The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   British Royals (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/)
-   -   Royal Security (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/royal-security-21145.html)

rmay286 04-19-2009 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade (Post 923459)
There is going out for drinks and there is excessive partying. Nobody bothers, including the media, when somebody goes out for drinks and is sober enough to get home in a decent manner. But it's a different story when, and that's what I call excessive, stories hit the newspapers about one of the York girls running around naked and drunk, or enjoying herself in an indecent manner on a Thai beach.

But I don't know where you're getting this from! "There is going out for drinks and there is excessive partying"...where do you personally draw the line? Have you counted how many times a month these girls go out to party? Or do people assume they party "excessively" because the only stories we ever get about them are about them emerging from a party? What about charity balls and dinners, nights out with "mum" to help promote her new film or some other new initiative? Is this exactly the same as partying at nightclubs? Not sober enough to get themselves home in a decent manner? I've read stories that say Eugenie has been drinking with her friends, but I've never seen evidence that Eugenie was too drunk to get home without making a fool of herself, and I can't even recall stories that stated as much (by stated, I don't mean implied through the colourful language of tabloids). Running around naked and drunk? There was one incident where Eugenie and some of her friends were apparently "frolicking" naked on school property. Immature and ill-advised, maybe, but I don't remember any accusations that the girls were drunk at the time, and I don't see what that has to do with her police security on her travels since that apparently happened on school grounds. I know this is not the Beatrice and Eugenie thread, but you are suggesting that they're doing things under the watch of police protection that they simply aren't actually doing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarue (Post 923430)
That s marvellous, professional security officers made to backpack to save money so that the two princesses can enjoy themselves on holiday after holiday. In the article it was explained that a jet-lagged security officer cannot do his job.
These men are away from their families watching over a pair of spoiled little girls having their holidays from what seems to be an endless holiday and they have to do what teenagers find fun! Also the working hours of these men make it necessary for them to have a relief team of men fly out so that they can go home, these are grown trained men not boys out having fun with their mates, they are working unlike their charges who probably will never work in their lives.

I didn't say the security officers should backpack; I was just wondering if maybe their travel costs could be cut. Or maybe their salaries could be looked at. If these men are fairly compensated and they're not spending more than what's absolutely necessary, then that's a different matter, but I don't know if it has been looked at. I'm on the fence about Beatrice and Eugenie's security because their royal status is somewhere between the "top royals" and the whole constellation of lesser royals. Obviously the Queen, Prince Philip, and the heir to the thrones and his sons should have security because they are the ones closest to the crown. But what about Beatrice and Eugenie? They are the first princesses in the land, but not likely to ever ascend the throne. But on the other hand, fifth and sixth in line to the throne (and if Charles ascends the throne before William and Harry have children, fourth and fifth) are still high-ranking positions. So I don't know. Would a terrorist or kidnapper really attack them because of their position? It's doubtful, but it's possible. Then again, Zara Phillips could also be targeted because the Queen is her grandmother too. But maybe those with the title of Princess are in a little more danger? I don't know. Does Princess Anne have security? She's further away from the throne than Beatrice and Eugenie are, although she's the daughter of the Queen.

branchg 04-19-2009 01:02 PM

The current guidelines for security is that all members of the royal family who are HRH are automatically entitled to protection. The general rule is they receive protection anytime they venture in public.

This is another reason why it is generally thought Prince Charles will eventually downsize the number of Royal Highnesses once he is King. The agreement that Edward and Sophie's children will use their styles as Lord/Lady Windsor, rather than HRH Prince/Princess of the UK, is a step in that direction.

The Duke of York is adamantly against his daughters losing their royal style and titles, so it remains to be seen what will happen in the future.

Skydragon 04-19-2009 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmay286 (Post 923570)
Not sober enough to get themselves home in a decent manner?

We have seen photos of Beatrice having to be helped to her car and the occasion that she was too merry to remember she had a driver there to pick her up. These are just two of the incidents that spring immediately to mind. We have also seen pictures where Eugenie appeares to be a little worse for wear. These are just the ones that have had a major splash in the media.
Quote:

I was just wondering if maybe their travel costs could be cut. Or maybe their salaries could be looked at. If these men are fairly compensated and they're not spending more than what's absolutely necessary, then that's a different matter, but I don't know if it has been looked at.
Their salary and terms of employment will have been agreed by the government, it is not a job everyone would want and therefore they are recompensed accordingly. To suggest cutting their salary or overseas payments to facilitate the gadding about of these girls is IMO, not right.
Quote:

Would a terrorist or kidnapper really attack them because of their position? It's doubtful, but it's possible.
In all honesty, could two security personnel stop a determined kidnapper with accomplices, could they stop an attack by someone wielding an AK47 or an M16, of course not.

rmay286 04-19-2009 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon (Post 923663)
We have seen photos of Beatrice having to be helped to her car and the occasion that she was too merry to remember she had a driver there to pick her up. These are just two of the incidents that spring immediately to mind. We have also seen pictures where Eugenie appeares to be a little worse for wear. These are just the ones that have had a major splash in the media.

It's true, Beatrice might have had too much to drink when she forgot that she had the driver there...but then again, this is a girl who had her car stolen because she left her keys in the ignition and the car unlocked, so maybe she's just a scatterbrain! Beatrice and/or Eugenie might "appear" to be a little worse for wear from time to time, and this could be because they had too much to drink, but it's impossible to prove that for sure. Sometimes people act as though Beatrice and Eugenie are always intoxicated beyond the point of normal functioning every time they go out with their friends, and I just don't think that's true. Some of the claims made about them are wildly exaggerated.

Also, I'm quite certain that if there were any other and/or worse incidents beyond the ones you've mentioned, they too would have made a major splash in the media. The paparazzi are quite thorough in covering Beatrice and Eugenie's every move.

Quote:

Their salary and terms of employment will have been agreed by the government, it is not a job everyone would want and therefore they are recompensed accordingly. To suggest cutting their salary or overseas payments to facilitate the gadding about of these girls is IMO, not right. In all honesty, could two security personnel stop a determined kidnapper with accomplices, could they stop an attack by someone wielding an AK47 or an M16, of course not.
I also don't think that two security personnel could do anything to stop a really determined kidnapper, and I'm not totally sure the girls should have police protection. But as branchg mentioend, all those styled HRH currently receive security. Is the security for, say, Princess Anne any better at warding off potential kidnappers? (Wasn't she the victim of an attempted kidnapping twenty or thirty years ago? I don't quite remember how that turned out.) If the norm is for all members of the royal family styled HRH to receive security, why should they break that rule for Beatrice and Eugenie just because they don't currently carry out royal duties (even though they're expected to do so in the future: Sarah, Andrew, and the Queen have apparently agreed on this).

Warren 04-20-2009 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmay286 (Post 923695)
Is the security for, say, Princess Anne any better at warding off potential kidnappers? (Wasn't she the victim of an attempted kidnapping twenty or thirty years ago? I don't quite remember how that turned out.)

It turned out quite badly. Four people were shot.
See here.

Duke of Marmalade 05-14-2009 07:47 AM

Thankfully this topic is being scrutinized again.

The idea that the bill for the security - a ludricous amout of money - of unimporant royals such as Eugenie or Beatrice is interfering with the budget of issues that are really imporant for the country (the security of service personnel) is acutally shameful.

Unless they do any service for the crown / country security should be their private business. And if the royals, eg Andrew keep ignoring these questions being asked in times of a deepening recession they should not be surprised if the public very soon starts asking more fundamental questions, eg why not scrap this whole monarchy issue all together.

Eugenie and co face bodyguard cutback as Yard reviews 50m cost of protecting party-going junior Royals | Mail Online

Wisteria 05-14-2009 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade (Post 938313)

Unless they do any service for the crown / country security should be their private business. And if the royals, eg Andrew keep ignoring these questions being asked in times of a deepening recession they should not be surprised if the public very soon starts asking more fundamental questions, eg why not scrap this whole monarchy issue all together.

]

This perhaps is the most dangerous situation they are facing. Of course they can go to parties, they can be drop outs if they like, but their father should pay for their security if he feels it is so necessary.
Much as I like these two girls the idea of British taxpayers paying exorbitant sums for protection in the US is ludicrous.

MARG 05-14-2009 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren (Post 923860)
It turned out quite badly. Four people were shot.
See here.

Just think . . . . . . they were the "good old days"! Your average nutter is crazier and better armed in these gentle days of the 21st Century. (Am I right in thinking that the York girls are 5th & 6th in line?) Hmm . . . and the WHO predicts that 1 in 4 people will have been infected by N1H1 within the next 9 months. :ohmy:

Never forget that there's many a slip . . . . . :whistling:

jcbcode99 05-14-2009 09:23 AM

I have watched Bea and Eugenie for some time now and except for the very rare, almost absentminded visit to her mother's charity or tagging along with Dad, I have not observed anything of substance. What I have observed are very late nights out at clubs, participating in fashion shows, having cars stolen out from under noses, drunken behavior, and very very bad fashion (I couldn't resist adding that comment). I will say that they appear to doing some more substantial things, but not enough to warrent defending their behavior. Yes, I know they're young and need to have fun--at that age I certainly had fun, but not at taxpayer expense. There is a difference-the girls (and Andrew) seem to want their cake and to eat it, too. They are HRHs ,which is fine--it's their right. I do wish that Louise and James Wessex were known as such, but I respect and admire Sophie and Edward for their decision that the children will not be known in that way. However, Andrew is adamant that they retain that HRH, with all the perks, but little of the responsibility and it simply does not work that way. He wants them to enjoy life, and that's reasonable. They're in school, they're young, they have friends, etc...they lead lives of immense privilege as royals--but with that comes responsibility; they cannot be considered socialites and say that their lifestyle is ok because they're young. Socialites do not have the public footing the bill for their security and Andrew needs to understand why there are disgruntled rumblings about his daughters. His indulgence of his children and their lifestyle without question portray this spoiled, socialite, party girls image to the public--whether that is all true or not I do not know but they do not allow many other opportunities to disprove this image, do they? If they did we could discuss the balance, but there is not balance in that regard. I personally think that Andrew should pay for at least part of their protection until they decide how much responsibility they want to assume as HRHs.

Claire 05-14-2009 09:55 AM

Personally I feel that although all the security concerns are upon the York girls as they might have have a direct threat.
The reason I say this that they have stopped other members of the royal family - Glochesters, Kents and Wessex's receiving more then two officers when they travel abroad. The Countess of Wessex recently went to Bangledesh with only one officer. albeit no night clubs were on the agenda. As it stands no officier attends pre-school with Louise. Edward is appearing all over London without any security what so ever which I feel is not good. So is it possible that a direct threat has been made that we are not aware of?

Emeralds and Opals 05-14-2009 08:04 PM

https://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/101120/Vigilance-of-royals-armed-protectors

https://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/101122/Princesses-to-lose-bodyguards-as-50m-budget-faces-cuts

Zonk 05-15-2009 12:02 AM

I definitely agree that the British taxpayer shouldn't pay for security guards to watch Beatrice and Eugenie party on a regular (not saying that they do just making a general statement).

On the other hand, Beatrice and Eugenie (like it or not) are 5th and 6th to the British throne. And while we won't get into a discussion on whether or not they behave as such. THE FACT remains that they are 5th and 6th to the throne therefore its a little unrealistic IMO to compare the security of Sophie, the Gloucesters, the Kent's, the Wessex children, etc to Beatrice and Eugenie.

Now again, I don't think they need a ton of security guards while they are partying and touring the world but the world is a lot more dangerous than it was when someone attempted to kidnap Anne. Who at the time was 4th in line to the throne (after Charles, Andrew and Edward). And I hate for that point to be made before people realize how serious the threat could possibly be. I am not even talking terrorist...you have mentally ill, crazy and just plain muderous people stalking, hurting every day citizens...can you image two Princesses?

Duke of Marmalade 05-15-2009 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zonk (Post 938707)
On the other hand, Beatrice and Eugenie (like it or not) are 5th and 6th to the British throne. And while we won't get into a discussion on whether or not they behave as such. THE FACT remains that they are 5th and 6th to the throne therefore its a little unrealistic IMO to compare the security of Sophie, the Gloucesters, the Kent's, the Wessex children, etc to Beatrice and Eugenie.

Common sense would be, and I think that this is something the wider public would agree on, that apart from the monarch and the consort the monarch's children (Charles, Anne, Andrew, Edward) plus their spouses plus the 2nd and 3rd in line (William and Harry) should get protection paid for by the taxpayer - provided that they actually work for the crown or are being prepared to work for the crown (a certainty in case of William and Harry).

Everyone else's security should be paid for in private - and I guess if this was made a fact, some minor royals would suddenly realize that they actually don't really need a constant security officer by their side :rolleyes:

In some cases it's just another status issue / exploiting the system and in times when the expenses scandal rocks Westminster to the core bottom the royals better be careful with their demands on taxpayer's money - the atmosphere can easily shift to disapprovement of the whole constitution if the public senses another abuse situation.

Amelia 05-15-2009 08:42 AM

I have to say this whole security issue confuses me. If Scotland Yard are saying that there is no need for the York Princesses to have the level of security that they have then shouldn't that be the end of it. The press seem to be implying that Andrew has said no way to a reduction in their security but surely a decision like this is out of his hands and up to the Government, on the advice of Scotland Yard, to decide.

Zonk 05-15-2009 03:48 PM

I would take that "Andrew has said no" with a grain of salt. Unless someone has legit proof that Andrew said that his daughters need the level of security that they currently have its just speculation. The same with Scotland Yard. On the other hand, I wouldn't expect Scotland yard to be truly forthcoming in regards to security. They might say yeah they don't need as much, but they wont get into numbers. Who wants to let potential threats know everything?

Mermaid1962 05-15-2009 08:34 PM

This is exactly why I think that the York Princesses should have protection officers, not simply bodyguards. Protection officers have access to information threats that "bodyguards" wouldn't have. Unless one of us here is in that official network, we really have no idea what threats are out there. Anyone with an HRH is close enough to the Queen to be a target.:flowers:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zonk (Post 938707)
I am not even talking terrorist...you have mentally ill, crazy and just plain muderous people stalking, hurting every day citizens...can you image two Princesses?


Zonk 05-15-2009 09:14 PM

And thats exactly my point. They do need some protection.

jcbcode99 05-18-2009 10:04 AM

They do need some protection, I agree but I have to say that if I were a taxpayer in Great Britain right now with the economy like it is I would be very irritated about bodyguards for princesses who don't perform any duties and who spend their evenings out partying or going to fashion shows. The princesses are acting more like socialites than members of a monarchy known for its service to the country.

muriel 05-18-2009 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcbcode99 (Post 939835)
They do need some protection, I agree but I have to say that if I were a taxpayer in Great Britain right now with the economy like it is I would be very irritated about bodyguards for princesses who don't perform any duties and who spend their evenings out partying or going to fashion shows. The princesses are acting more like socialites than members of a monarchy known for its service to the country.

I am no fan of the York girls, and I do think that some of the criticism that they are subject to is not unreasonable. That said, I think the issue of security is not one for either Andrew, the "court of the Daily Mail" or even the Palace to determine - it is for the government of the day / Scotland Yard to make a risk assessment and decide.

As regards the girls travelling or partying, I dso think it is undreasonable to stop them. If the government / SY decide that they need security, then so be it. Lets not make them prisoners in the palace just because the giovernmet has decided that the girls need security.

Jacknch 05-18-2009 10:56 AM

IMO security and the level of it for members of the Royal Family should be a matter for the relevant government agency/Scotland yard to decide. Whilst certain members of the Royal Family do not act (or appear to act) in an official capacity on behalf of the Monarch, a risk assessment is likely to have been made and security measures set up accordingly.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:31 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises