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)

jcbcode99 05-18-2009 03:33 PM

I agree that there should be a measure of security, but I also firmly feel that they need to do something productive besides partying, traveling abroad, and having their cars stolen right out from under them.

Filippos 05-20-2009 10:40 AM

I think the "minor royals" need protection. No matter how they are acting, party animals or working princes or princesses. The fact is, they are close relatives to the Chief of State, and its succesor(s). So, any threat to their integrity can put these persons in a weak position. Not a desirable scene for national symbols...

jcbcode99 05-20-2009 11:12 PM

But, as national symbols do they not have some form of obligation? They do need protection, that is undisputed, but how much protection is the question.

Duke of Marmalade 05-21-2009 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcbcode99 (Post 941082)
But, as national symbols do they not have some form of obligation? They do need protection, that is undisputed, but how much protection is the question.

and, of course, who ends up with the bill.

jcbcode99 05-21-2009 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade (Post 941129)
and, of course, who ends up with the bill.

Exactly.

The Associated Press just ran a story on Britain's debt outlook and how it has been downraded from stable to negative. Now, I agree, the Princesses security detail has not plunged the country into their recession, but the public is going to begin looking at expendable expenditures and I would assume that the security detail for partying princesses is going to be one of the first Royal expenditures is closely looked at. I agree, they need security, but until they are higher profile royals, they do not need what they are currently getting. Unless Mummy and Daddy want to foot the bill.

wbenson 05-23-2009 07:17 PM

BBC NEWS | UK | Reporters 'paid way into Palace'

Buckingham Palace has said it is investigating allegations undercover reporters were given access to highly sensitive areas of the Palace.

Two reporters from the News of the World newspaper are said to have been waved inside, without security checks.

wbenson 05-24-2009 12:16 PM

BBC NEWS | UK | Palace suspends 'tour' chauffeur

Buckingham Palace has suspended a chauffeur after undercover reporters claimed to have gained access to highly sensitive areas of the building.

Zonk 05-24-2009 02:18 PM

This is really serious and quite sad.

If there is a lack of security regardign the Queen and Buckingham Palace, can you imagine what could possibly happen if security is reduced for the royals as a whole?

Again, its Buckingham Palace and these reporters just walked in. No check of the bags, ID's, etc. NOTHING!

Skydragon 05-25-2009 04:30 AM

Royal chauffeur Brian Sirjusingh has been suspended after he allegedly allowed undercover reporters posing as Middle Eastern businessmen into the grounds of Buckingham Palace.

Queen concerned after Palace chauffeur triggers alleged security breach - Telegraph

Alberto2244 05-25-2009 02:52 PM

Cops aren’t cool for young royals
 
CALLS for round-the-clock police protection for the Duke of York’s two daughters to be reduced amid growing concern about the escalating costs of royal security have met with support from a surprising quarter… the girls themselves.

Daily Express | Columnists :: Cops aren’t cool for young Royals

Elspeth 05-27-2009 11:57 AM

Timeline of royal security breaches:

BBC NEWS | UK | Timeline: Royal security breaches

Al_bina 05-28-2009 12:24 PM

It appears to me that royal security breaches are a favourite pastime of the British mass media outlets and private citizens. I find British perseverance to breach the royal security again and again peculiar. We do not hear about security breaches in other European royal houses often. One can do it once or twice, but more than a dozen incidents may bespeak incompetence on the part of the people in charge of the Royal security.

Emeralds and Opals 05-30-2009 10:43 PM

https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6395951.ece
"Royals get 150 extra guards to end overstretch."

Skydragon 05-31-2009 09:57 AM

The Scotland Yard unit that protects the Queen and other members of the Royal family is to be bolstered by up to 150 armed protection officers to ease long hours of work and cut excessive overtime payments

Royal protection unit boosted by 150 extra armed protection officers - Telegraph

PrincessofEurope 06-13-2009 11:26 AM

Head of Scotland Yard begs Home Secretary to boost VIP protection fund | Mail Online

Skydragon 09-22-2009 10:02 AM

It is a role that demands a highly specialist set of skills.
Police officers applying to join the elite royal protection squad must be highly trained in personal protection, willing to travel, work 12-hour shifts and be constantly on the alert for any hint of danger to the Queen and her heirs to the throne.

muriel 02-15-2010 04:57 AM

Should "minor" HRHs have royal security protection?
 
Just wanted to get people's views on whether some of the more "minor" HRHs (eg Princess Alexandra, the Kents, Gloucesters etc) should still have state funded royal security cover?

Iluvbertie 02-15-2010 05:32 AM

I was under the impression that they usually only had it when on official duties these days.
And yes I do think they should get it - even more so now - they are the cousins of the Queen and therefore a definite target, possibly more so than those directly descended.

Any terrorist group worth its salt knows that to go directly for the Queen, Charles, William or Harry (or any of the Queen's children or grandchildren) would loose them support amongst their own people but to attack the royals by going after one of her cousins would still show that they can reach that high but not upset so many people (like the IRA going after Mountbatten - Philip's uncle and thus the Queen's uncle by marriage - showed how high they were prepared to go without totally getting people offside by attacking the Queen directly.)

wbenson 02-15-2010 11:12 AM

If they're deemed to be in enough danger, I think so. But I think any person should be entitled to that if it's truly necessary for their protection.

Al_bina 02-15-2010 12:10 PM

:previous:
Much as I like the Kents to have security, I do not think that they are under immediate threat of physical attack/kidnapping/etc. Additionally,the current economic situation will not allow to justify security of the extended royal family funded by tax payers.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises