pay her.
 
irish_royalist said:
Because it apparently costs £3 million per year.
And in these times of financial difficulties for everyone across the globe, if he wants to retain this privilege, he can pay for it by himself - the British taxpayer can no longer afford to do so.
I'm afraid his days of running to Mummy for help, at the age of 62, are over!
Click to expand...

He lives on a guarded comp,ex. He doesn’t seem to go out anyway. I think he’ll be fine.
 
FigTree said:
He lives on a guarded comp,ex. He doesn’t seem to go out anyway. I think he’ll be fine.
Click to expand...

You truly expect him to remain in his house and Windsor Great Park for the rest of his life? That's effectively a life-long (luxury) prison sentence...
 
Somehow I don't think he'll be a prisoner in his house. It isn't like he was regularly going out do his shopping in the supermarket, drink down his local boozer or wait in line at the post office anyway. The places Andrew probably frequents are posh golf clubs, restaurants, Clubs (as in the old fashioned gentleman's type), other rich and famous people's homes etc etc....places which would already be hard for an "ordinary member of the public" to get close to him anyway. It isn't like everyone and their mate is going to be standing next to him in a line anytime soon.

TBH the most "high profile" places for anything to happen were public engagements or when leaving his home - he no longer does engagements and the Windsor estate has probably the largest number of police outside of London.

The idea he has to live in his luxury house like some sort of bunker it over the top IMO and, to be frank, the public can't provide expensive round the clock protection to stop someone shouting what they think of him at Andrew... that isn't what protection officers are for. If it was half the well known people in the UK would be getting police protection with all the stunts extinction rebellion, animal rebellion etc etc are pulling at the moment, even David Attenborough had someone shouting at him the other day while out in public....let's give him 24/7 police protection should we (I'm sure more UK taxpayers would be happy to pay for that than protection for Andrew). The reality is even with "no protection" Andrew will probably have panic alarms and god knows what else to protect him and summon help and the officials clearly think this is enough to handle any "threat" towards him which is more likely to come from members of the public annoyed at Andrew's own behaviour than a real terrorist threat.
 
In my opinion I don’t believe there is any real anger towards Andrew nowadays, more a contemptuous indifference. The most danger he would be in IMO might be a member of the public shouting an insult, or lobbing an egg or tomato in his direction. And I agree, I can’t see Andrew queuing at a bus stop or going to a market stall or supermarket for some sausages and vegs. So he’s not likely to come into contact with ordinary members of the public anyway.
 
I agree there are many different levels of security - and which level he NEEDS based on a real needs-assessment we do not know (but 3 million seems a lot of money indeed and they should be able to scale that back). However, the suggestion that he will be fine because (and I quote) 'He doesn’t seem to go out anyway' does suggest that would be fine staying within Windsor Grounds (as that already has protection) for the rest of his life - which would make it a prison.

Whether he is 'comfortable' with a lower level than he is used to is a different question but that should not determine the state's contribution to his security. If it is just about being more comfortable with one arrangement over another (because of what he's had most of his life) that is something he would need to pay for. Note that international companies do regularly pay for their employees to receive some kind of protection (depending on the risk assessment of course); so for the 'firm' to continue to provide some security arrangement for a retired senior employee would make some sense - if said person is still considered at risk (which they seem to be doing by providing him a secured place to live).
 
Somebody said:
You truly expect him to remain in his house and Windsor Great Park for the rest of his life? That's effectively a life-long (luxury) prison sentence...
Click to expand...

Didn’t say that. Said he never seemed to go Anywhere. And he doesn’t.
 
He doesnt seem to leave the Windsor estate, these days, and he is pretty safe there. If he does go to London or to visit people in the country, he can hire security.
 
https://www.news.com.au/entertainme...s/news-story/5bad58d880d36cc9c52a938fac86b96a

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...olice-replaced-private-security-officers.html

Prince Andrew will have his security team of Royal Protection Officers replaced by a team of private security personnel according to the above article. It’s suggested here in the Fail article that Charles may pick up the bill for this. There are also suggestions here that he and Sarah still have debts owing to a couple of individuals in spite of selling their Swiss chalet.
 
Last edited:
Curryong said:
https://www.news.com.au/entertainme...s/news-story/5bad58d880d36cc9c52a938fac86b96a

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...olice-replaced-private-security-officers.html

Prince Andrew will have his security team of Royal Protection Officers replaced by a team of private security personnel according to the above article. It’s suggested here in the Fail article that Charles may pick up the bill for this. There are also suggestions here that he and Sarah still have debts owing to a couple of individuals in spite of selling their Swiss chalet.
Click to expand...

The Telegraph has confirmed that the King is expected to pay for the Duke of York's private security since his brother has "no discernible regular income" (or, in other words, cannot afford it himself).

https://archive.ph/SMFFu
 
Last edited:
Mbruno said:
The Telegraph has confirmed that the King is expected to pay for the Duke of York's private security since his brother has "no discernible regular income" (or, in other words, cannot afford it himself).

https://archive.ph/SMFFu
Click to expand...

That's just supposition. Charles is not likely to confirm who is paying for A's security. It will probably be him, but it is not confirmed by anyone in the know
 
Denville said:
That's just supposition. Charles is not likely to confirm who is paying for A's security. It will probably be him, but it is not confirmed by anyone in the know
Click to expand...

The important (factual) news is that Ravec has decided to remove the Duke's taxpayer-funded security now that he has stepped down as a working royal. That proves that the same standards are being applied to different members of the Royal Family. If the King picks the bill, it will be a private arrangement between him and his brother as I assume no public funds will be involved . The money won't come from the Sovereign Grant for example, although I suppose it may come from the Duchy of Lancaster, but I am not sure.
 
well yes it was always on the cards that Andrew was going to lose his tax payer funded security, I think he only retained it because the queen was so elderly, and because Covid and his own losing his work meant that Andrew was pretty much confined to Windsor.
 
Somebody said:
I agree there are many different levels of security - and which level he NEEDS based on a real needs-assessment we do not know (but 3 million seems a lot of money indeed and they should be able to scale that back). However, the suggestion that he will be fine because (and I quote) 'He doesn’t seem to go out anyway' does suggest that would be fine staying within Windsor Grounds (as that already has protection) for the rest of his life - which would make it a prison.

Whether he is 'comfortable' with a lower level than he is used to is a different question but that should not determine the state's contribution to his security. If it is just about being more comfortable with one arrangement over another (because of what he's had most of his life) that is something he would need to pay for. Note that international companies do regularly pay for their employees to receive some kind of protection (depending on the risk assessment of course); so for the 'firm' to continue to provide some security arrangement for a retired senior employee would make some sense - if said person is still considered at risk (which they seem to be doing by providing him a secured place to live).
Click to expand...


The article in The Telegraph mentioned that he previously had "armed" police security. From what I understand, his private security, no matter who pays for it, will not be armed as, according to the British forum members, that is apparently illegal in the UK (I haven't independently verified that information). In that sense, it is already a major downgrade.


Of course,as long as he stays confined to Royal Lodge and other royal estates, he will still enjoy armed security for free.
 
Last edited:
no it wont be armed but he should be safe enough. He does not seem to go out much from the Windsor enclave and he will have protection, even if its not armed. He should realise by now that he IS pretty much confined to a semi house arrest for life. He can visit friends, private clubs etc where he should be safe enough but he is not goign to work again, probably not going to travel all that much, and that's going to be his life from now on. He was lucky to keep tax payer funded security for the past 2 years, probalby only allowed because it was the wish of the queen who was a very old lady by then
 
Denville said:
no it wont be armed but he should be safe enough. He does not seem to go out much from the Windsor enclave and he will have protection, even if its not armed. He should realise by now that he IS pretty much confined to a semi house arrest for life. He can visit friends, private clubs etc where he should be safe enough but he is not goign to work again, probably not going to travel all that much, and that's going to be his life from now on. He was lucky to keep tax payer funded security for the past 2 years, probalby only allowed because it was the wish of the queen who was a very old lady by then
Click to expand...


Although it would have been possible for the Queen to make a personal request to the Home Secretary or to any other pertinent public officer, the Queen herself was not personally involved in those decisions, and I don't think she would have done it considering how observant she was of her constitutional position.

The Queen's Private Secretary was part of Ravec though, so he could have conveyed the Queen's personal wishes to the committee if that was the case. Quoting from The Telegraph:



[FONT=&quot]All decisions about royal security are made by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, known as Ravec.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Members include senior figures from the King’s household, including his private secretary, as well as a representative from the Prince of Wales’s household.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]They are joined by the chairman of the National Police Chiefs’ Council counterterrorism coordination committee, the deputy assistant commissioner specialist operations at the Metropolitan Police, the director-general of the Homeland Security Group at the Home Office, and the deputy director of the National Security Secretariat at the Cabinet Office.[/FONT]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Once the children have left home, many people with large houses downsize for all sorts of reasons but the maintenance costs alone are reason enough, particularly if it's an old house. Other royals have had to give up their mansions for financial reasons so I don't see why Charles should keep funding Andrew to stay in Royal Lodge.
 
because Andrew has a lease on Royal Lodge. He has to live somewhere, and thats the safest place he can be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marengo
Iñaki Urdangarín, News and Events 1: Jan. 2024 -
Replies
2
Views
1K
Toledo
Toledo
An Ard Ri
  • Sticky
Infanta Cristina, News and Events 1: Jan, 2024 -
Replies
2
Views
1K
Somebody
Somebody
Marengo
Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant News and Events 2, Feb 2024 -
2
Replies
30
Views
7K
Prinsara
Prinsara
Ista
General News for Charles III and Queen Camilla Part 2, February 2024-
2 3
Replies
60
Views
13K
winifred
W
Marengo
Juan Valentín, Pablo, Miguel & Irene Urdangarín, News and Events 3: Jan. 2024 -
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Biri
B

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom