Royal Security

[muriel]

BBC News - Royal car attack: Lessons learned, says Theresa May

Royal car attack: Lessons learned, says Theresa May

Camilla and Charles found themselves in the middle of the protest

"Important lessons have been learned" after the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall were caught up in the fees protests, the home secretary has said.
Police should look beyond the available intelligence and take a broader view of potential threats, Theresa May said.
Their car was attacked by protesters and "contact" was made with the duchess in London's West End on 9 December.
Protection had to continue to take into account the Royal Family's desire to be seen by the public, the report said.
"The most significant area of learning from the incident is the need to look beyond the available intelligence to take a broader view of threats that can reasonably be anticipated in the circumstances, and to adapt plans accordingly," Mrs May said.
While "important lessons have been learned from this shocking incident" she said the findings must be seen in the context of the provision of protection for the Royal Family that has an "enviable record over many years".
She added: "Such protection always has to take into account the Royal Family's desire to be seen by and to be close to the public."

 

[Muhler]

Hmm, that statement sounds like a lot of blah, blah to me.
The protection failed. That's the bottom line.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Royals to be shrouded in further secrecy under controversial law change | Mail Online

 

[Lumutqueen]

Tuition fees: 2 suspected protesters arrested trying to enter Buckingham Palace | Mail Online

 

[wbenson]

Police bodyguards to be issued with stun guns to protect the Royals from protesters - Telegraph

Police officers protecting the Royal Family are being issued with controversial taser stun guns following the attack on Prince Charles and Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, by student protesters last year.

 

[wbenson]

Charlie Gilmour appears in court accused of attacking royal convoy | Education | The Guardian

Charlie Gilmour, son of the Pink Floyd guitarist David Gilmour, has appeared in court accused of attacking a convoy that included a car carrying the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall.

He is also accused of throwing a rubbish bin at a car containing the prince's security officers and of sitting on the bonnet of the same vehicle.

 

[Lenora]

Beatrice and Eugenie are on the step to lose the 24-hour protection officers,as the costs are too high,Prince Andrew is against this decision and wants to keep the current ststem
Beatrice and Eugenie stripped of 24-hour protection after row over £50,000 cost | Mail Online

 

[angieuk]

Beatrice and Eugenie - Stripped of 24-Hour Protection Row

Beatrice and Eugenie stripped of 24-hour protection after row over £50,000 cost | Mail Online

 

[FergieFan]

If this is true, it seems to me to be a reaction to the media, which is sad. Personally, considering everything else the British state spends money on, I don't see how we can begrudge a mere £500,000 to keep the Princesses safe. The rubbish about nightclubs is a typical DM low blow, as well.

And if it's true about their future careers, it seems wrong somehow the girls and their father have simply been over-ruled. Surely Beatrice and Eugenie themselves should have some say in their future roles - the RF could be squandering a couple of potential assets, as I think they could have a lot to offer, given the opportunity.

 

[sliver_bic]

There's never been a credible threat on the girls. I'm not saying they can't be targets but sometimes having security makes you more likely to catch heat than if you don't.

 

[Iluvbertie]

As this annoucement is the same one made in the Telegraph 11 months ago I am not sure about its accuracy - see my links to both articles in the forum relating to both the girls but what concerns me is in the current state of the world what a coup that would be - to take out one of the Queen's granddaughters.

As for them being assets - sorry but I simply don't see it. So far they have shown no real signs of being assets but are very good at being the laughing stock of the world - particularly Beatrice.

I like them but I simply don't see that they have anything to offer and I also don't see them as being needed.

 

[EIIR]

I personally have no great admiration for either of the York princesses, although, to my mind they've lived their lives in a manner no worse than any young girls in modern Britain.

The problem I have with any decision to permanently remove their security is that, like it or not, they are granddaughters of the monarch and have a very high profile as a result. It therefore follows that they are, by default, high profile targets for terrorists who, particularly at present, are desperate to cause as much difficulty as possible. So, let's just imagine for a moment that one of them were to be kidnapped by any number of terrorist groups we know are working in the UK. This becomes the worst nightmare imaginable of the Prime Minister and the govt. They can't negotiate with terrorists or provide any of the myriad demands they would likely make in order to release their hostage. So, what do you do?

I'm fairly certain that David Cameron would prefer to keep paying the, relatively, small sum required to provide the princesses with protection which minimises the risk of this scenario becoming reality.

 

[Zonk]

And that to me is the greatest issue.

People say that they are no asset to England. Yes, they are...just by their virtue of being granddaughters of the Queen and 5th and 6th in line to the throne. Do we need something bad to happen before a risk is realized?

All you need is some person who in trying to prove something or themselves and does something stupid. I mean, if someone can climb Buckingham Palace and end up in a room with the Queen, whats to stop anything else happening?

I mean, if you can't get the the first four people in line of sucession, whats to stop them getting Beatrice or Eugenie?

 

[tommy1716]

The biggest argument against the princesses having 24 hour protection (let's remember there isnt a suggestion they aren't going to have ANY protectection at all) is that Zara and Peter Philips have survived perfectly well up to now without the same protection afforded the york girls.

 

[EIIR]

What in all comes down to, in my view, is proximity to the throne. As a result, HM has more security than Charles, who in turn has more security than William etc etc.

Peter Phillips has a very low profile. The same could be said of Zara until she chose to become a professional sportswoman.

I don't feel that either of the princesses particularly court media publicity and yet they get an awful lot of it. This, along with their place in the line of succession is reason enough to leave the arrangements as they are in my opinion. When they're older and probably married I would be happy for the 24 hour security to be removed.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't see a need for 24/7 security but I do think they need it when they go out.

However, if the press stopped reporting about them then the need for security would be reduced.

If the press doesn't make known their favourite haunts etc then the public won't have this information and then someone who is trying to make a point won't find it as easy to get this information.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

It was about time - to protect those who wont dont belong to the core BRF (imo thats Queen & Duke, Charles & Camilla, William & Kate & Harry as spare as long as there are no children for William & Kate) 24 hours per day isnt to date at all.

I am sure the only reason why it came that far lies in the personality of the Duke & Dutchess of York (I dont think I need to explain any further). Anne and Edward got the message early enough not to make their children HRH's and give them the opportunity to make their own living without public scrutiny on who forks out the bill. Eugenie and Beatrice may be No 5 & 6 in line at the moment but in the big picture they (and their parents) dont matter to the monarchy at all. It might be a bitter pill to swallow especially for the York family but its the truth.

 

[Iluvbertie]

It was about time - to protect those who wont dont belong to the core BRF (imo thats Queen & Duke, Charles & Camilla, William & Kate & Harry as spare as long as there are no children for William & Kate) 24 hours per day isnt to date at all.

I am sure the only reason why it came that far lies in the personality of the Duke & Dutchess of York (I dont think I need to explain any further). Anne and Edward got the message early enough not to make their children HRH's and give them the opportunity to make their own living without public scrutiny on who forks out the bill. Eugenie and Beatrice may be No 5 & 6 in line at the moment but in the big picture they (and their parents) dont matter to the monarchy at all. It might be a bitter pill to swallow especially for the York family but its the truth.

When Anne married she was already down to 4th in line and knew that her children would only go lower in the order. She also knew that new LPs would be needed to give them titles - either through giving her husband a title or through giving titles in their own right to her children. She decided not to go that route.

When Edward was marrying the status of the royal family was low - recovering from the Diana years - and he was already down to 7th (lower than Anne was when she married) and so again knew that his children would have virtually no chance of succeeding to the throne. He had also seen how hard it was to truly make a career for a person with the title HRH Prince and so made a decision to not use the HRH title for his children.

Andrew's situation was different. When he married within the privacy of the family the state of the Wales marriage was probably known. Although Charles had the two boys they were still very young. His daughters were HRH according to the LPs of 1917 - not anything he decided but rather something that was decided in 1917 - who would have the HRH styling. In 1986 the public would have found it rather strange not to have Andrew's daughters as princesses.

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

Am I the only person who has a very bad feeling about the security cut?
I don't want to tempt fate, and say that anyone doesn't need security as much as The York Princesses, but given their do nothing image, Beatrice and Eugenie are almost certainly in the crosshairs of the Republican Movement's more violent sectors.

I'm sorry to be morbid, but it really gives me a sinking feeling.

 

[figtreecrossing]

Given the current situation with Osama Bin Laden being killed and the hate threat levelled at Prince Harry (Prince Harry targeted by extremists | Mail Online)
I hope the Royal Family will do a re-think about the security needs of Princes Beatrice and Eugenie. It would be a disaster and tragedy beyond description if one of those girls was targeted. Unfortunately their lifestyle does make them vulnerable. Buckingham Palace please reconsider.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Given the current situation with Osama Bin Laden being killed and the hate threat levelled at Prince Harry (Prince Harry targeted by extremists | Mail Online)
I hope the Royal Family will do a re-think about the security needs of Princes Beatrice and Eugenie. It would be a disaster and tragedy beyond description if one of those girls was targeted. Unfortunately their lifestyle does make them vulnerable. Buckingham Palace please reconsider.

It isn't up to BP but to the government. The police have been saying for years that the girls don't need the level of security and this is simply part of the government's cost cutting measures - along with cutting back the actual amount that the royal family receives to do their job and to maintain the palaces.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Am I the only person who has a very bad feeling about the security cut?
I don't want to tempt fate, and say that anyone doesn't need security as much as The York Princesses, but given their do nothing image, Beatrice and Eugenie are almost certainly in the crosshairs of the Republican Movement's more violent sectors.

I'm sorry to be morbid, but it really gives me a sinking feeling.

Do I understand correctly that you are suggesting the government should continue to fork out half a million pounds per year because somebody has a do nothing image?

If anybody with a do nothing image in Britain would receive government funded security for that reason the country could declare bankruptcy as per today.

How about changing a do nothing image into a do something image by surrounding with the right people and sporting some decent behaviour in public instead of asking for a bodyguard sponsored by taxpayers.

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

Do I understand correctly that you are suggesting the government should continue to fork out half a million pounds per year because somebody has a do nothing image?

If anybody with a do nothing image in Britain would receive government funded security for that reason the country could declare bankruptcy as per today.

How about changing a do nothing image into a do something image by surrounding with the right people and sporting some decent behaviour in public instead of asking for a bodyguard sponsored by taxpayers.

I was wrong to imply that a do nothing image puts Beatrice & Eugenie in danger, but the fact remains that they are fifth and sixth in line to a position some people are violently in favour of eliminating. Their sins are trivial, and no political extremist would ever think "I guess I won't pull the trigger, she does alot of Royal duties" They are The Queen's Royal Grandaughters, and their Father has been in trouble for visiting dictators, does this not warrant protection?

 

[Zonk]

Considering that there is a perceived threat against the senior royals (most recently information publicized mentions Prince Harry), I really don't see it would be such of a stretch to think if they (anyone trying to get Harry) can't get him they will go for Beatrice and/or Eugenie.

Hopefully that is not the case, and if the British government hears of any such threats that will rethink this security Issue on a case by case basis.

 

[Rebafan81]

I am not an British citizen so I can't speak regarding what is being paid for the Royal Family while many are going without but my comment is this... If Beatrice and Eugenie really are at risk, then I feeel HM should pay for their protection officers while not on Royal Duties, it isn't like HM doesn't have the money and other high profile extremely well off families don't foot the bill for their childrens protection, just my opinion. They aren't out serving the public, for the most part, they are acting as private citizens, so should be treated as such. IMHO

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Considering that there is a perceived threat against the senior royals (most recently information publicized mentions Prince Harry), I really don't see it would be such of a stretch to think if they (anyone trying to get Harry) can't get him they will go for Beatrice and/or Eugenie.

Hopefully that is not the case, and if the British government hears of any such threats that will rethink this security Issue on a case by case basis.

But where does it stop? This is where Zara Philips comes into play who is the Queen's Granddaughter, no HRH but a person with a high public profile, but still can do without any security.

Does the HRH title give a higher risk to threats? Not really. Relations and money make you interesting for weirdos but as a consequence you cant put anyone somehow related to the Queen who is "rich" under 24 hour surveillance funded by the government.

Still, if Andrew fears for his daughters what would be understandable, why doesnt he fork out the money, he is obviously rich enough to do so.
But of course for Andrew, who is obsessed with his status and the status of his daughters, it is of utmost importance to be "important" what is reflected by government funded protection. Its all about Ego, nothing more.

 

[Zonk]

But where does it stop? This is where Zara Philips comes into play who is the Queen's Granddaughter, no HRH but a person with a high public profile, but still can do without any security.

Does the HRH title give a higher risk to threats? Not really. Relations and money make you interesting for weirdos but as a consequence you cant put anyone somehow related to the Queen who is "rich" under 24 hour surveillance funded by the government.

Still, if Andrew fears for his daughters what would be understandable, why doesnt he fork out the money, he is obviously rich enough to do so.
But of course for Andrew, who is obsessed with his status and the status of his daughters, it is of utmost importance to be "important" what is reflected by government funded protection. Its all about Ego, nothing more.

How many people (so called nobodies) have been killed in the last 20 years as a symbol for something? Wasn't the Lord Mountbatten killed to make a point? That he was a representative of Britain? Regular people (like Jill Dando and the like) and well known officials are stalked everyday by people who pose a danger to them.

My point is, I understand the concerns about the cost of security for some royals but really, I hate for someone to have to die for someone to have to say...yeah...maybe we shouldn't cut that.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

How many people (so called nobodies) have been killed in the last 20 years as a symbol for something? Wasn't the Lord Mountbatten killed to make a point? That he was a representative of Britain? Regular people (like Jill Dando and the like) and well known officials are stalked everyday by people who pose a danger to them.

My point is, I understand the concerns about the cost of security for some royals but really, I hate for someone to have to die for someone to have to say...yeah...maybe we shouldn't cut that.

I very much agree with you but the State cant pay for anybody who might be a potential target because almost any public figure is. My point is who pays for what. If the BRF decides that all members are subject to a potential thread why dont they pay for security themselves and leave the core members only to the government? Celebrities who feel unsave have to do the same, its not because Paul McCartney is a british icon the government will pay for his bodyguards after a weirdo killed John Lennon.
IMO apart from the core BRF, and Beatrice and Eugenie are not part of that, security becomes a private matter.

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

How many people (so called nobodies) have been killed in the last 20 years as a symbol for something? Wasn't the Lord Mountbatten killed to make a point? That he was a representative of Britain? Regular people (like Jill Dando and the like) and well known officials are stalked everyday by people who pose a danger to them.

My point is, I understand the concerns about the cost of security for some royals but really, I hate for someone to have to die for someone to have to say...yeah...maybe we shouldn't cut that.

You said it better than I could, Zonk. It's hard to tell just how much danger someone is in until it's too late. It worries me that The York Princesses are not seen as being at great risk, especially in light of the threats against Harry. This doesn't mean that the public should be stuck with the bill, though. What's to stop The Royal Family from providing security themselves?

 

[PrincessKaimi]

Nothing can prevent them - that's what we all do, in our own ways, for our children. I would hope everyone does this (provide protection for our children) to the best of our ability - and means, keeping in mind that it's good for children (especially royalty) to take some risks and have adventurous lives.

That makes for good character.