Royal Security


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Does anyone know if Anne and Edward's security are paid for by the government due to the location of their homes? If so, does Zara and Mike and children also have the same security since they also live on the property? Does Peter and family also become covered by this blanket type security due to the location of their home? Just curious. If so, that is one darn huge expense and I can actually see why maybe they will want all the royals to be close instead of all over and having to supply separate security groups many miles apart.

Anne and Edward will be provided security, funded by the taxpayer. Their respective children will not be. Anne's home will be secured, but those of her children will not be, even though they are on the Gatcombe Estate. It is not the same as being at KP or St James' where the Palaces and the homes within are within a ring of security.
 
Anne and Edward will be provided security, funded by the taxpayer. Their respective children will not be. Anne's home will be secured, but those of her children will not be, even though they are on the Gatcombe Estate. It is not the same as being at KP or St James' where the Palaces and the homes within are within a ring of security.

Anne and Edward get tax payer funded security because they are working royals. Even Sophie does not have full time tax payer funded security only when she's working. So if Beatrice needs security, its for her father or herself or husband to pay for it...
 
Anne and Edward get tax payer funded security because they are working royals. Even Sophie does not have full time tax payer funded security only when she's working. So if Beatrice needs security, its for her father or herself or husband to pay for it...

The Home Office determined about a decade ago that the tax payer would not provide security for Beatrice and Eugenie. I do not see that evolve, any security that they have will need to be privately funded.
 
The Home Office determined about a decade ago that the tax payer would not provide security for Beatrice and Eugenie. I do not see that evolve, any security that they have will need to be privately funded.
Yes they lost their security a long time ago.. and IMO its up to Beatrice and her husband who is a millionaire to provide themselves wiht a home and security if they need it..
 
Anne and Edward get tax payer funded security because they are working royals. Even Sophie does not have full time tax payer funded security only when she's working. So if Beatrice needs security, its for her father or herself or husband to pay for it...

I think that Anne and Edward also only get security now when they are out and about on engagements. And only when it is deemed necessary to have security.
 
There were a number of reports over the past year or two that the royals were loosing their "24/7" protection and then there were reports very recently that to save costs a number of senior "protected" persons - Cabinet Ministers and it was hinted Royals - were loosing armed protection in favour of officers with tasers with armed officers called in when necessary. Given that I can't see Anne & Edward's houses getting huge security around them anymore. I know years ago even there was a contract tendering process to guard Bagshot rather than it being done by police full time.

All of these decisions and on who gets protection are made based on threat assessments. If Beatrice and Eugenie were deemed at risk enough to need security they would get it. So if they don't it is because there isn't perceived to be a big enough threat to them for it to be needed. If they want to pay for their own security of course they can but that is likely more convenience rather than actual threat.
 
Last edited:
Windsor Castle will be protected by ‘no-fly zone’ as security fears for Queen grow

Aircraft and drones will be banned from January 27 from passing within a 2,500ft altitude over the residence.

The order will also make it an offence to fly inside 1.4 miles of the castle walls.

(...)

The Civil Aviation Authority says it is in the public interest to impose the ban.

It will be monitored by air traffic control — with fighter jets being scrambled if a plane breaches the zone and fails to respond to radio warnings.

Police who protect the castle round the clock on the ground will be given more powers to halt illegal drones.

(...)
 
Former Home Secretary Priti Patel apologized after an email she sent to King Charles III's private secretary Sir Clive Alderton was leaked to the Sun newspaper.

The Sun hasn't published the email (I suppose they are legally enjoined from doing so) and their "exclusive" by Nick Parker and Matt Wilkinson seems to be short on context, but it would seem Ms. Patel's email suggested a review of whether Princes Andrew and Harry should receive taxpayer-funded security.

[Former Home Secretary Priti Patel] has emailed King Charles’s top aide suggesting a review of the duke [of York]’s protection “could be something to consider”.

Ms Patel also referred to the ditching of Prince Harry’s security detail.

[...]

Ms Patel's intervention came after she discussed Andrew’s security woes with his PR guru pal Mark Gallagher.

She refused to say who she emailed — but apologised to the King when we revealed Sir Clive's name had been leaked.

Ms Patel, 51, said: “It is disappointing that this correspondence has been leaked into the public domain and I apologise to His Majesty for the embarrassment and difficulties the publishing of this correspondence has caused.”

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23625665/prince-andrew-armed-security-priti-patel/

I'm not clear on why Ms. Patel is apologizing, since she is presumably not the one who leaked the email. Is it considered inappropriate for her to be emailing the King's private secretary about royal security matters?
 
To me that smells like a deliberate leak.
 
It has been reported that he no longer has official Met Police protection. It seems he still has people with him, so these are likely privately employed security guards, possibly even former Met police protection officers. It was suggested Charles had agreed to pay for them for now but whoever really knows.
 
It has been reported that he no longer has official Met Police protection. It seems he still has people with him, so these are likely privately employed security guards, possibly even former Met police protection officers. It was suggested Charles had agreed to pay for them for now but whoever really knows.

And do Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie have security? What about Zara and Peter? And the Duchess of York?
 
And do Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie have security? What about Zara and Peter? And the Duchess of York?
Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie formerly had Met Police protection but that ended in 2011. Their father reportedly picked up the costs of their security afterwards.



Sarah, Duchess of York's Met Police protection likely ended when she and Prince Andrew divorced, but I can't confirm if that is true.



As far as I know, Peter and Zara Phillips have never had their own police protection.
 
No, none of those you mentioned have official police protection. Beatrice and Eugenie are often said to have some private protection paid for by Andrew (using former Royal Personal Protection Officers). They had official police protection until 2011.
Zara and Peter don't, and they never really seem to have- they live on their mothers estate which will have protection and, maybe at very high profile events like the Jubilees, coronation etc someone might be detailed to keep an eye on them (and other members of the RF) but no, none of them have official police protection.

Currently the only royals believed to have full time 24/7 police protection are The King, The Queen, William, Catherine and their children.

Anne, Edward and Sophie are believed to have protection only when on official royal duties or when the security threat requires it. Of course none of us really know as we don't often see them outside of official duties, it may well be they get some protection but on a lower level to the King, Queen, Wales's. For the Gloucesters, Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra - someone will be with them when on official duties.

All other members of the RF - Beatrice, Eugenie, Peter, Zara (I imagine James and Louise) Harry, Andrew etc don't get official protection but are, of course, free to pay for their own security from private security companies/providers.
 
Last edited:
Given the fact that, even when Andrew had full security, people were allowed to simply enter Royal Lodge, not just the grounds, I don't think the royal protection is all that good anyway.
 
I wonder how long the court case concerning the security will take? Unless the case has already been settled?
 
The Guardian is asking the freedom of information tribunal for the Home Office to release the cost of security in protecting the Royal Family between 2017 and 2020. The Home Office/Government argues however that such disclosure of the financial cost could increase the risk of attack.

Guardian questions Home Office claim that revealing royal security cost is risky
At freedom of information tribunal, Guardian says it has not been publicly explained how such data might be useful to attackers
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...cost-guardian-freedom-of-information-tribunal

The Home Office should publicly reveal the cost to the taxpayer of providing security to the royal family, a barrister representing the Guardian has told a tribunal.

The news organisation has brought a legal case arguing that disclosure of the figure would enable a more informed public discussion about the costs and benefits of the monarchy.

(...)

The Guardian has asked for a combined figure for the total cost of security from 2017 to 2020. It has said it does not want any breakdown of what the money is spent on, or which members of the royal family benefit from it.

(..)

On Wednesday the tribunal heard from Thomas Rutherford, a senior civil servant and head of the royalty, VIP and MP security unit within the Home Office. He said in written evidence that “the requested item of information would be of substantial interest to a would-be attacker gathering information to assist in planning an attack”.

There was a discussion on GB News where Cameron Walker mentioned that the security cost for even Prime Minister and other prominent former politician are kept private.

Personally, I do think the Guardian is just being a wind-up merchant republican here pretending to care about transparency and freedom. Otherwise why wouldn't they go after Prime Minister and "informed public discussion about the costs and benefits" of the Westminster system as well? :whistling:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom