Royal Security

[tommy1716]

Scotland Yard alarm at cost of guards for Eugenie - Times Online

SCOTLAND YARD officers have expressed disquiet about the huge cost to the taxpayer of protecting Princess Eugenie and other “party-loving” minor royals

 

[NoorMeansLight]

Thanks Tommy! It doesn't open for me, but I'll google the Times later. It is outrageous! Let's see if they also have some 'real numbers'.

 

[muriel]

I really do not think the York girls need any state funded security. It seems like a complete waste. That said, if the intelligence services felt they needed protection, then it would be justified.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Scotland Yard chief's fury over royal security bill for Princess Eugenie and 'B-list' royals | Mail Online

 

[tommy1716]

Scotland Yard's spending on 'minor royals worth 130 police on streets' - Telegraph

Scotland Yard has been forced to spend £4million - which could fund 130 extra frontline officers - on protecting VIPs including minor members of the Royal family, it emerged.

 

[NoorMeansLight]

In other words, 130 young men could have had a decent job and/or even start a family...

 

[Sereta]

Well if Zara and Peter never had bodyguards then I don't see why Beatrice and Eugenie need to have them. They are all the Queen's grandchildren.

 

[sophie25]

It's been consistently reported that Prince Andrew has been vociferous in defending his daughters right to have this protection and I can believe that. I think he still thinks that he is the senior Royal he was considered to be in the 1980's when in the publics eyes he just isn't anymore. He is a second son and Beatrice and Eugenie are simply the children of a second son just like Prince Joachim of Denmark's children are and they are not seen as major Royals either. Fergie also seems oblivious to the passage of time where her daughters are concerned saying on T.V. shows that she tells the girls to smile as "the public" don''t want to see unhappy looking pricesses, how patronising is that? Dosn't she realise that most taxpayers don't want to pay for them either?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Well if Zara and Peter never had bodyguards then I don't see why Beatrice and Eugenie need to have them. They are all the Queen's grandchildren.

The difference is closeness to the throne and the HRH.

Beatrice could easily be acting as Cousellor of State, effectively doing the job of the monarch at times in the future (the Counsellors are the next five adults over 21 in line to the throne and the spouse of the monarch).

She will continue to hold this senior position until such time as either William or Harry have a child reach 21 years of age (and once the Queen dies there will need to be two such children).

That is hardly a minor royal in my mind.

Both William and Harry are doing training to serve in dangerous situations and it is perfectly possible to envision one or both of them dying in the service of their country - leaving Beatrice as the eventual Queen.

Until William or Harry have children Beatrice is certainly not a minor royal. Given the animosity on here to her father and to her I think her security needs to be strong as there are too many idiots out there who would think nothing of taking her out (not saying anyone on here would but if the level of animosity here is an indication of the attitude amongst the general public, many of whom are anti-monarchy, it is possible).

We don't know what threats there have been against these two girls but I wouldn't be surprised if there had been.

Imagine the reaction of the Queen if one of her grandchildren was killed due to the reduction of security.

 

[Mermaid1962]

You make very good points, Iluvbertie. I hadn't thought about Beatrice being Counsellor of State, but the idea of her perhaps being Queen Regnant one day has occurred to me.

I've also noticed the negativity toward the Yorks on the comments sections of online newspapers. Sometimes it seems to be close to hatred.

Given the number of would-be terrorists there are in the world (including home-grown terrorists), I think that the York princesses need the best protection available--and that means official protection.

The difference is closeness to the throne and the HRH.

Beatrice could easily be acting as Cousellor of State, effectively doing the job of the monarch at times in the future (the Counsellors are the next five adults over 21 in line to the throne and the spouse of the monarch).

She will continue to hold this senior position until such time as either William or Harry have a child reach 21 years of age (and once the Queen dies there will need to be two such children).

That is hardly a minor royal in my mind.

Both William and Harry are doing training to serve in dangerous situations and it is perfectly possible to envision one or both of them dying in the service of their country - leaving Beatrice as the eventual Queen.

Until William or Harry have children Beatrice is certainly not a minor royal. Given the animosity on her to her father and to her I think her security needs to be strong as there are too many idiots out there who would think nothing of taking her out (not saying anyone on here would but if the level of animosity here is an indication of the attitude amongst the general public, many of whom are anti-monarchy, it is possible).

We don't know what threats there have been against these two girls but I wouldn't be surprised if there had been.

Imagine the reaction of the Queen if one of her grandchildren was killed due to the reduction of security.

 

[sophie25]

One can speculate about possible threats all day long but the fact is that the experts have concluded that the Yorks are not facing any significant danger so their cost can't be justified. On another level it's also becoming clear that the U.K. simply cannot afford so many Royals anyway, plain and simple.

 

[wbenson]

Princesses 'to lose police bodyguards' - Telegraph

The daughters of Prince Andrew are to lose their 24-hour police protection after a row about the annual cost of their bodyguards, it is understood.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Ooo how interesting, I did not think they would loose them at this early age.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I would assume that the only royals to have round the clock protection then would be the Queen, Philip, Charles, William and maybe Harry (he is only the second son). Andrew is another maybe but all those lower in the succession than the Yorks must also lose protection including Edward and Anne.

 

[sophie25]

Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice stripped of police bodyguards - Times Online

 

[Mermaid1962]

I wish that things like this didn't get released to the media. Now every terrorist-wannabe or stalker knows as well.

 

[Roslyn]

Yes. If they're going to do it, do it quietly. As it is they've sent a message to the sort of nutter who just lunged for Charles & Camilla that Beatrice & Eugenie are fair game with no protection most of the time. IMO they've got it around the wrong way; it is when they are not on high profile outings that the need protection the most because that is when they are most likely to be alone and at risk. At big dos they would be surrounded by police, etc.

They are Royal princesses, 5th and 6th in line to the Throne, and as such, and as public figures, I think they should have protection paid for by the State.

I don't think it's a bad idea to whittle down the size of the "Royal" Family, and limit the number of HRHs, but that's going to take time and until then and until the second son's family is not thought of as Royal, and therefore targets, they should be protection. They might have great privilege but their high profile also makes them highly vulnerable.

 

[October]

Whenever I read British articles complaining about the cost of royal protection the one thing that irritates me the most is that the cost of protecting politicians is never mentioned. It probably costs more to protect Blair & his wife than every Windsor combined. The politicians may run the show, but (as cruel as it is to say this) they’re replaceable and disliked by many. The royal family has to fear not only your typical terrorist, but there are also dissident republicans and crazy people to consider. As for Beatrice & Eugenie, when I read British articles and the comments they gather I get the impression that these two girls are for some reason despised by the British people. My personal take on this is that if they were tall, thin, beautiful, blondes they’d be adored….however this irrational hatred for them makes me think they might actually need protection. I also think it’s the height of ridiculousness to say that any royal should pay for their own protection, for if that is the case than so should the politicians… I feel that an objective person or group (not a rabid republican) should after speaking with intelligence agencies, decide who in the royal family AND in the government needs and doesn’t need protection and go from there. I just feel that this situation is being unfair towards the RF and in particular the York girls (who didn’t ask to be born into that family and would probably prefer to not have guards at all). I probably spent more money on Barrack Obama before I got out of bed today than the average British person spends on the Queen all year so you'll have to forgive me if my sympathy level for the oppressed tax payers of the UK isn't that great.

 

[Tiggersk8]

Well said October!!

The only thing I can think of to add is think back to Eugenie's gap year when her and her friend had that encounter w/a purse snatcher in Cambodia (?). If there hadn't been a PPO there w/the Princess and her friend, what could have happened?

Just as October said, whenever I read an article about the York girls, the level of viciousness in the comments section amazes me. I just don't get it at all.

To quote one of the most used lines from the Star Wars movies...

I have a bad feeling about this.

 

[RJ TAYLER]

I wonder if those people who commented in The Telegraph can recall what happened to the late Earl Mountbatten of Burma? I think not, I hope that nothing untoward does happen to the Princesses now. The politicians of the world should now set the example in this area too and lessen their own security too, after all 'fairs fair'.

 

[sophie25]

At the end of the day Beatrice and Eugenie are the same as Princess Anne's children in being grandchildren of the Queen but they don't get this sort of protection. Experts in this field say the danger to them is no greater than that to Peter and Zara so the cost can't be justified. In addition to this the public don't seem to WANT to pay for these two and that probably counts for more than anything. It's not enough to take the attitude that they are Princesses so we are all stuck with paying for them whether we like it or not. This is 2010 and the world dosn't work like that anymore.

 

[Lumutqueen]

There is a sizeable difference between Princess Beatrice and Eugenie and Peter and Zara.
1. Peter and Zara have no titles.
2. They attend the rarest of royal events, keeping them way out of the limelight.
3. B&E are seen quite often, so if someone wanted to attack them, it would be easier than attacking P&Z.

I'm not justifying they have 24 Hour protection, I just don't think they should have lost it this soon.

The taxpayers pay about 74p for the royal family, the entire royal family every year. Personally I don't have a problem with that.
To me the taxpayer pays for the safety of the secrets the politicians hold, not the politicians personally. You have to remember, the USA doesn't have a royal family, therefore concentrates on politicians, here in the UK, we have had major stories and inquests into the expenses scandals etc. The money spent on the RF is rarely talked about in depth and does not seem to bother that many people.
The tax payer doesn't pay a lot for Blair and his family anymore, if anything. Brown will get a certain expenses for reason I do not know, but it'll mainly be the money going on Cameron and Clegg.

 

[sophie25]

I couldn't give a hoot what their titles are, as a taxpayer who is contributing to their huge security bill each year, despite the Met saying it isn't necessary, I object strongly to forking out for it. Neither of them contributes anything to the good of the nation. All they do is holiday and party.

 

[Lumutqueen]

You can look at the Current Events thread and see for yourself that not all they do is holiday and party.
They both have done huge amounts of charity work, they both have done a sizeable amount of royal events each year, with grandparents and their father.
They don't do that many, because they are still in education, they have contributed about as much as Princes William and Harry, would you take away their security officers aswell?
A title requires a certain amount of protection, I was not saying it was a reason, I was pointing out the difference between Beatrice and Eugenie and Peter and Zara.

 

[sophie25]

As I said in a previous post, it's not acceptable to say that they are Princesses so we are stuck with supporting them. At the end of the day if Edward and Sophie's children can do without the titles then so can these two. If that makes the difference between having to pay or not having to pay for them then I would certainly support that change but recent events show that common sense has prevailed anyway so if they want to play the Princess from now on their parents can pay for it, their mother certainly knows how to drum up the necessary cash.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Sophie and Edwards children are 2 and 6. And they have titles like Lady and Viscount, due to the title their father was given.
Princess Anne's children have no titles because that is what Anne requested from her mother.
As I have said in my previous post, I was not saying the titles were an excuse, I was saying that this was the difference between them and Zara and Peter. But because they have titles, they do work for the crown and country, which means they are doing something for the money they recieve to protect them when they are out on royal duties.
Prince Harry has just been on a 5 week holiday with royal protection, which is being paid for by the taxpayer, as far as I can recall the girls haven't even been on a holiday this year, only to events abroad in conjunction with The Young Victoria.
Like I have said before, they do the same amount of duties as Princes William and Harry and there is no discussion of them losing their protection because of the little they do.
The money will still come from the tax payer, it will be given by the Queen to Prince Andrew and then to his daughters, whatever security they do get will someway be paid for by the tax payer.
There is no need to bring their mother's failures into a discussion about royal security is there.

 

[sophie25]

Unlike Princes William and Harry they are not even listed as working members of the Royal Family on the British Monarchy website so what Royal duties are you referring to? If you mean to the odd charitable endevour then any number on people in Britain could claim to do the same thing.

 

[Iluvbertie]

It is unfair to compare Beatrice and Eugenie to William and Harry at the moment as they are still in full-time education. It would be fairer to compare what they are doing now to what the boys were doing at the same ages - William was a uni and doing nothingwith regard to royal duties while Harry was on 18 months gap year before joining the army and training and training and training and training.

The girls are full-time university students at the moment so it would be fairer to compare their contribution to the royal family with what William did between leaving school and joining the army - he went on a gap year, 4 years at uni and then another gap year so in the first 6 years after leaving school he had two years on gap and 4 years at uni and no real duties. Beatrice has been out of school now for 3 years - one gap year and 2 years at uni with one more year to go and then probably another gap year before starting full time royal duties meaning that 5 years after leaving school she will be working full-time for the firm while William will still only be a part-timer. Beatrice may, of course, opt to do something else but that is still not annouced. Eugenie has had one year as a gap year and one year of uni since leaving school with two more years of uni ahead of her.

Too often people forget that Beatrice and Eugenie are still full-time students when comparing them to William and Harry who finished that part of their lives years ago - William finished full-time education aged 23 and Harry aged 18 whereas Beatrice and Eugenie are still younger than William was when he left uni and Harry, of course, never went there.

Beatrice is 6 years younger than William and 4 years younger than Harry and Eugenie is a nother 2 years younger again so to compare a 21 year old uni student with a nearly 28 year old man and what they contribute to the family business is completely unfair but ask yourself - What was William contributing to the family business when he was aged 21? Then make a comparison.

 

[Zonk]

Iluvebertie...you make very valid points. One has to wonder if the York girls are being discriminated against (and yes, I think that is the case here) because of who their mother is. Everyone acts if these girls have been on the government payroll for the last thirty years and are photographed EVERY NIGHT partying.

While I can certainly understand that the Royal Security budget needed to be cut, I have to wonder why Scotland Yard or anyone else for that matter (if this information is in fact true) felt the need to share with the WORLD and every nutcase out there that these two young girls (who many might feel rightly or wrongly are wealthy) are baiscally unprotected and are open for potential harm? Who announces that?!

Do we need something bad to happen before we realize that that they need SOME type of security? I mean if regular people (and that includes myself) are subject to crazies out there and I am by no means wealthy, what does this mean for Beatrice and Eugenie? It just amazes me.

 

[FanofMonaco]

They seem too high profile to be cut off like that. Their grandmother is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, however. Surely she could pick up the tab.