A thread dedicated to the forms of protection provided to royals around the globe over the centuries and in the 21st century. This includes discussion of past and current security threats.
If William is trying to do with George what Edward & Sophie have tried to do with their kids (i.e. hide them from the paparazzi), I am afraid it is going to backfire. Edward's kids are so far down the line of succession that not too many people care about them anyway, but Prince George is a different story. The fewer photos there are of George, the more valuable photos of George will be. You might say "He's just a baby", but it's because he is a baby is why there is and will continue to be so much curiosity about "what he looks like now" considering how quickly babies/young children grow.
I've heard rumors that when W&K went to The Queen's Xmas lunch, the baby seat was empty and George went in another car to throw off the paparazzi.
Kate and William take Prince George to royal pre-Christmas lunch with the Queen | Royal | News | Daily Express (http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/449391/Kate-and-William-take-Prince-George-to-royal-pre-Christmas-lunch-with-the-Queen)
If true, then William needs to accept that paparazzi are always going to be a part of George's life whether anyone likes it or not, and it would be better to teach George to just get used to it.
If it were my child I wouldn't even give as much as william and kate have to the media they not only released pics but also had the press camped out till he was born they were very polite imo and George is a child a minor his parents will decide what they want for him :Lothwen:
William and Kate have rightful for their baby George stay away from spotlight for reasons when his parents in public..but William and Kate don't wanted publish pictures of George like 24/7 till photocall invite expect Australia and New Zealand on spring 2014 the couples says ok to invite include hello! And mores of magazines first cover of baby George since prince william's first trip to Australia and New Zealand and got cover people magazine..you remind princess Diana tried shield with Dodi Fayed before she crash in Paris,France and paparazzi&media get pictures of Diana it's worth millions to pay for that include tabloids and magazine also it's hurtful for William and Harry on his mother's accident
Earl and Countess of Wessexes chosen kids stay out spotlight because Louise had eye problems since she born in 2003 but Louise look fine wishes at sandringham have no idea where James is and stay home but Edward and Sophie have rightful protect their kids due stay out spotlight..but the couples took kids to trooping color occasion and lots mores not often..
Mostly royals parents include European Royals have rightful to protect child from paparazzi they won't publish pictures like 24/7 for child till parents says ok to publish magazine expect vacations and lots of mores because they wanted picture kids but it's worth lots million money to pay for that..
Quote from: Princessinwaiting on January 01, 2014, 08:15:25 AM
If it were my child I wouldn't even give as much as william and kate have to the media they not only released pics but also had the press camped out till he was born they were very polite imo and George is a child a minor his parents will decide what they want for him :Lothwen:
But do I have a point that it might do more harm than good to shield him so much? The press were going to camp out in front of the hospital no matter what.
In pictures of the Cambridges on their way to the Queen's Christmas lunch, the baby seat is blocked from view by the front seats, but Jessica Webb can plainly be seen. Naturally, she would be with her charge, so a fairly accurate assumption would be that George was in the back seat with her.
Cindy
Exactly how many photo ops should a five month old baby have? The people complaining about too few pics will be the first to accuse the Cambridges of using Prince George for "PR purposes" if they were to release monthly "updates"
Quote from: Chiana on January 01, 2014, 09:35:19 AM
Quote from: Princessinwaiting on January 01, 2014, 08:15:25 AM
If it were my child I wouldn't even give as much as william and kate have to the media they not only released pics but also had the press camped out till he was born they were very polite imo and George is a child a minor his parents will decide what they want for him :Lothwen:
But do I have a point that it might do more harm than good to shield him so much? The press were going to camp out in front of the hospital no matter what.
I'm wondering if it might be a little early to be concerned about this. He's still very young. IMHO William and Kate have likely consulted Charles about how often photos were released when the boys were young. Also other royal houses seem to have opted for official photoshoots at different times in the year in exchange for privacy from the paps. W-A and Max established their media code when Amalia was young. It might have had a controversial start, but they've kept their end of the bargain with regular photos released. :)
It is common sense that the children's faces in the press are blurred and it is good to protect them. Normal or royal child.
Quote from: pandaanda on January 01, 2014, 05:14:37 PM
It is common sense that the children's faces in the press are blurred and it is good to protect them. Normal or royal child.
Good point pandapanda.
Quote from: TLLK on January 01, 2014, 05:11:50 PM
Quote from: Chiana on January 01, 2014, 09:35:19 AM
Quote from: Princessinwaiting on January 01, 2014, 08:15:25 AM
If it were my child I wouldn't even give as much as william and kate have to the media they not only released pics but also had the press camped out till he was born they were very polite imo and George is a child a minor his parents will decide what they want for him :Lothwen:
But do I have a point that it might do more harm than good to shield him so much? The press were going to camp out in front of the hospital no matter what.
I'm wondering if it might be a little early to be concerned about this. He's still very young. IMHO William and Kate have likely consulted Charles about how often photos were released when the boys were young. Also other royal houses seem to have opted for official photoshoots at different times in the year in exchange for privacy from the paps. W-A and Max established their media code when Amalia was young. It might have had a controversial start, but they've kept their end of the bargain with regular photos released. :)
I agree - I too think we'll see more of little George when he's a bit bigger. When he starts attending events such as Trooping the Colour and Christmas at Sandringham, the camera is bound to focus on him (especially when it's his first time in attending), so we'll get lots of photos then. We have had quite a bit of George coverage already; his public debut outside the Lindo Wing, his first official photos, his christening, a few paparazzi photos of Catherine pushing him in the park, and the Christmas Message videos.
On the other hand, I do think that William and Kate should've released a Christmas card of them and George. And I was a bit disappointed with the first official photos too, we only got two and George was asleep in both of them. (I was expecting some close ups of him with his eyes open.) That's why I think the Royal Family should do summer photoshoots/more photoshoots in general like the European Royals, then the press might leave them alone for a bit and everyone will be happy.
I think Lady Louise is a bit different, as Sara8150 said, she has had exotropia since birth. Edward and Sophie probably kept her out of the limelight so no negative comments could be made. I am wondering about James though. The Wessex children are also more "minor" (as Chiana has pointed out upthread) than George, so it's natural that they would get less coverage than him.
How is George being shielded from the media?
He was presented to the media when only 2 days old. Photos and videos of his christening were released when he was 3 months old. And inbetween, photos were released. So 3 times in 3 months that is hardly shielding.
He is a baby. When there is a reason for him to be seen, he will be seen.
Quote from: Queen Camilla on January 05, 2014, 10:13:46 AM
How is George being shielded from the media?
He was presented to the media when only 2 days old. Photos and videos of his christening were released when he was 3 months old. And inbetween, photos were released. So 3 times in 3 months that is hardly shielding.
He is a baby. When there is a reason for him to be seen, he will be seen.
William and Kate have alright protect George from Spotlight they won't get pictures everyday like 24/7 in magazine like hello! Or any magazine the couple wanted private for baby since George born July 23 and debut after he born but the couple chosen not show baby in spotlight till years what William says last Christmas 2013 but the couple will bring George to Australia and New Zealand on spring 2014 for photocall but last time took picture of christening they won't give for Christmas pictures William and Kate chosen not give for Christmas pictures like his parents always usually..
Quote"There were lots of other tourists surrounding them," noted Hello! magazine in its cover story this week, "but the Duchess and her little boy escaped their attention."
Whether the passengers who shared a long flight with the Duchess of Cambridge, Prince George and their bodyguards really failed to notice their famous fellow travellers, or were simply decent enough to give the young mother some space, the celebrity title took a different view of her privacy.
"World Exclusive!" it trumpeted, as it laid out a sequence of a dozen paparazzi images showing the Duchess coming down the steps of the Boeing 777, babe in arms, and walking across the airport on the Caribbean island of St Vincent. The 10 pages of coverage, charting nothing more newsworthy than a transit to a private jet that would take the Royals to the island of Mustique, were accompanied by a breathless report recording every detail that could be gleaned from the pictures, down to Kate's "taupe Mint Velvet plimsolls". The Duchess, readers were informed, was wearing sunglasses "to shade her eyes from the hot tropical sun".
More: Prince George and the paparazzi - Press - Media - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/prince-george-and-the-paparazzi-9107692.html)
Cindy
Duchess of Cambridge will not take legal action over paparazzi photos of her and George | Royal | News | Daily Express (http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/457876/Duchess-of-Cambridge-will-not-take-legal-action-over-paparazzi-photos-of-her-and-George)
It will be interesting to see if the couple goes with a Dutch style "media code" with regular photoshoots in exchange for more privacy for the children or will they forge ahead with their own plan.
You remind princess Diana told media and paparazzi don't taking pictures of her and boys in skiing vacation and Diana told that "don't pictures" like 24/7 but media and paparazzi been taking lots pictures and video of Diana in 1981-1997 for fifteen years in public..
Before Diana's death paparazzi and media try get pictures and video of her when Diana got crash in tunnel in Paris,France but paparazzi and media get fines for that on Diana's injury&died crash..
Princes William and Harry do protect on their own life when his mom died and the brothers don't wanted heard on Diana's death they wanted low profiles on his mom's passed away..
Prince William is now married to Kate he have rightful to protect Kate I have respect William's decide to protect Kate and George from Spotlight but the couples don't wanted baby George in Spotlight like 24/7 till Australian and New Zealand for photocall..
Kate will protect George when travel with her family also make sure both ok but Kate bring three bodyguards and security with her and baby George plus Middletons family also to protect her and baby George they don't disturb strange or visitors..
Quote from: TLLK on February 05, 2014, 03:26:57 PM
It will be interesting to see if the couple goes with a Dutch style "media code" with regular photoshoots in exchange for more privacy for the children or will they forge ahead with their own plan.
I think it will be interesting, too. But I doubt it - the Dutch Royals are known for their informality and laid back style, whereas the British Royals are known to be more formal. I wish our royals would have regular photoshoots though. IMO the Spanish Royals are quite formal too, but they release fairly regular photos of the children.
I have to say I was a bit disappointed with his first official photos, but then we got his christening photos, which I thought were quite good. So perhaps George will be "exposed" (not sure if this is the correct word to use) to the media more in the near future.
I'm curious. Charles and Diana were long before my time but exactly how many photos of William were released between his christening and the Australian Tour? He was nine months during the tour so it would give me a good indication of just how much the Cambridges are 'shielding' George from the media.
:hmm: I don't know about Chuck & Di but the good feelings and good will generated by Estelle's parents is priceless and what I hear people say about them is very nice. In my opinion, and that of many others, they are being very thoughtful in sharing their baby and family conscientiously. :clap:
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on March 18, 2014, 10:37:35 PM
I'm curious. Charles and Diana were long before my time but exactly how many photos of William were released between his christening and the Australian Tour? He was nine months during the tour so it would give me a good indication of just how much the Cambridges are 'shielding' George from the media.
It's been a very long time, but I recall a photo released when they left the hospital and then one a few weeks afterward. There were the christening photos and then one before their Australian trip. William wore a white onesie suit with blue smocking. He could hold himself up. After Australia there were photos released for different milestones ie First birthday.
^^^ Thanks. Just one photo between William's christening and the Australian Tour. Here I was thinking there must have been multiple photo shoots and maybe even a few documentaries of William during his first nine months from the amount of slack the Cambridges get from some people about George.
Perhaps the slack they are getting is, in part, because royals like CP Victoria are being so thoughtful and conscientious in sharing the their family with the public. They are being respectful, they are private but they do not appear like they are in hiding or to be using their baby at odd times like a prop, they simply appear to be getting on with life. These are different times, and, IMO, CP Victoria and Daniel are doing a great job.
^^ I completely agree, Lima.
I wish that the Cambridges would look for guidance at Daniel & Victoria's model of how to handle public interest in their daughter, a future Queen. It seems as though they want Swedes to share in the obvious joy Estelle brings to her family... and I think that's wonderful. They have given smiles to so many people by sharing glimpses of Estelle's life (I know I smile when I think of her baby royal sash, array of bows, or Christmas cookie baking). I also love how Daniel and Victoria take Estelle to (appropriate) events...they are showing her that royal duties can be woven into daily life, and one can take joy in these duties.
Every time they release seasonal photos/videos, the value of a photo of Estelle goes down. The public isn't clamoring to see the child, because they get to see her-- and appropriately so.
Royals have such a rare job-- and one that also affords them time to spend with their family. It makes me so happy to see that Victoria and Daniel want to share their lives with their daughter, but most of all, I think it's a wise decision to release photos and take her along to some events. Victoria & Daniel have my utmost respect.
Quote from: Limabeany on March 19, 2014, 01:42:12 AM
Perhaps the slack they are getting is, in part, because royals like CP Victoria are being so thoughtful and conscientious in sharing the their family with the public. They are being respectful, they are private but they do not appear like they are in hiding or to be using their baby at odd times like a prop, they simply appear to be getting on with life. These are different times, and, IMO, CP Victoria and Daniel are doing a great job.
I don't buy this at all. First the BRF have their own way of doing things. They never look to the continent for an example of how things should be done and second, the only people I see complain about a so called lack of photos of George are people who slam the Cambridges for
everything they do in life and use the photos as just another way to have ago at them. If the Cambridges did release monthly photos or whatever they do in Sweden, Cambridge detractors would just accuse them of PR.
We saw George when he left the hospital, when Mr Middleton took home photos of George, we saw George again at his christening along with some video. We had the official christening photos taken by Mr Bell and during the Queen's Christmas day message there was yet more new video released from the christening and we had the unexpected but still lovely pics of George as he was leaving the plane in Mustique. Now coming up we will get more photos and video of George as he tours Australia with his parents.
How many official photo-shoots should a 7 or 8 month old baby have to satisfy critics, if indeed they will ever be satisfied?
Ask Daniel and Victoria. They are doing great! :thumbsup:
If that's the best you have I think we'll stick to the British way of doing things and let the Swedes do whatever it is they do.
Since William and Kate are so criticized, I would say they need some help from people who know how to be thoughtful with their subjects.
Like what staying in the middle ages ?
^^^ Well we may not have gender neutral toilets in every school and we aren't big on crossing dressing our children like our Scandinavian friends but Britain is one of the most progressive countries in Europe. With respect, Sweden can keep their socialist and over bloated welfare state. Britain has enough to deal with.
Quote from: Limabeany on March 19, 2014, 02:59:42 AM
Ask Daniel and Victoria. They are doing great! :thumbsup:
If we're comparing the British Royals to the Swedish Royals, I saw something yesterday that surprised me. Mind you, I like Victoria and Daniel very much, and I find Estelle to be adorable. Yesterday (or the day before?), I watched a video of Victoria doing a walk-about on her birthday. She kept a slight distance away from the crowd and didn't shake hands with anyone. She just walked along, smiling and bowing her head. At one point, a woman offered her flowers, and Victoria stopped to talk to her, then talked to her little girl. She didn't bend down to the child's height, she just leaned over and said a few words. She shook hands with these people. After a minute or so, she continued walking, without shaking hands with anyone. If anyone would like to see the video, I posted it in the Swedish section yesterday.
So maybe, just maybe, the British sometimes do it better. :)
Cindy
I was responding to your remark that Daniel and Victoria are doing it right. I pointed out that sometimes the British do it better. :shrug: And I didn't "seek" this video. It was embedded in an article that I posted about Victoria's Name Day (not birthday as I previously stated ... sorry). I didn't watch the video until I'd already posted the article. As I stated, I like the Swedish Crown Princesses family. I have nothing but respect and admiration for them. But they're not perfect in every way. No one is, so why the comparisons? And if there are comparisons (which is not something I started), why not complete comparisons?
Cindy
Because this is a thread about George and the way their parents handle the media and the public. I used Estelle to illustrate what, in my opinion, is the respectful way to approach this under the circumstances. You may open a general comparison thread if you wish. :cool:
IMHO the British royals will choose the path that they believe is best for their children and the Swedes, Danes, Spanish etc... will do the same. :) Most of the current CP couples along with the Kings of the NL and Belgium have followed a similar path or somewhere in the middle. Newborn leaving the hospital photo, christening photo, 6-8 month photo and first birthday photo. There were occasional candid shots that were released as well. The Danes and Spaniards do annual summer photocalls with the entire family. The Dutch royals released a then very controversial media code around the time that Catherina-Amalia was born. Anyone who violated it risked legal action and would be excluded from future photocalls.
Well we've seen Prince George five times both officially and unofficially in the first 8 months and next month we are sure to get many more photos and probably some video as well. For those who do actually want to see George, there have been and will be plenty of opportunities, for those looking for an excuse to bash the Cambridges you don't need any reasons for that anyway
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on March 19, 2014, 12:51:09 AM
^^^ Thanks. Just one photo between William's christening and the Australian Tour. Here I was thinking there must have been multiple photo shoots and maybe even a few documentaries of William during his first nine months from the amount of slack the Cambridges get from some people about George.
Of the published photos that I could find of William he was a newborn in the first. He was under 6 weeks for the second and 7 months for the photos released before his Australian trip. He was christened at an earlier age than George.
IMO George isn't a prop, or a distraction for William and Kate. He is their beloved baby, and they want to protect him and shield him from harm, as all parents do. If they think it would be harmful to expose him to the media in his early formative years, then they are doing the right thing.
The British press is very different from the Swedish press. Every royal family has different circumstances, just as "ordinary" parents have. Their baby, they get to call the shots. George should be left to have a lovely childhood--he won't be king for many, many years. I'm sure the royals will see to it that he knows his duty as he grows.
It was pretty evident in William's youth, that he felt seriously uncomfortable with the attention from the media. Not only could we see his discomfort, it was widely discussed by the press. Perhaps that's why he prefers that George not be exposed to the same. We actually don't know how often the Cambridges venture out. For example, they were just at a dinner for their Foundation a couple of nights ago, and if someone hadn't tweeted about it, we would never have known. Obviously, they've taken George out to visit both his maternal and paternal grandparents, and very possibly his great-grandparents. And yet, there has been no news circulating. It's impossible to know what they do with every minute of their lives, or how they interact with their infant.
Cindy
:goodpost:
^^ Yes, we're talking about the same video. Those children whose hands she's shaking were standing next to the woman who gave her flowers ... and you may have noticed that I pointed out that incident in my previous post (" At one point, a woman offered her flowers, and Victoria stopped to talk to her, then talked to her little girl. She didn't bend down to the child's height, she just leaned over and said a few words. She shook hands with these people.") She'd walked several yards before encountering this lady. Look, I'm not trying to put Victoria down. If that's how she wants to handle walk-abouts, that cool. What I am saying is exactly what I've already said ... maybe sometimes the British do certain things better. No one is 100% perfect. Maybe it would be a good idea if you started a thread about it and just answering your question here. I'm pretty much finished with it. I responded to a general phrase that "Ask Victoria and Daniel. They're doing great!", I reported what I saw, and now that's it for me. :flower:
Cindy
I meant great with Estelle and their subjects. They seem to have a happy balance without the hang-ups and "we must be unseen so we can be private and happy" issues that the Cambridges have.
Mostly CP couples know what protect kids in spotlight and taking pictures or NOT! Due what mention on posts but CP couples can taking pictures of kids on photocall and publish must have permit by palace and official also they can get in magazine approval..
I'm sure William and Kate will learn get publish pictures from agency who publish like people,hello! And mores on world magazine plus American must have permit by palace and official to publish magazine..but no paparazzi or tabloids include remind what last times on Kate got topless in France but the couples DID bans France for pictures on Kate..
European royals know best wanted pictures or not they won't publish you remind Dutch monarchy favors not get pictures of three princesses due respectively of monarchy willem-Alex for his girls in spotlight for reasons till photocall in vacations.must approval by palace or official to publish magazine it's important
QuoteIt's summer and, with silly season almost upon us, nice to have some good news to dwell on, in amongst the horror coming out of the Middle East. What could be nicer and more benign than a fat-cheeked baby, let alone a fat-cheeked baby who, as Vanity Fair puts it, "single-handedly brought moniker-flaunting clothing back into vogue"?
I have no idea what that means, but I do know that Vanity Fair's August cover story, featuring the first infant cover-star of that particular magazine since Suri Cruise in 2006, is hard to tear oneself away from. It celebrates the heir to the British throne's first birthday later this month and shows Prince George looking across at his dad while his mum regards both of them from above – in a way that is, according to the coverage of the coverage, almost unbearably adorable.
The British royal family has had enough bad press over the years for this attention to strike it like warm sun after rain, but there is something creepy about the fervor directed at Prince George. The media is, in this instance, behaving like that weirdo who stops you in the street to go on for slightly too long about how cute your baby is – or the stalker whose love reaches a pitch that is a few notches shy of reaching around the back to meet its polar opposite.
More: Don't make Prince George the next focus of the royal-watching freak show | Emma Brockes | Comment is free | theguardian.com (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/emma-brockes-column/2014/jul/11/prince-george-focus-royal-watching)
Cindy
:goodpost: thank you for sharing the article. I hope that the press will consider this view. The press can find something or someone else to sell their papers and magazines.
A thread to discuss the general news for Princess Anne and Timothy Laurence not related to royal duties.
Princess Anne became fifty in 2000.
Princess Anne's 50th Birthday - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4fz1j23V2w)
When Princess Anne was married to Mark Phillips, could she have been titled HRH The Princess Anne, Lady Anne Phillips instead of HRH The Princess Anne, Mrs. Mark Phillips?
Princess Anne saved from boating disaster by a cheap car fan belt | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/772398/Princess-Anne-yacht-boating-car-fan-belt)
QuotePrince William and Kate have always fiercely guarded their children's privacy and now that the family are moving from the countryside to central London, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are as keen as ever to protect their son Prince George and their daughter Princess Charlotte. A team of gardeners has been busy planting native conifer trees alongside Kensington Palace so that Prince William and Kate's home will be shielded from prying eyes. The family will relocate from their Norfolk mansion in time for George to start school in the autumn.
Royal sources have told HELLO! that the trees are being planted for reasons of "privacy and security". The conifers, which can grow to a height of more than 40ft, will create an 820-ft long wall along the western side of the palace, where William and Kate's residence, Apartment 1A, is located. The giant hedge will help to block the view from Kensington Palace Gardens, a private road that is home to some of London's wealthiest residents.
Last month it was announced that the Duke and Duchess and their children, George, three, and 21-month-old Charlotte, will be leaving Anmer Hall in Norfolk to make Kensington Palace their main residence. It coincides with William leaving his job as a helicopter pilot at East Anglian Air Ambulance so he can fulfil more royal duties. George, meanwhile, is expected to start at a junior school not far from the palace.
Read more:
Prince William and Kate Middleton's new plans to protect George and Charlotte (http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2017021336603/kate-middleton-prince-william-george-charlotte-privacy/)
Who actually pays for the conifer trees?
The conifer trees will be paid for by the tax payer, in one way or another!
Woman Arrested for Allegedly Breaking into Prince George's School
Woman Arrested for Attempted Burglary of Prince George's School (http://people.com/royals/woman-arrested-attempted-burglary-prince-george-school/)
Double post auto-merged: September 13, 2017, 08:30:22 PM
Woman arrested over attempted burglary at Prince George's school
Prince George's school reviews security following attempted burglary (http://us.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2017091342383/prince-george-school-arrest-woman-in-custody/)
Double post auto-merged: September 13, 2017, 08:32:32 PM
Scuffle in the street outside Prince George's school as woman, 40, was arrested on suspicion of trying to break in duing four-year-old royal's first week
Woman arrested breaking into Prince George's school | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4880866/Woman-arrested-breaking-Prince-George-s-school.html)
Double post auto-merged: September 13, 2017, 08:34:00 PM
Prince George's school security review after break-in
Prince George's school security review after break-in - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-41253491)
Double post auto-merged: September 13, 2017, 08:34:59 PM
Woman arrested on suspicion of trying to break in to Prince George's school
Woman arrested on suspicion of trying to break in to Prince George's school (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/13/woman-arrested-following-incident-prince-georges-school/)
Double post auto-merged: September 13, 2017, 08:35:45 PM
Security review at Prince George's school in Battersea after woman arrested over attempted break-in
Security review at Prince George's school in Battersea after woman arrested over attempted break-in (http://news.sky.com/story/woman-arrested-at-prince-georges-school-11033941)
Double post auto-merged: September 13, 2017, 08:37:16 PM
Police review security after woman arrested at Prince George's school
Police review security after woman arrested at Prince George's school | UK news | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/13/police-review-security-after-woman-arrested-at-prince-georges-school)
Double post auto-merged: September 13, 2017, 08:41:22 PM
Security scare at Prince George's new school in Battersea
Security scare at Prince George's new school in Battersea | London - ITV News (http://www.itv.com/news/london/2017-09-13/security-scare-at-prince-georges-new-school-in-battersea/)
Wow! That's scary! :eyes:
Prince William and Princess Kate Will Take George to School as 'Often' as They Can, Royal Source Says
Prince William and Kate Middleton Committed to Taking Prince George to School (http://people.com/royals/prince-william-and-princess-kate-will-take-george-to-school-as-often-as-they-can-royal-source-says/)
Double post auto-merged: September 14, 2017, 02:11:13 PM
Woman Reportedly Arrested After Attempting to Break Into Prince George's School
Woman Tries to Break Into Prince George?s School, Arrested - Us Weekly (http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/woman-tries-to-break-into-prince-georges-school-arrested-w502943)
Double post auto-merged: September 14, 2017, 02:13:25 PM
Prince William says George 'has had a very interesting week' as his four-year-old son returns to class after police sting arrests suspected female stalker, 40, who tried to break into his school for the SECOND time in 24 hours
Woman arrested for breaking into Prince George's school | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4881876/Moment-woman-arrested-breaking-Prince-s-school.html)
Double post auto-merged: September 14, 2017, 06:33:39 PM
Update news
Woman, 40, accused of trying to break into Prince George's £20,000-a-year prep school is released on bail
Woman, 40, accused of trying to break into school | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4885106/Woman-40-accused-trying-break-school.html)
Double post auto-merged: September 14, 2017, 06:38:51 PM
Prince George school break-in: Arrested woman bailed
Prince George school break-in: Arrested woman bailed - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-41274128)
Update news
Woman who gained access to Prince George's school given police caution
Woman who gained access to Prince George's school given police caution - ITV News (http://www.itv.com/news/2017-10-09/woman-who-gained-access-to-prince-georges-school-given-police-caution/)
ISIS supporters threaten Prince George – Royal Central (http://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/cambridges/isis-supporters-threaten-prince-george-90721)
To threaten the lives of small children (or older ones for that matter) while they are attending school is just despicable. Isis is apparently on its last legs, no territory of any significance left under its control anymore, but I suppose that won't stop its adherants issuing threats or homegrown followers trying something. Hopefully security at the school will be increased for the foreseeable future.
Those animals are below despicable to threaten a small child shows you just how cowardly they are.
Very scary. Just thought of that. Despite the richness of lifestyle , when you think about this sort of thing and them all always having RPO and all, real. Real scary too.
Prince George terror plot accused 'wanted to poison ice creams' (https://news.sky.com/story/prince-george-terror-plot-accused-wanted-to-poison-ice-creams-11383139)
QuoteA suspected Islamic State supporter encouraged lone wolf attackers to target Prince George at his school and to poison ice creams, a court has heard.
Husnain Rashid posted a photo online of the four-year-old prince with the address of his Battersea school, a silhouette of a jihadist fighter and the message "even the Royal Family will not be left alone", a jury at Woolwich Crown Court heard.
Suspect Husnain Rashid was arrested in April and had an alleged hit list of "enemies of Islam."
QuoteProsecutor Annabel Darlow said: "His proposals were indiscriminate and made no distinction between adult and child, between members of fighting forces and civilians.
"His suggestions included injecting poison into supermarket ice creams and targeting Prince George at his first school."
Other targets included the Halloween Parade in New York and railway stations in Australia.
His "hit list" for jihadists to "terrorise the enemies of Allah" also included author Salman Rushdie and MI6.
#Breaking Islamic State supporter Husnain Rashid, 32, has admitted encouraging terrorism by using a Telegram messaging group to call for an attack on Prince George, following a change of plea half way through his trial at Woolwich Crown Court
Via Press Association Twitter
To them he's third in line to the throne. Then again what do you expect from people who throw people from roofs or stone them to death.
Why Princess Anne Doesn?t Shake Hands During Walkabouts | PEOPLE.com (https://people.com/royals/why-princess-anne-doesnt-shake-hands-walkabouts/)
Princess Anne on why she doesn't shake hands during walkabouts | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6201693/Princess-Anne-reveals-DOESNT-shake-hands-members-public-walkabouts.html)
Why Princess Anne doesn't shake hands with members of the public (https://us.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2018092462666/why-princess-anne-doesnt-shake-hands/)
I thought that was why Anne wouldn't shake the hands of members of the public on walk-abouts. She's a stickler for the old ways. I'm ancient enough to remember when the Queen didn't. She would just walk along and people would clap and cheer. I doubt that the QM ever took part in a handshaking sort of event with the general public either. She would occasionally shake the hands of people she was presented to, but that would be it. I don't think Anne goes in for the post-Diana custom of hugging members of the public, a habit her older brother sometimes indulges in, either.
Typical of Anne....
She's unlikely to change her habits after decades on.
Quote from: TLLK on September 25, 2018, 12:25:02 AM
She's unlikely to change her habits after decades on.
No, she never changes. She was rude and tiresome when she was a girl and she still is...
I like Princess Anne's comment about the person putting the instrument down if they wish to speak to the Royal.
Quote from: amabel on September 26, 2018, 04:37:07 AM
No, she never changes. She was rude and tiresome when she was a girl and she still is...
Yet, I don't think she intends to be rude - I think she is just forthright and a bit impatient. If you ever get a chance to watch Princess Alexandra's wedding, take a look at Anne (bridesmaid) as they came back to the sanctuary after signing the register.
The Busy Princess: Princess Anne clocks up an impressive 20,000 engagement ? Royal Central (http://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/princessanne/the-busy-princess-princess-anne-clocks-up-an-impressive-20000-engagement-116944)
QuoteThe Princess Royal has conducted more than 20,000 public engagements so far in her career, with there being no signs of her slowing down just yet.
On Saturday, Princess Anne marked 50 years since she conducted her very first engagement on March 1st 1969 ? St David?s Day.
According to the MailOnline, Princess Anne?s first engagement was to hand out leeks to the Welsh Guards at Pirbright Camp in Surrey.
This was the start of a job-for-life for The Queen?s daughter, who is now the busiest royal, often completing more than 500 engagements per year.
Her Royal Highness is President, Patron and member of almost 350 charities ? many of these receiving regular royal support from the 68-year-old.
Well done to Anne, one of the unsung stalwarts of the BRF. And at around 500 engagements each year one of the busiest. I think also that she has grown closer to her mother since HM has become very old. She is often there in the background, accompanying her to events and present at family gatherings at Balmoral, Windsor etc. I think she enjoys her life. The public duties have given structure and purpose which, after her equestrian life finished, was important.
Tim Laurence is in NZ right now, he also signed the condolence book at NZ parliament.
The Royal Family
Verified account
@royalfamilyIn New Zealand, Vice Admiral Sir Tim Laurence represented The Queen in country to sign the Book of Condolence at @NZParliament. Admiral Laurence had been visiting New Zealand in his role as Vice Chairman of @CWGC.
Sir Timothy Laurence visits New Zealand representing The Queen ? Royal Central (http://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/princessanne/sir-tim-laurence-visits-new-zealand-representing-the-queen-118279)
Julian Evans
@Julian_A_Evans
To honour New Zealand's sacrifice @cwgc Vice Chairman, Sir Tim Laurence, today laid a wreath at the Pukeahu National War Memorial and a tribute on the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior in Wellington.
Julian Evans on Twitter: "To honour New Zealand's sacrifice @cwgc Vice Chairman, Sir Tim Laurence, today laid a wreath at the Pukeahu National War (https://twitter.com/Julian_A_Evans/status/1108573821852897283)
Quote from: TLLK on March 22, 2019, 01:39:02 PM
Sir Timothy Laurence visits New Zealand representing The Queen ? Royal Central (http://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/princessanne/sir-tim-laurence-visits-new-zealand-representing-the-queen-118279)
Timothy Laurence represented his mother-in-law excellently. The Queen can be quite proud of this son-in-law.
Mrs Barbara Alison Laurence, 90, mother of Vice-Admiral Sir Tim Laurence, has died in Gloucestershire.
Peerage News: Barbara Alison Laurence [died 2019] (https://peeragenews.blogspot.com/2019/07/barbara-alison-laurence-died-2019.html)
-=-
Very sad news for Cmdr. Timothy Laurence.
Princess Anne mourns the death of her mother-in-law | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2019070975092/princess-anne-mourns-death-mother-in-law/)
Double post auto-merged: July 10, 2019, 09:19:51 PM
Royal news: Princess Anne mourning death of ?much beloved? mother-in-law, 90 | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1151844/royal-news-princess-anne-timothy-laurence-mother-death-funeral-obituary)
He was fortunate to have his mother for so long, but it is sad when you lose your mother at any age. Hopefully Anne will have her mother for more than a few years yet.
Very sad indeed!
QuoteA source told the Sun, ?This is the type of potentially deadly security oversight that simply cannot be allowed to happen.
?Darren is a violent criminal who was jailed for the most brutal type of torture. It?s chilling as he has been boasting to friends about just how close he came to our future king and the other Cambridge children.
?His friends were shocked that he was able to get into the Palace and within touching distance of royalty given his past.?
A separate inside royal source said, ?The Duke has been informed and is obviously taking a close interest into what happened.
?He strongly believes criminals deserve a second chance once they have served their time, but is concerned current security policies might not be strong enough.
It?s very important we know who is coming into the Palace.?Security scare as convicted torturer gets within feet of Prince George ? Royal Central (https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/cambridge/security-scare-as-convicted-torturer-gets-within-feet-of-prince-george-127233/)
Quotee Royal Family has launched a security investigation after a convicted torturer, Darren Benjamin, 40, was able to get within feet of Prince George and his two siblings, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis at Kensington Palace.
Benjamin was allowed into Kensington Palace grounds as a delivery driver delivering furniture where he came across the three Cambridge children with their nanny, Maria Teresa Borrallo in the courtyard. He later boasted about it to his friends saying that Prince George was ?pleasant.?
I read that article, and have a mixed thought about rehabilitation. I think they should ''limit'' the rehabbed person to work for 20 plus years with no contact with the ''public'', but look at the DM comments, the best ones come with the give the guy a chance he is rehabbed. That was quite 'humane' of the commentators and their green arrows.
To further expand my thought process, the man ended up in jail because he tortured and left the victim forever disfigured by pouring scalding hot water during the torturing...he is free man now and rehabbed/recommended to ''re enter society''.
The legal system did not think his contact with the public should be limited, and we don't know all the details of his crime and rehabilitation. However, one NEVER knows 100% how someone who has participated in violent acts will perform in the long run. Rehabilitation is not absolute, and how could we control or limit his or her contact with the public forever? Therefore, the royals and those who have care of the young, the old, the sick, and any other vulnerable groups must consider things like this. It sounds like KP is taking it seriously, which is just what they need to do.
https://www.rexfeatures.com/livefeed/2019/09/14/royals_attend_the_whatley_manor_horse_trials,_gatcombe_park
Geez, Tim sure is tall. Nice photos. Being outdoors with children is always a good thing IMO.
https://www.rexfeatures.com/livefeed/2019/09/15/the_whatley_manor_horse_trials,_day_3,_gatcombe_park
Photos of the Tindalls at the Horse Trials today with Zara competing.
Anne is such a no-nonsense sort, isn't she!
Princess Anne: 'You don't need qualifications to make a difference' (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/christmas/2019/12/27/princess-anne-dont-need-qualifications-make-difference/)
Richard Palmer
Verified account
@RoyalReporter
Wow. I thought there was a tacit agreement not to photograph them on the school run. https://twitter.com/mirrorroyal/status/1216658556809830400 ?
The Mirror today published paparazzi pictures of Kate and the children going to school, and has since deleted it, whilst the Daily Mail kept the paparazzi pictures of Kate only. The motive of the paparazzi pictures is to associate that Kate remained in London, whilst William is at the Sandringham meeting, having been spotted arriving to their Anmer Hall home last night.
Maybe they will file a complaint.
I don't think so, the children were cropped out (DM), the Mirror altogether deleted the pictures and article about the daily school run.
I saw the cropped pictures. She was all dressed up and must have been on her way to an engagement.
I don't think she'd rush from a school run directly to an engagement.
Twitter (https://mobile.twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1217102239556349952)
Double post auto-merged: January 15, 2020, 08:52:25 PM
QuoteThe Princess Royal is involved with over 300 charities, organisations and military regiments in the UK and overseas.
HRH has been Patron of Scottish Rugby Union since 1986 and is often seen at matches, supporting players and staff.
Over 300 charities! My stars! That is a large number. Princess Anne is a lady who takes her responsibilities very well.
:stars: :stars: :stars: :stars: :stars: :stars: :stars: :stars: :stars:
The PR is a person who often surprises. We often see her as brusque and matter-of-fact, but then we see her showing an unexpected warmth. She takes the title seriously. I'll bet she is extremely self-disciplined, also.
I've never seen anything of Anne showing warmth. She is a hard worker but her unfriendly manner is pretty awful . However she is these days companioning her mother at engagmnets which is useful.
A great interview, and well written article. I've been thinking this week what Anne has been thinking about Andrew.
Princess Anne?s Interview on Prince Andrew, Harry and Meghan & Life as a Royal | Vanity Fair (https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/04/princess-anne-opens-up-about-her-lifetime-as-a-royal)
IMHO this is definitely worth a read about one of the BRF's hardest working members.
Personally I was pleased to see that the recent YouGov UK rating placed her as the fourth most favorably rated member of the BRF.
Quote1 - HMQ
2 - The Duchess of Cambridge
3 - The Duke of Cambridge
4 - Princess Anne
5 - Prince Harry
Anne laying down the law
Anne, TPR is .
Great article , so far of the tidbits.
Truth . She only said some truth there in throwing out some shade, no names mentioned.
When she speaks about the younger generation, she nails it with been there, done that, trials and errors, some wheels don't need to be changed, etc.
I hope William and Kate read it, as they are the only ones considered younger generation.
@wannable-I have to agree that the Princess Royal definitely "nails it" when it comes to royal work. As to her advice to the younger generation of royals, IMO it is worth reading and considering.
Very worth reading, reinventing wheels. Review the history of that particular wheel, analyze with the team, if it works and can't be improved ''yet'' because of the times, leave it put, next. The modernization of the monarchy comes with and when there is new technology, new fillintheblank to replace the old boiler, which turns out to be more energy efficient, manpower efficient, and to that...you know what I mean, and that is with everything.
It's like politicians reinventing/re inaugurating/repainting giving a building a wash and clean and a lick of cement to look fresh/trademark it by changing the name of the building...LOL
You are right, the article is well worth reading. So many direct quotes revealing her very practical forthright nature. She is a person who uses few words to say much, but I didn't realize how truly warm she is. As far as reinventing the wheel is concerned, I'm afraid that's a trial for most generations. They must learn the hard way, just as we did. I am wondering who she was really describing, though; the only ones I can see doing things differently are the Sussexes, who were already in process of leaving when the interview took place. Unless she means the Cambridges doing the emotional health approach, which I really feel is needed.
Man who threatened Princess Royal was found on grounds of Gatcombe Park ? Royal Central (https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/anne/man-who-threatened-princess-royal-was-found-on-grounds-of-gatcombe-park-144850/)
:orchid: :windsor1: :windsor: :royalsneeze: :fuming: :thumbsdown: :angeldevil1: :cry: :( >( :censored2: :blink: :hmm: :ahhh: :ugh: :notworthy: :Jen:
I don't understand why this man hasn't been admitted to a psychiatric hospital or ward. Clearly he is very ill and is a potential threat to himself and others. Also, his behavior and repeat of the original call must make everyone in the area feel unsafe and uncomfortable. I just don't understand.
@Princess Cassandra I don't understand it either especially since there is a pattern of behavior here.
Quote from: TLLK on August 21, 2020, 03:31:49 PM
@Princess Cassandra I don't understand it either especially since there is a pattern of behavior here.
Also, there are children living on that estate. But hopefully everything is now under control.
I dont know if she was hurt, probably more annoyed.. and I think she wasn't al that close to Charles, but he was her brohter... and there was a coolness between her and Diana. I think that yes, Charles was Zara's godfather and it was expected that she would be godmother to one of C's children.. but when she wasn't asked, she found an excuse to avoid hte christening.
The Royal Year in Review: the Princess Royal ? Royal Central (https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/anne/the-royal-year-in-review-the-princess-royal-154034/) :snowflake:
QuotePrincess Anne?s year usually comes to an end with her tucking over 500 engagements under her belt and the words ?hardest working royal? ringing in her ears. This year has been very different for the Princess Royal. As well as turning 70, she?s seen her usual pattern of life turned upside down. But Anne, as you would expect, has turned that to her advantage and packed out her diary in a new way that has still left her at the top of the tree when it comes to regal duty.
We should be seeing Mr. O' Donovan's BRF engagement count in the coming days along with the ones from media sources as well as private individuals. I only hope that those tallying used the printed court circular and not the online one. :notamused:
Princess Anne's wedding tiara was a nod to Russian Tsars.
Princess Anne's wedding tiara was a nod to Russian Czars - and doubles up as necklace - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuVSiNV7lgg)
No stabbing comment, but it has to do with Princess Anne's Gatcombe Park.
Quote
Princess Anne's home estate
She was the first British royal to compete in the Olympics, and now Princess Anne is giving fellow horse-lovers a chance to trot in her footsteps.
The Queen?s daughter, who turns 71 tomorrow, has opened her glorious Gloucestershire estate to allow riders to practise in the grounds for ?25 an hour.
?By kind permission of HRH The Princess Royal and Gatcombe Park Estate, Gatcombe Park XC Hire offers a small selection of cross‑country fences available for schooling,? confirms a spokesperson.
The Princess Royal competed in the 1976 Games, and her former husband, Mark Phillips, won Gold in Munich in 1972.
Admiral Sir Timothy Laurence tests positive for Covid-19 (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/admiral-sir-timothy-laurence-tests-152639844.html)
QuoteSophie Corcoran, PA
Wed, 22 December 2021, 7:26 am?1-min read
In this article:
Read more on this topic
Admiral Sir Timothy Laurence, the husband of the Princess Royal, has tested positive for coronavirus.
A royal source said Anne and her husband will now not be spending Christmas with the Queen as they will be isolating.
Earlier this week, it was revealed the Queen would be spending her first Christmas without her husband, Prince Philip ? who died in April ? at Windsor Castle.
A thread dedicated to the forms of protection provided to royals around the globe over the centuries and in the 21st century. This includes discussion of past and current security threats.
Shocking video shows crossbow-wielding man threatening to 'assassinate the Queen' | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10346097/Chilling-video-Windsor-crossbow-suspect-Police-probe-disturbing-social-media-footage.html)
Police investigate video after Windsor Castle security breach | UK news | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/26/man-19-mental-health-act-windsor-castle-arrest)
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-berkshire-59794378
Windsor Castle security breach: Police investigate video of masked figure after Christmas Day incident | UK News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/windsor-castle-security-breach-police-investigate-video-of-masked-figure-after-christmas-day-incident-12504406)
Windsor Castle: Video emerges of masked man threatening to 'assassinate the Queen' (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/26/windsor-castle-armed-intruder-arrested-christmas-day-detained/)
Windsor Castle security breach: Man 'carrying crossbow' arrested on Queen's private grounds (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2021/12/25/windsor-castle-security-breach-man-carrying-offensive-weapon/)
Queen Elizabeth?s arrested intruder in Windsor was ?carrying crossbow? on Christmas Day | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1541217/Queen-elizabeth-intruder-windsor-castle-arrested-carrying-crossbow-ont)
This potential attacker is apparently a radicalised very young man who appears to have obsessed over a particularly infamous incident in the history of what was then British India. Quite why the Queen had to pay for a massacre that occured a good seven years before she was born at a time when the Raj was presided over by officials in her grandfather?s reign (George V) heaven only knows.
Reportedly senior members of the British Royal Family who receive full time protection are unhappy with the changes being made to their security as long time Protection Officers are being moved out. According to this article that includes: The Queen, Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall and the Cambridge family. All other working members of the BRF: The Wessexes, Princess Royal, The Gloucesters, Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra of Kent only have protection when they're performing official duties. The extended family members pay for security privately if they wish it but those living at a royal palace ie: Kensington Palace or on the Windsor Castle Estate do benefit from some peripheral security that does monitor the entrances and the grounds of these locations.
Royals 'are concerned' as security shake-up sees some of their most trusted police guards moved on | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10346173/Royals-concerned-security-shake-sees-trusted-police-guards-moved-on.html)
QuoteSenior royals are up in arms over the removal of some of their most trusted police bodyguards as part of a security shake-up.
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and the Duchess of Cornwall are among members of the family who have expressed ?concern? after recently losing some of their most loyal and longstanding personal protection officers.
Even the Queen is understood to have privately expressed her ?disquiet? over changes to the way they are protected.
It is understood that a number of family members have been left upset after Scotland Yard instigated a reorganisation of their security arrangements.
The changes are being rolled out by high-flying Metropolitan Police Commander Helen Millichap, who is in charge of Protection Command.
She is said to have ?ruffled feathers? with her determination to ?open up? the ranks of the team of specialist officers who guard VIPs, known as Royalty and Specialist Protection (RaSP).
One of the most senior female officers at Scotland Yard, Yorkshire-born Cmdr Millichap, who was educated at Bradford Grammar School and Cambridge University, has insisted that long-standing bodyguards ? known as personal protection officers (PPOs) ? are moved to other roles in order to open up the division and make it less ?cliquey?. She is said to believe the role should not be seen as a job for life.
But members of the Royal Family, who are guarded 24 hours a day by their protection officers, are understood to be deeply unhappy. And some of them are fighting hard to keep their favourite bodyguards with them in face of huge pressure from the Met.
?Protection officers occupy very unique positions with MRFs [members of the Royal Family],? said a source. ?They are with them 24 hours a day and it understandably takes a long time to build up a good relationship of confidence and trust.
?Several very well-liked and respected officers have been moved on from their roles, not through any fault of their own.
While I believe that the article was likely written in response to the Christmas Day breach at WC and the newly discovered video assassination threat to the Queen, it appears that the royals expressing concern had made their thoughts known prior to the event. It can take a long time to establish a successful working relationship with any person though there must be added pressure when it comes to trusting someone tasked with your safety.
More on the ongoing investigation into the security breach and the video assassination threat.
Met Police investigating video following Windsor Castle security breach | The Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/met-police-windsor-castle-police-berkshire-the-sun-b1982659.html)
Armed intruder is arrested 'with crossbow' in grounds of Windsor Castle | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10344211/Armed-intruder-arrested-grounds-Windsor-Castle.html)
Father of Windsor Castle intruder, 19, tells of family's horror | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10347079/Father-Windsor-Castle-intruder-19-tells-familys-horror.html)
Man sectioned after being found on Windsor Castle grounds with crossbow on Christmas Day | ITV News (https://www.itv.com/news/2021-12-26/man-found-with-crossbow-on-windsor-castle-grounds-sectioned)
Armed intruder arrested in grounds of Windsor Castle as Queen celebrates Christmas - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-armed-intruder-arrested-grounds-25784692)
Queen's safety 'under threat' after crossbow 'break-in', ex-royal bodyguards fear - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queens-safety-under-threat-after-25790109)
Christmas crossbow intruder suspect at Windsor Castle detained under Mental Health Act - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-christmas-crossbow-intruder-suspect-25788590)
Windsor Castle 'crossbow' intruder scaled Queen's security fence 'with rope ladder' - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/windsor-castle-crossbow-intruder-scaled-25787801)
Armed intruder arrested in grounds of Windsor Castle as Queen celebrates Christmas with Prince Charles & Camilla (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17143007/armed-intruder-arrested-windsor-castle-queen/)
Chilling moment masked man with crossbow threatens to kill Queen in vid sent to pals minutes before cops arrest man, 19 (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17149695/man-crossbow-threatens-kill-queen/)
Armed intruder arrested in grounds of Windsor Castle where The Queen is celebrating Christmas ? Royal Central (https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/breaking-armed-intruder-arrested-in-grounds-of-windsor-castle-where-the-queen-is-celebrating-christmas-170176/)
Here's an archived article from the Daily Telegraph with more information about the ongoing investigation. Reportedly it is an act of revenge for a massacre that occurred in India in 1919. It also discusses the recent breaches associated with people attempting to gain access to Prince Andrew.
archive.ph (https://archive.ph/LlaYR)
QuoteAn intruder who broke into the grounds of Windsor Castle on Christmas Day carrying a crossbow has been sectioned under the Mental Health Act.
On Sunday night a video emerged on social media of a masked man with a crossbow vowing to "assassinate the Queen".
The video, obtained by The Sun, shows a man in a black hooded jumper wearing a white mask saying: "I?m sorry for what I?ve done and what I will do. I will attempt to assassinate Elizabeth, Queen of the Royal Family."
The man, who says he is an Indian Sikh, goes on to say that this is "revenge" for those who have died in the 1919 Jallianwala Bagh massacre, as well as those who have been "killed, humiliated and discriminated on [sic]" on account of their race.
The Jallianwala Bagh massacre, also known as the Massacre of Amritsar, took place on April 19, 1919. British troops opened fire on a large crowd of unarmed Indians in the Punjab region of India which was then under British colonial rule, killing hundreds and causing over a thousand casualties.
Scotland Yard on Sunday night confirmed that they are assessing a video following the intruder's arrest.
The man from Southampton was arrested with the weapon after apparently using a rope ladder to scale a metal fence to enter the gardens at the Queen?s Berkshire residence.
It is understood he was spotted on CCTV ?within moments?, triggering a team of armed response officers to arrest him at 8.30am, just hours before the Queen was due to celebrate Christmas with her family
In a statement issued on Sunday night, a Metropolitan Police spokesman said: ?A 19-year-old man from Southampton was arrested on suspicion of breach or trespass of a protected site and possession of an offensive weapon.
?Security processes were triggered within moments of the man entering the grounds and he did not enter any buildings.
?Following a search of the man, a crossbow was recovered. The man was taken into custody and has undergone a mental health assessment - he has since been sectioned under the Mental Health Act and remains in the care of medical professionals.?
The security breach is likely to lead to a review by police to establish what lessons can be learned from the incident.
Dai Davies, a former royal protection officer, said one possible threat such an armed intruder could have posed was a crossbow bolt being fired at a windscreen and then hitting an occupant of one of the vehicles arriving at the Windsor chapel.
The security threat can often be at its highest when VIPs are going to or from a known location,? he said. ?The bolt from a high-powered crossbow could possibly go through an armoured glass window - they can be very powerful weapons.?
About an hour after the Christmas Day arrest, the Queen welcomed Prince Charles and Camilla to the castle. The Earl and Countess of Wessex along with their children, Lady Louise, 18, and Viscount Severn, 14, also attended a Christmas Matins service in Windsor Castle. The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester also visited the castle for the service at the private chapel.
It has been widely publicised that the Queen, 95, was having Christmas at Windsor instead of Sandringham due to concerns over the spread of the new Covid variant.
Mr Davies said although the security breach was tackled by police at the earliest possible moment, protocol dictates that a senior officer would conduct a thorough review to see what lessons can be learned.
?The security operation went to plan,? Mr Davies continued. ?I don?t think there were any failings in security at all. They reacted precisely as you would expect them to.?
The police investigation is likely to consider how the suspect got from Southampton to Windsor so early on Christmas morning when rail and bus routes were suspended. It raises the prospect he could have driven up very early or arrived in the town on Christmas Eve and stayed overnight in a hotel or bed & breakfast.
Muthu Kesavan, a Windsor businessman, said he saw some police activity shortly after the arrest on Christmas Day.
"I was working and I saw the police cars driving around the castle at around 9am,? he said. ?I imagine it happened around the back of the castle because it was all normal at the front gates.?
Two weeks ago, a woman was arrested after she ran up to Prince Andrew?s car and banged on the window. The security breach happened as the Duke of York drove into the Windsor estate.
In April, a 44-year-old woman who claimed to be engaged to Prince Andrew was let into his official Windsor residence by security guards.
The smartly-dressed Spanish woman was said to have wandered around the grounds of his Grade II listed Royal Lodge in Great Windsor Park. She has since been sectioned under the 1984 Mental Health Act.
.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-berkshire-59799994
Armed intruder arrested on Windsor Castle grounds as Royals celebrate Christmas Day | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/20211225129676/armed-intuder-arrested-windsor-castle-christmas-day/)
Security probe over Windsor Castle crossbow intruder | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1541564/security-windsor-castle-crossbow-intruder-queen-elizabeth-ii-christmas)
Step up security now! Fears for Queen as video shows crossbow-intruder?s chilling threats | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1541553/queen-elizabeth-ii-news-windsor-castle-security-breach-intruder-video-threats)
Dad of Windsor 'crossbow intruder' says something is 'horribly wrong' with him - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dad-windsor-crossbow-intruder-says-25793096)
Queen's startled response to Palace intruder who sat on her bed while she slept - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queens-startled-response-palace-intruder-25792303)
Chilling video of crossbow-wielding man at Windsor Castle threatening to 'assassinate' queen - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/windsor-castle-break-in-man-25791054)
Dad of Windsor Castle suspect, 19, says 'something's gone horribly wrong' after masked man threatens to kill Queen (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17152084/dad-windsor-castle-suspect-horribly-wrong/)
Police investigate video message threatening to ?assassinate The Queen? ? Royal Central (https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/police-investigate-video-message-threatening-to-assassinate-the-queen-170241/)
Windsor Castle crossbow suspect's father says 'something has gone horribly wrong' with his son (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/26/windsor-castle-armed-intruder-arrested-christmas-day-detained/)
Darth Jones, Sith Lord, Star Wars helmet...
The 👮🏻♂️ did the right thing, sectioned MHA 1983 to 🏥
This is from the article that
@sara8150 posted above. It does discuss what is currently known about the alleged intruder, royal security threats from the past and more recent security breaches that have happened at WC and largely directed at Prince Andrew.
His poor parents are reportedly and understandably shocked and dismayed.
QuoteJaswant Singh Chail uploaded a pre-recorded video to Snapchat at 8:06am on Christmas Day, 24 minutes before a man was arrested by police inside the grounds of Windsor Castle.
It has sparked a major internal security review at the estate looking at how someone could have got so far into the grounds.
Chail, who was raised in a ?500,000 semi-detached house on a private estate in North Baddesley, Southampton, has now been pictured for the first time after his father, Jasbir Singh Chail, told MailOnline something had 'gone horribly wrong with our son and we are trying to figure out what'.
Mr Chail, 57, added: 'We've not had a chance to speak to him but are trying to get him the help he needs. From our perspective, we are going through a difficult time. We are trying to resolve this issue and it's not easy.'
First picture: Crossbow-wielding Windsor Castle intruder who 'wanted to assassinate the Queen' | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10347935/First-picture-Crossbow-wielding-Windsor-Castle-intruder-wanted-assassinate-Queen.html)
^ Today is the 5th anniversary of Carrie Fisher ✝, Princess Leia Star Wars.
Armed Intruder Arrested at Windsor Castle as Queen Celebrated Christmas | PEOPLE.com (https://people.com/royals/intruder-armed-with-crossbow-arrested-at-windsor-castle-as-queen-elizabeth-celebrated-christmas/)
Quote from: wannable on December 27, 2021, 05:55:37 PM
^ Today is the 5th anniversary of Carrie Fisher ✝, Princess Leia Star Wars.
Do you think that may have been part of his motive? I?m not so certain. He seems to be more delusionaL/free flowing. To go from Sikh to Sith etc doesn?t bode well for his mental health stability.
Scary gaps in security.
The Massacre of Amritsar was a huge blot on British India caused in large by the controversial actions of a senior British officer in charge. However I doubt that was the entire motive, nor anything this young man may have picked up from the Star Wars trilogy.
He?s 19 years old and without being a psychiatrist I think anyone could see that he is obviously mentally ill, with disordered thoughts. It could be the beginning of the awful condition of schizophrenia considering his age. He is better locked away in secure care so a proper assessment of his mental health can be made.
19 certainly is in the high risk age group for schizophrenia. Such a horrible illness. Often responses very well to meds but so difficult for those living with it to be med compliant.
I do hope that he gets the help he needs. Thankfully no one was harmed.
@Macrobug67 He reminds me of the 'Matrix' looney from years ago in the USA who also wanted to Kill someone. His apartment and 'thoughts' were all Matrix styled.
Crossbow-wielding Windsor Castle intruder, 19, 'became withdrawn in lockdown' | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10349757/Crossbow-wielding-Windsor-Castle-intruder-19-withdrawn-lockdown.html)
Priti Patel orders review of crossbow laws after armed intruder broke in to Windsor Castle | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10349353/Priti-Patel-orders-review-crossbow-laws-armed-intruder-broke-Windsor-Castle.html)
Windsor Castle crossbow intruder was ?isolated and demotivated? by lockdown, says his father (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/28/windsor-castle-crossbow-intruder-isolated-demotivated-lockdown/)
Priti Patel orders review of laws surrounding crossbow ownership after man arrested over Windsor Castle grounds break-in | UK News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/priti-patel-orders-review-of-laws-surrounding-crossbow-ownership-after-man-arrested-over-windsor-castle-grounds-break-in-12505052)
Queen assassination threat: Crossbow laws to be tightened as Priti orders major shake up | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1541886/queen-elizabeth-ii-news-crossbow-laws-tightened-priti-patel-security-fears)
Priti Patel orders review into crossbow laws after man arrested at Windsor Castle on Christmas Day | ITV News (https://www.itv.com/news/2021-12-28/patel-orders-review-of-crossbow-laws-after-intruder-arrested-at-windsor-castle)
Royals 'concerned' by security shake-up which could see trusted police guards move on - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/royals-concerned-security-shake-up-25793847)
First picture of teen crossbow suspect 'who wanted to assassinate the Queen' - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/first-picture-teen-crossbow-suspect-25795983)
Crossbow laws could be tightened to make it harder to buy lethal weapons after armed intruder broke into Windsor Castle (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17157366/crossbow-law-tightened-buy-windsor-castle-queen/)
Dad of Windsor Castle suspect, 19, says 'something's gone horribly wrong' after masked man threatens to kill Queen (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17152084/dad-windsor-castle-suspect-horribly-wrong-2/)
First picture of Windsor Castle suspect Jaswant Singh Chail, 19, after masked man threatened to kill the Queen (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17154536/windsor-castle-suspect-pictured/)
Jaswant Singh Chail, 19, is alleged to have threatened to kill the Queen in revenge for a colonial bloodbath.
Windsor Castle crossbow suspect 'had grudge against royals for two years' (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17163388/windsor-castle-crossbow-suspect-grudge-royals/?utm_source=sharebar_app&utm_medium=sharebar_app&utm_campaign=sharebar_app_article)
Windsor Castle crossbow suspect, 19, 'who threatened to assassinate Queen' held 'Royal grudge' | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10352277/Windsor-Castle-crossbow-suspect-19-threatened-assassinate-Queen-held-Royal-grudge.html)
The suspect sounds troubled. I'm happy no one was hurt with the crossbow.
A look back at the Princess Royal's year.
Princess Anne?s royal year underlines her role as a ?strength and stay? to the House of Windsor ? Royal Central (https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/princess-annes-royal-year-underlines-her-role-as-a-strength-and-stay-to-the-house-of-windsor-170461/)
QuoteIf 2021 ended with an enforced quietness, then it was in sharp contrast to the year just gone for the Princess Royal. Despite the challenges of the twelve months past, Princess Anne remained as busy as ever and, perhaps, even more important to her royal family.
For it is Anne who has found space in her already packed diary for many of the engagements that might otherwise have fallen to The Queen who was resting on medical advice. The autumn and early winter saw the Princess Royal oversee a string of investitures at Windsor Castle, with reports suggesting she wanted to ensure as many people as possible got royal recognition for the hard work that had seen them honoured in the first place.
Royal palace set to hire new security guard after scares with 'gunman' and crossbow - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kensington-palace-hire-new-guard-25861344)
Kensington Palace hired security guard to protection the Cambridges and children 24/7 included Buckingham palace,Windsor Castle and Clarence House to protect the HM Queen Elizabeth II and member of royal family
Queen will be protected by a 2,500ft 'no-fly zone' around Windsor Castle | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10380733/Queen-protected-2-500ft-no-fly-zone-Windsor-Castle.html)
Queen's Windsor Castle home to be protected by 'no-fly zone' after Christmas intruder - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queens-windsor-castle-home-protected-25893313)
The Princess Royal, Honorary President, and Vice Admiral Sir Tim Laurence this afternoon attended the Oxford Farming Conference via video link.
- Court Circular || 6 January 2022
No-fly zone could be placed over Windsor Castle as security measures are reviewed | UK News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/no-fly-zone-could-be-placed-over-windsor-castle-as-security-measures-are-reviewed-12512241)
The Princess Royal, President, Riding for the Disabled Association, this morning received Ms Rachel Medill (Chairman).
Her Royal Highness, Patron, Opportunity International United Kingdom, received Mr Samuel Bickersteth upon relinquishing his appointment as Chief Executive Officer and Mr Edward Fox upon assuming the appointment.
- Court Circular || 11 January 2022
If anyone missed this story back in December, a young man was discovered in the Royal Mews (stables) of Buckingham Palace.
American man, 24, appears in court accused of sneaking into stables at Buckingham Palace | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10394683/American-man-24-appears-court-accused-sneaking-stables-Buckingham-Palace.html)
QuoteAn American man has appeared in court accused of sneaking into the stables of Buckingham Palace last month.
Joseph Huang Kang, 24, is charged with trespassing in the Royal Mews on December 10, 2021.
The Royal Mews is made up of a number of stables used by the royal family at Buckingham Palace.
It is responsible for their transport and contains horses and carriages. Mr Kang appeared at Westminster Magistrates? Court wearing a navy jacket and carrying a large duffel bag. The court heard that Mr Kang is a US citizen.
He will next appear at Westminster Magistrates? court on February 9 of this year.
He was bailed on condition that he not be within 200 metres of Buckingham Palace and that he does not attempt to leave the United Kingdom.
Mr Kang, of the European Hotel, King?s Cross, is accused of one count of trespass on a protected site.
The Princess Royal, President, RedR UK, this morning received Ms Joanne de Serrano (Chief Executive Officer).
- Court Circular || 12 January 2022
The Princess Royal, President, Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851, this morning received Mr Bernard Taylor (Chairman).
Her Royal Highness, Patron, the Butler Trust, afterwards received Mr Malcolm Butler upon relinquishing his appointment as Chairman and Mr Michael Spurr upon assuming the appointment.
- - Court Circular || 13 January 2022
The Princess Royal, Patron, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, this morning received Dame Mary Marsh upon relinquishing her appointment as Chairman and Ms Joanne Shaw upon assuming the appointment.
Her Royal Highness, Patron, the Royal College of Midwives, afterwards received Dr Kathryn Gutteridge upon relinquishing her appointment as President and Ms Rebeccah Davies upon assuming the appointment.
The Princess Royal, President, the Mission to Seafarers Limited, this afternoon received Mr Thomas Beardley (Chairman) and the Reverend Canon Andrew Wright (Secretary General).
- Court Circular || 14 January 2022
Prince Harry has threatened the Government with legal action over its decision to remove his taxpayer-funded security, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
Lawyers acting for Harry, who stepped down from Royal duties two years ago, have written a 'pre-action protocol' letter to the Home Office, indicating they will seek a judicial review if continued security is not provided by the UK.
More: Prince Harry says: Give me back my bodyguards | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10406391/Prince-Harry-says-bodyguards.html)
More details here:
Prince Harry files a claim for judicial review against Home Office decision over police protection (https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-harry-files-a-claim-for-judicial-review-against-home-office-decision-over-police-protection/206063)
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on January 15, 2022, 11:01:22 PM
Prince Harry has threatened the Government with legal action over its decision to remove his taxpayer-funded security, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
Lawyers acting for Harry, who stepped down from Royal duties two years ago, have written a 'pre-action protocol' letter to the Home Office, indicating they will seek a judicial review if continued security is not provided by the UK.
More: Prince Harry says: Give me back my bodyguards | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10406391/Prince-Harry-says-bodyguards.html)
More details here:
Prince Harry files a claim for judicial review against Home Office decision over police protection (https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-harry-files-a-claim-for-judicial-review-against-home-office-decision-over-police-protection/206063)
Omg.
Lol.
Of he and Andrew-Sarah were not trying to kill and globally humiliate, embarrass 95yr. old, HRH TQ, this would all be funny. By the way, she never did anything to to Andrew and Harry but love them and let them , spolit brats, yave whatever they wanted.
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on January 15, 2022, 11:01:22 PM
Prince Harry has threatened the Government with legal action over its decision to remove his taxpayer-funded security, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
Lawyers acting for Harry, who stepped down from Royal duties two years ago, have written a 'pre-action protocol' letter to the Home Office, indicating they will seek a judicial review if continued security is not provided by the UK.
More: Prince Harry says: Give me back my bodyguards | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10406391/Prince-Harry-says-bodyguards.html)
More details here:
Prince Harry files a claim for judicial review against Home Office decision over police protection (https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-harry-files-a-claim-for-judicial-review-against-home-office-decision-over-police-protection/206063)
There is way, far more to this story.
He wants restored his RPO or govt funded security while he and his family are in TUK.
Hmmmm, ok?but, he and his family are not returning to The UK.
Lol.
He went twice over these past two years. PP funeral, Diana statue.
Meg, no doubt , does not want to go back to visit.
Why, lol. What would be the point.
The Qs Jubliee. For them and the children to return for a week,still why.lol.
Harry and his family are and will be hardly in The UK.
When, if he and his attend attend TQs Jubillee, they will be in protected places.
Staying at BPalace or KPalace would be great for security and make sense , but these two would prefer their own floor at a great London hotel.
To participate in TheQs Jubliee events: church, luncheon at BP, motorcade, etc., they would be under security with everyone else.
Read between the lines.
My opinion, he wants his RPO security or govt. security and also have them here in The USA.
Perhaps he wants , his angle, is TheUK to pay him for his personal security in USA.
I think there is another story here.
Somewhere.
He does not have AmerSS as he should not.
Pres Carter does not have SS.
He and Mrs. Carter are very elderly and he chose not to have SS long ago.
Trump?s adult children no longer have SS.
I am sure Obamas adult daughters do not either.
That stuff is , for security reasons are not big , known topics, but not hidden either.
Google who has SS .
Bush signed former USPOTUS, you are on your own. Obama changed it.
No. I am not saying this word for word correctly.
Again, Google it.
Harry and Meg are celebrities here.
Famous people , Kardashians, Bey Jay, JLo,etc. pay for their own bodyguards, security. It costs.
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on January 15, 2022, 11:01:22 PM
Prince Harry has threatened the Government with legal action over its decision to remove his taxpayer-funded security, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
Lawyers acting for Harry, who stepped down from Royal duties two years ago, have written a 'pre-action protocol' letter to the Home Office, indicating they will seek a judicial review if continued security is not provided by the UK.
More: Prince Harry says: Give me back my bodyguards | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10406391/Prince-Harry-says-bodyguards.html)
More details here:
Prince Harry files a claim for judicial review against Home Office decision over police protection (https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-harry-files-a-claim-for-judicial-review-against-home-office-decision-over-police-protection/206063)
Well I guess the couple will have to just wait and see what the British Government's Home Office and the Metropolitan Police will decide.
Harry does NOT want security paid for fulltime by the British Govt. In spite of the DM trying to twist this for all it?s worth. As the published submission from him stated, the difficulty is that when the family eventually visit Britain the security officers he and Meghan employed in the US are not allowed to have the same powers in Britain (arrest if necessary, carrying arms for example, as RPOs funded by the Home Office and supplied by the Met).
These US security people wouldn?t be much use in an emergency. Harry?s anxieties about his wife and children being protected should he bring them to the UK for the Jubilee celebrations (and he?s clearly thinking about it and it?s probably been discussed by the Sussexes and BP/Charles, and HM the Queen) have some merit. He?s a vet from two tours of duty in the ME. Some of these groups still clearly have a grudge against anyone who worked against them in Afghanistan. It?s to be hoped that, given all the circumstances, the Met/Home Office can come to some temporary arrangements for the period the family is here.
From the Daily Telegraph Prince Harry claims it is not safe to return to Britain (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/01/15/prince-harry-claims-not-safe-return-britain/)
QuoteThe Duke of Sussex has said he does not feel safe in the UK, as he challenges a Home Office decision not to allow him to personally pay for police protection for him and his family.
The Duke wants to bring his son Archie and baby daughter Lilibet to visit from the US, but he and his family are "unable to return to his home" because it is too dangerous, a legal representative said.
It follows an incident in London in the summer of 2021 when his security was compromised after his car was chased by paparazzi photographers as he left a charity event.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex lost their taxpayer-funded police protection in the aftermath of quitting as senior working royals.
The Duke wants to fund the security himself, rather than ask taxpayers to foot the bill, his legal representative said. He has now filed a claim for a judicial review against the Home Office decision.
The Duke is arguing that his private protection team in the US does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad or access to UK intelligence information which is needed keep the Sussex family safe.
The Home Office's response.
QuoteA Government spokesperson said: "The UK Government's protective security system is rigorous and proportionate. It is our long-standing policy not to provide detailed information on those arrangements. To do so could compromise their integrity and affect individuals' security.
"It would also not be appropriate to comment on the detail of any legal proceedings."
If the couple believe that their family would not be safe in the UK without Metropolitan Police Protection, then perhaps the best decision for their peace of mind and emotional well being would be to remain in Montecito and view the celebrations from the safety of their home.
He can hire private security in the UK. The UK has 5 of the best security companies worldwide. Harry is a trouble maker. I hope he reads all the comments, even their followers 1. can't believe the story or 2. lost patience, lost fandom, brutal.
The Home Office will not concede to Harry's demands. IF they do, every country in the world - celebrities will use it as a precedent and request it too when travelling to the UK. Using government, public police paid by your own money, and armed. NOPE.
ALSO, He will never get the police to 'share' secrets with his US Team.
Just when one was convinced he will behave, this. :laugh10:
A Judicial Review is a type of court case in which a claimant challenges the lawfulness of a decision made by a public body or government department.
More: Prince Harry: What are judicial review proceedings the Duke of Sussex wants to bring against Home Office? (https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-harry-what-are-judicial-review-proceedings-the-duke-of-sussex-wants-to-bring-against-home-office/206157)
Quote
It is a type of court case in which a claimant challenges the lawfulness of a decision made by a public body or government department, such as the Home Office, according to the Judiciary UK website.
A judge reviews the way in which a decision has been made.
The court is not really concerned with the conclusions of that process and whether they were right or wrong, as long as the right procedures have been followed.
The court will not re-make the decision.
If the claimant wins, the decision can be declared unlawful, or quashed.
That will usually mean the decision has to be taken again. While the public body could reach the same decision again, it may follow a proper procedure that leads to a different decision result.
Harry Djokovic
Prince Harry launches legal action against Government claiming it is 'unsafe' for family to return | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10407689/Prince-Harry-launches-legal-action-against-Government-claiming-unsafe-family-return.html)
Prince Harry Files Legal Claim Over Right to Pay for UK Protection | PEOPLE.com (https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-seeks-judicial-review-pay-for-uk-police-protection/)
Prince Harry makes desperate plea to return home to UK with Meghan Markle | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/20220115130923/prince-harry-desperate-plea-return-to-the-uk-meghan-markle-children/)
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-60012238
Prince Harry seeks judicial review after Home Office stops him from paying for police protection in UK | UK News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/duke-of-sussex-seeks-judicial-review-after-home-office-bans-him-from-paying-for-police-protection-for-archie-and-lilibet-in-uk-12517296)
UK too dangerous for us to visit, says Prince Harry | Prince Harry | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/16/uk-too-dangerous-for-us-to-visit-says-prince-harry-meghan)
Prince Harry news: Duke 'already moaning about something' just days into new year | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1550749/prince-harry-news-home-office-legal-claim-security-Richard-Eden-ont)
Meghan and Harry news: Sussex fans voice security fury | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1550784/Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harry-news-Sussex-police-security-royal-family-latest)
Prince Harry's latest claim about UK return raises eyebrows among royal experts | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1550856/Prince-Harry-Duke-Sussex-Royal-Family-Meghan-Markle-police-protection-latest-news-vn)
Piers Morgan erupts at Prince Harry for demanding police protection | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1550799/prince-harry-police-protection-piers-morgan-bbc-sunday-morning-vn)
Prince Harry news: Duke to fight removal of police protection in UK | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1550712/prince-harry-news-uk-police-tax-payer-funded-royal-family-meghan-Archie-lilibet)
Prince Harry files claim to Home Office asking to fund his own security while in UK | ITV News (https://www.itv.com/news/2022-01-15/prince-harry-files-claim-to-home-office-asking-to-fund-his-own-security-in-uk)
Piers Morgan slams Harry and Meghan for wanting police protection - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/piers-morgan-slams-harry-meghan-25960366)
Prince Harry offered to pay for his own security while in the UK but was 'refused' - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-harry-offered-pay-security-25959572)
Prince Harry says it's 'not safe' to bring his family to UK - read statement in full - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-harry-says-lack-security-25958982)
Prince Harry slammed as ?beyond appalling? over police protection row that is ?hurting? the Queen (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/17341412/prince-harry-legal-government-police-queen/)
Piers Morgan blasts Harry for ?brazen double standards? over police protection row and ?appalling? timing for the Queen (https://www.thesun.co.uk/tv/17341542/piers-morgan-harry-double-standards-police-protection-queen/)
Harry insists UK is still his ?home? after Megxit but claims it's not safe for Archie & Lilibet to visit grandad Charles (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/17339487/harry-uk-home-despite-megxit-unsafe/)
Prince Harry launches legal action against UK claiming it's 'unsafe' for his family to return without police bodyguards (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/17337953/prince-harry-launches-legal-action-police-bodyguards/)
Prince Andrew ?WON'T lose his ?300k-a-year security detail? amid sex abuse case as Harry calls for bodyguard cash back (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17339945/prince-andrew-harry-security-bodyguard-royal/)
Prince Harry becomes first member of The Royal Family to take legal action against Her Majesty?s Government ? Royal Central (https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/sussex/prince-harry-becomes-first-member-of-the-royal-family-to-take-legal-action-against-her-majestys-government-171250/)
Duke of Sussex would pay police protection and also security reasons for himself,Meghan and his two children also what his statement says but he no longer HRH but he remains as Harry,Duke of Sussex I understand what articles says about what happened on his mom?s death in 1997 and paparazzi and media chase his mother to death in tunnel not under Harry?s watch
From the article that
@PrincessOfPeace shared above. (Thought it might provide some answers to the questions about what the Duke of Sussex is requesting.)
QuoteWhat is a judicial review?
It is a type of court case in which a claimant challenges the lawfulness of a decision made by a public body or government department, such as the Home Office, according to the Judiciary UK website.
A judge reviews the way in which a decision has been made.
The court is not really concerned with the conclusions of that process and whether they were right or wrong, as long as the right procedures have been followed.
QuoteThe court will not re-make the decision.
If the claimant wins, the decision can be declared unlawful, or quashed.
That will usually mean the decision has to be taken again. While the public body could reach the same decision again, it may follow a proper procedure that leads to a different decision result.
At what stage is Harry?s claim?QuoteLegal representatives for Harry applied for permission to bring judicial review proceedings against Home Secretary Priti Patel on September 20, according to a spokesperson.
Judicial review claims have a threshold test before they can proceed.
The court will consider whether there is an arguable case for a judicial review, a decision that typically will be made without a hearing.
If permission is granted, the claim would proceed to a substantive hearing.
on the net, it is being posted over and a half truth or untruth that the Q and govt refuse him police protection for him and his familyEVEN with him wanting to pay for it.
H has police protection when in England.
He and his family will not have RPOs , those with the highest ranking Intel, etc.EVEN IF HE WATS TO PAY FOR IT.
Is anyone here from England to explain govt levrls of security there?
Here, celebrities can and do buy their own security from whatever security firms they want and how much security they want and need.
You can do the same. Lic to carry. Brinks, ADT, car alarms, buy a home in a gated community, etc.
HOWEVER, you cannot nor a celeb entertainer, athlete buy American SecretService, USA FederalMarshals, etc.
Whst Harry is asking for is although he is nota working royal anymore or lives even in TheUK, as PrinceHenry , he wants to buy RPOs, Intel knowledgable law enforcement who can share communication with his American security.
He was denied this.
He is appealing.
He will be denied again.
Since he and his wife fear for their lives there, are not friends or close with the BRF per the Oprah interview, why gothere?
Enjoy Qs Jubliee from the safet, security , comfirt of their armed, secure, CA mansion.
What the real reason is, he wants his staus changed to that of highest rank where it was before with RPOs etc do that he and his wife would be globally ranked as where they were prior steping down, back, and away from the BRF.
In other words, they could then get American SS for at home and govts to supply security for them , for one day, someday 2023 latest, as they want to start SussexRoyaWorld Tours to TheCommonwealth nations , other countries , etc.
lol.
Grifters grift.
In Canada before their Demand Ransom letter of wanting half- in / half - out, Canadian RM and taxpayers footed the bill. Here for her baby shower, as the diplomat she was, American SS was provided.
Both countries were supposed to do this.
NOW, NO.
SUSSEX ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS.
Opinion from The Daily Mirror's Royal correspondent Russell Myers.
'Prince Harry's security legal squabble is both breathtaking and baffling' - Russell Myers - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-harrys-security-legal-squabble-25963136?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar)
@wannable She said if he is allowed this armed police, then every entertsiner celeb, dictators kid, etc can get it to if they pay gor it.
Ken Wharfe ps comments
Royal protection officer KEN WHARFE on Prince Harry's demands for security during trips to UK | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10408855/Royal-protection-officer-KEN-WHARFE-Prince-Harrys-demands-security-trips-UK.html)
If the Home Office concedes Harry's wishes, it will set a precedent. When there is a precedent then any other VIP Celeb will request upon arriving the UK.
It's deeper than what the HO will decide, because Harry is in the look out to destroy or grab (IMO) freebies, any loophole, he will MILK it. So IF he wins, then it will also mean that they accept he is a Royal that needs protection, he will then seek it to be ''international''. That was always his initial Exit strategy, which the couple published in their website. AND their lawyer wrote in their communication today. So it's all tied up, the HO lawyers will have to work every ''sentence'' of the documents Harry's lawyer set forth.
(It's like Harry Djokovic are loophole brothers :sarcastic: ) On a serious note it is very serious, I mean I've read so much in this past 2 weeks about loopholes and a team of lawyers that can ''actually'' beat the system (and reading directly from the lawyers and watching the court in youtube, and they shared full transcripts, I learned a lot) A team of lawyers is very costly, a famous person like Harry, any team would die to offer service. There's not only fame in their buffet CV but loads of money to make. Djoko 1st round win, Australia paid with tax payers moneys converted in USD 500,000. Imagine a problem that takes months...
'Princess Anne doesn't get full time security and her protection was shot,' says ex-royal cop | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10409981/Princess-Anne-doesnt-time-security-protection-shot-says-ex-royal-cop.html)
Princess Anne didn?t get full time security or protection since her kidnapped in 1974
Why the Queen will not comment on Prince Harry's legal fight for UK security | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/20220117130996/why-the-queen-will-not-comment-prince-harry-legal-action-uk-police-protection/)
Private matter for HM Queen Elizabeth II and Palace articles says Prince Harry is birth in London,UK plus his country of UK
Quote"The UK will always be Prince Harry's home and a country he wants his wife and children to be safe in. With the lack of police protection, comes too great a personal risk.
Quote"Prince Harry hopes that his petition ? after close to two years of pleas for security in the UK ? will resolve this situation. It is due to a leak in a UK tabloid, with surreptitious timing, we feel it necessary to release a statement setting the facts straight."
Prince Harry's demands spark huge row - but does UK owe him protection? | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1551406/Prince-Harry-protection-security-have-your-say)
Princess Anne ?doesn't get full-time protection and her aide was shot!' Harry security row | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1551296/princess-anne-prince-harry-news-royal-protection)
Lilibet news: UK slammed for 'denying' Queen chance to see Archie and great-granddaughter | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1551234/Lilibet-news-Queen-Elizabeth-II-Archie-Prince-Harry-security-Meghan-Markle-royal-family)
I can?t believe Harry did that and HM Queen Elizabeth II still waiting for meet Lilibet how rude of Harry and Meghan
Queen 'holds the card' in Prince Harry's security clash - 'Doesn't need another dagger' | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1551137/queen-news-prince-harry-security-police-home-office-meghan-markle-lilibet-royal-family)
Prince Harry fury as Piers Morgan savages 'shameless and entitled' Duke of Sussex | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1551116/prince-harry-news-Meghan-Markle-Duke-Duchess-sussex-fan-piers-morgan)
Prince Harry's court fight over security needs would be 'in realms of the surreal' | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1551392/prince-harry-news-judicial-review-security-home-office-court-latest)
Archie Harrison and Lilibet Diana's trip to UK hopes dampened over Harry's security row | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1551369/archie-harrison-lilibet-diana-trip-uk-prince-harry-security-police-protection)
'Why can't Harry pay privately' Russell Myers highlights huge precedent set by Charles for | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1551292/Prince-Harry-Prince-Charles-UK-visit-Scotland-Yard-Protection-officers-vn)
Prince Charles and Camilla have 24/7 security and protection reasons and Cambridges also have 24/7 security and protection reasons IF Harry must pay security and protection on his own for Meghan and kids also
Why Prince Harry is requesting a judicial review - Security demands explained | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1551262/prince-harry-judicial-review-security-evg)
'Princess Anne doesn't get full time security and her protection was shot,' says ex-royal cop | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10409981/Princess-Anne-doesnt-time-security-protection-shot-says-ex-royal-cop.html)
Princess Anne didn?t get full time security or protection since her kidnapped in 1974
Princess Anne ?doesn't get full-time protection and her aide was shot!' Harry security row | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1551296/princess-anne-prince-harry-news-royal-protection)
Prince Charles 'paid for security' for Camilla before they married and she became royal - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-charles-paid-security-camilla-25967134)
Five reasons why Prince Harry says he needs police protection in UK - threats and chases - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/five-reasons-prince-harry-says-25965875)
What has Prince Harry said about paying for his family's security in the UK? - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/what-prince-harry-said-paying-25965081)
Queen 'won't help Prince Harry secure police bodyguards for UK trip' amid funding row - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queen-wont-help-harry-secure-25964429)
Prince Harry's new war with the royals as he takes on Home Office over security - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-harrys-new-war-royals-25962632)
'Prince Harry's security legal squabble is both breathtaking and baffling' - Russell Myers - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-harrys-security-legal-squabble-25963136)
Prince Harry fears for his family's safety in UK after being ?chased by photographers? - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-harry-fears-familys-safety-25961739)
I understand what Harry says on his mom?s death due paparazzi tried get pictures of her in 1997 but Harry is dad of two and he protective of Archie and Lilibet but Harry vowed he would bring his kids to UK if NOT for safety what Harry said in statement on his claims about his mom?s death we have wait and see 🙏🏻🤞🏻
Meghan Markle 'WON'T return to the UK' as police protection row is 'very good excuse', blasts royal expert (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/17350491/meghan-markle-wont-return-uk-police-protection/)
Prince Harry's sense of grievance over his own life choices knows no bounds (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17344430/prince-harry-grievance-knows-no-bounds/)
Prince Harry behaving like a shameless hypocrite when Queen least needs it is wearisomely inevitable, says Piers Morgan (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/17342830/prince-harry-hypocrite-queen-piers-morgan-uncensored/)
What Prince Harry?s police protection row really means - The 3 deeper issues behind royal clash (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/17348120/prince-harry-protection-row-deeper-issues/)
Truth behind Prince Harry?s biggest whines ? from 'painful' childhood to millionaire?s ?money struggles? & security row (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17347231/prince-harry-complaint-met-police-security-royal-family/)
Prince Harry slammed as ?beyond appalling? over police protection row that is ?hurting? the Queen (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/17341412/prince-harry-legal-government-police-queen/)
Prince Harry in legal fight to pay for UK police protection (https://www.today.com/news/prince-harry-legal-fight-pay-uk-police-protection-t245000)
Prince Harry seeks right to pay for UK police protection when in Britain - CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/16/uk/prince-harry-legal-challenge-uk-police-protection-intl-gbr/index.html)
Quote from: sara8150 on January 17, 2022, 05:03:41 PM
Prince Harry seeks right to pay for UK police protection when in Britain - CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/16/uk/prince-harry-legal-challenge-uk-police-protection-intl-gbr/index.html)
Two things.
When reading this and every and any story in the news on anything, one really has to double, triple , cross check sources and seek out facts on your own.
This article, like Omids, Sussex friend, family, and mouthpiece, says Prince Henry is being denied police protection for himself and his family even with him willing yo pay for police protection. In other words, big, bad meanie QE and the British govt will not allow him yo pay for police protection for his family family.
OhMYGOD.
Horrible racists Q, RACISTS BRF, and RACISTS country is the message out there and that is NOT TRUE.
This story is not true.
He can pay for security protection and buy/ purchase via from as many security agencies as he wants.
He can have three or four companies working for him. One company of vehicles, bodyguards for each of his family.
He can have no less than a dozen motorcade of vehicles of motorcycles and dummy automobiles if he wants to buy , contract security companies.
HE CAN BUY SECURITY PROTECTION.
He cannot buy RPOs, ScotlandYard, Intelligence , armed guards and govt police.
In the USA, he has private security from a firm who are armed.
His private security does not work with or communicate with or consult with or be consulted on or have access to or adhere to US SecretService, CIA, FBI, or even Santa Barbara Police Deot.
In the USA, everybody, ordinary people can carry?.biy a gun. Own a gun.
We have companies, places with private security who are armed, gun carrying.
In the UK, govt police are armed from what I gather and local citizens and private security firms are not armed. Please those in England, let me know if this is true, how your world works.
PH is no longer living in England or a Senior working member of BRF, etc. as he was before Jan 2020 and the BRF princely privileges he had are no longer.
Next thing.
Internet.
24 hours news tv channels.
Social media.
BRF is in the year 1982 as for communication.
Maybe 1979.
The BRF is not in the 2023, yes, not 2022, but 2023 lol, for communication like the rest of the world.
Deny nor confirm.
Say nothing.
Stiff upper lip.
Forward, ahead.
THIS IS NOT WORKING.
HE WHO GETS THE MESSAGE OUT FIRST, TRUE OR FALSE, GETS THE MESSAGE TO PEOPLE.
BETTER BRF GET THE TRUE MESSAGE OUT , IF NOT EVER FIRST, AT LEAST GET IT OUT THERE.
DAN WOOTTON: Prince Harry's demands for police protection show he is regretting quitting | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10411177/DAN-WOOTTON-Harrys-demands-police-protection-regretting-quitting.html)
Prince Charles invites Prince Harry and family to stay in the hope of meeting Lilibet for first time | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10411709/Prince-Charles-invites-Prince-Harry-family-stay-hope-meeting-Lilibet-time.html)
Prince Harry claims it is not safe for him to return to Britain (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/01/15/prince-harry-claims-not-safe-return-britain/)
The Queen may never meet Lilibet as Prince Harry refuses to return to UK amid security row (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/01/16/queen-may-never-meet-lilibet-prince-harry-refuses-return-uk/)
Prince Charles invites Meghan and Harry to stay but security row puts reunion in doubt - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-charles-invites-meghan-harry-25971433)
Queen may 'alienate' Prince Harry if he 'continues to act like spoilt child', says expert - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queen-alienate-prince-harry-continues-25970325)
Charles 'invites Meghan and Harry to stay' and is desperate to meet baby Lilibet but security row puts reunion in doubt (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/17353867/charles-invites-meghan-harry-lilibet-stay/)
😡🤮
Stay in Montecito. 👋🏻
Prince Charles invites Prince Harry and family to stay in the hope of meeting Lilibet for first time | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10411709/Prince-Charles-invites-Prince-Harry-family-stay-hope-meeting-Lilibet-time.html)
Meghan Markle has 'excuse to never return to UK' over protection, claims expert - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/meghan-markle-excuse-never-return-25974315)
Meghan Markle 'WON'T return to the UK' as police protection row is 'very good excuse', blasts royal expert (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/17350491/meghan-markle-wont-return-uk-police-protection/)
Queen 'may NEVER meet Lilibet' and Prince Harry & Meghan Markle may MISS Platinum Jubilee after security row (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/17352367/queen-may-never-meet-lilibet-harry-meghan-jubilee/)
2 weeks into the new year, shenanigan #1. (I'm going to count them this year)
Quote from: sara8150 on January 17, 2022, 10:42:39 PM
Prince Charles invites Prince Harry and family to stay in the hope of meeting Lilibet for first time | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10411709/Prince-Charles-invites-Prince-Harry-family-stay-hope-meeting-Lilibet-time.html)
If the PoW's offer of lodging is accepted, at least the family can be assured that they'd be staying in a very secure location.
How gunman shot Princess Anne's bodyguard three times during abduction bid in 1974 | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10415063/How-gunman-shot-Princess-Annes-bodyguard-three-times-abduction-bid-1974.html)
How gunman shot Princess Anne's bodyguard three times during abduction bid in 1974 | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10415063/How-gunman-shot-Princess-Annes-bodyguard-three-times-abduction-bid-1974.html)
How gunman shot Princess Anne's bodyguard three times during abduction bid in 1974 | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10415063/How-gunman-shot-Princess-Annes-bodyguard-three-times-abduction-bid-1974.html)
'Princess Anne doesn't get full time security and her protection was shot,' says ex-royal cop | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10409981/Princess-Anne-doesnt-time-security-protection-shot-says-ex-royal-cop.html)
Princess Anne ?doesn't get full-time protection and her aide was shot!' Harry security row | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1551296/princess-anne-prince-harry-news-royal-protection)
Prince Harry 'should keep police protection as he's terror target' warns security expert - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-harry-should-keep-police-25980880)
He says he would pay for official security from Scotland Yard, but since that's been refused, could he not pay for his own private security staff while he is in the UK? Or perhaps I just don't understand the situation.
Quote from: Princess Cassandra on January 19, 2022, 03:56:50 PM
He says he would pay for official security from Scotland Yard, but since that's been refused, could he not pay for his own private security staff while he is in the UK? Or perhaps I just don't understand the situation.
From what I understand, he wants his private security team to have access to UK official intelligence which is not permitted. Plus, they cannot use firearms in the UK.
If he can't have scenario #1, then he wants to pay for current and active duty Metropolitan Police officers for himself and his family. Also not permitted as Metropolitan Police are not for hire. He could consider hiring retired Metropolitan Police officers but I don't believe that they can carry firearms either.
Intruder who tried to climb wall into Buckingham Palace while carrying knife and cocaine spared jail | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10489453/Intruder-tried-climb-wall-Buckingham-Palace-carrying-knife-cocaine-spared-jail.html)
From the article above and I have to agree that he's fortunate that he was not shot and killed for being armed. I hope that he's receiving treatment for his mental health.
Quotementally ill man who scaled a Buckingham Palace fence while carrying a knife and cocaine has been spared jail by a judge - who told him he was lucky not to have been killed by police.
Cameron Kalani, 44, entered the Royal Mews - which houses the royal family's horses - while suffering a 'psychotic episode' in the early hours of May 10 last year.
The 'talented' wildlife photographer, from Haywards Heath, West Sussex, was caught with a 20cm kitchen knife and cocaine in his bag when he was arrested after climbing back into Buckingham Palace Road.
The incident was among a string of security scares on royal property last year - including just days earlier, when a couple climbed the fence at Windsor Castle, and months later on Christmas Day, when a man 'carrying a crossbow' entered palace grounds.
Wearing a white fleece and blue jeans, Kalani, who has a 'schizoaffective disorder', stood with hunched shoulders as he was handed a 24-week prison sentence, suspended for 12 months, at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Tuesday.
The Duke of Sussex's legal representatives began his claim for a judicial review of the Home Office's decision to decline permiting Prince Harry to pay for Metropolitan Police Protection for himself and his family while they're in the UK.
archive.ph (https://archive.ph/KsT0M)
Quote
Prince Harry wants to return to the UK to see his family but does not feel safe, his lawyers have said as he takes the Home Office to Court.
The Duke of Sussex on Friday began his claim for a judicial review of Priti Patel?s decision not to allow him to pay for police protection for himself and his family while in the UK.
His family lost their taxpayer-funded police protection in the aftermath of quitting as senior working royals in early 2020.
As the case began, his QC Shaheed Fatima said: ?This claim is about the fact that the Duke does not feel safe when he is in the UK given the security arrangements applied to him in June 2021 and will continue to be applied if he decides to come back.
?It goes without saying that he does want to come back to see family and friends and to continue to support the charities that are so close to his heart.
?This is and always will be his home.?
However, Ms Fatima was rebuked by the judge who told her: ?Can you just focus on the issues in dispute today.?
The duke is arguing that his private protection team in the US does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad or access to UK intelligence information which is needed to keep his family safe.
His bid for a review of the Home Office decision was filed in September.
The preliminary hearing at the High Court in London on Friday is expected to cover which parts of the court documents can be made public or must be kept private.
It is focussing on whether the details of the case regarding security arrangements for public figures and members of the Royal family can be kept hidden from the public.
The duke has previously said he "inherited" a risk in being born into the Royal family.
Prince Harry briefly returned from LA last year for the July 1 unveiling of the Diana, Princess of Wales memorial statue.
He also met seriously ill children and young people at a WellChild garden party and afternoon tea in Kew Gardens during the visit. It is understood the duke's car was chased by photographers as he left.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex?s security provision was one of the key issues when the couple announced they wanted to step down in January 2020.
They were later forced to disclose that they had put in place "privately funded security arrangements" for their move to the US, after the former president Donald Trump said his country would not pay for their protection.
From The Sun's reporter Matt Wilkinson at the hearing sharing the Home Office's response during the hearing.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MattSunRoyal/status/1494649415533015043
QuoteStrong words from Home Office in response to Harry's claims he would fund private security. In documents handed to the court, the Home Office states Harry did not offer private funding when he returned in June 2021 or "any of the pre-action correspondence which followed".
The Home Office docs also say government "attributed to the Claimant a form of exceptional status whereby he is considered for personal protection security by police with precise arrangements being dependent on the reason for his presence in Great Britain" on "case-by-case" basis.
Wow it gets worse, the Home Office skeleton argument adds: "The Claimant has failed to afford the necessary measure of respect to the Defendant and RAVEC as the expert, and democratically accountable, decison-maker on matters of protective securoty and associated risk assessment."
Harry HAS now offered to pay for Met security in his confidential 250-page witness statement and exhibits document and also in his 33-page confidential Statement of Facts and Grounds filed last September, the Home Office say. Harry's skeleton argument is also confidential
but he can't expect to pay for the Met officers nor for them to share info wiht his own security men
As Harry has offered to pay officers from the Met, trust the Sun rag to twist it and put the worst possible interpretation on everything.
but officers from the Met are not there to be hired by peopl
"The Claimant has failed to afford the necessary measure of respect to the Defendant and RAVEC as the expert, and democratically accountable, decison-maker on matters of protective security and associated risk assessment."
Pretty strong words.
Quote from: Amabel2 on February 18, 2022, 05:46:07 PM
but officers from the Met are not there to be hired by peopl
That is what I understand
@Amabel2. To be honest, I don't believe that Prince Harry or any other public figure or celebrity would be permitted to "hire" the Secret Service or any other nation's highest ranking security officers even if they offered to pay for the cost from their own pocket. If that were to happen I believe it would set a terrible precedent. The Met Police will be busy enough during the Jubilee trying to keep the most vulnerable protected and that would be your average British citizen as well as anyone else in the British Government, Foreign Dignitaries as well as the members of the British Royal Family who have round the clock protection.
Quote from: Amabel2 on February 18, 2022, 05:46:07 PM
but officers from the Met are not there to be hired by peopl
That is untrue. Right back to the later 19th century and certainly the 1920s and ?30s Met police officers were hired to provide security at private events. It was known that the Rothschilds, and Sassoon family and some aristocrats for example would hire off duty police officers (from the Met and from County forces if the event was held in the country) to make sure that nobody made off with very expensive jewellery left under the care of servants, valuable silverware given as wedding gifts etc etc at balls, Society weddings etc. This was especially true if royals were staying.
It was a private arrangement and although not particularly encouraged by Scotland Yard top brass there were no official objections to it, and that has gone on to today, where celebrities can also hire Scotland Yard detectives privately for functions, for their weddings and so on.
And incidentally, off duty or not, a police officer is always a police officer while he is employed as a serving member of the force. So if an officer saw an illegal act at any function, such as guests or family snorting coke, for example, then that person would be liable for arrest.
Private police - Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_police)
From the above
In jurisdictions that allow it, off-duty officers may be employed to provide security to individuals, or companies, or organizations. If their jurisdiction grants them police powers on and off-duty, they essentially become private police while employed by anyone other than the government.
The use of public police officers under private pay has become more and more contentious, as it is felt to be unfair competition against private security firms.
These police officers from the Gloucester force were hired for Kate Moss?s wedding and included a police Inspector and sergeant. Therefore it?s clear that police are used by celebrities.
Kate Moss wedding policed by 35 officers - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/kate-moss-wedding-policed-by-35-143157)
Kate Moss wedding policed by 35 officers
THE police deployed 35 officers to blockade a village for Kate Moss?s wedding ? comprising one inspector, five sergeants and 29 PCs.
That is ordinary police officers doing normal crowd control and the celebrity or football club or whatever defrays some of the cost. Its very different for someone to want to hire specially trained officers like RPOs for their personal use esp at a time like the Jubillee when they will be busy protecting hte Royal family as a whole. If Harry manages to get around LA with his private bodyguards, why is h he not content to use the RPOs that are available to him in the UK?
Harry lives in a country with 8 times the per capita murder rate than the UK and seems to be just fine.
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on February 19, 2022, 01:22:09 PM
Harry lives in a country with 8 times the per capita murder rate than the UK and seems to be just fine.
So it seems. Albeit he is not seen out that much in LA, is he? Perhaps he has a phalanx of discreet armed security guards with him. qua
but the rule is that police officers can only work for outside people if it is OKed by their superiors, and where it does not affect their regular job. I doubt if highly trained, professionalised specialist officer, who are working for the RP squad and are allowed to carry guns (I think) are likely to be allowed to work privately, esp during a time like the Jubilee when they will be fully stretched with their normal work. And it would set a dangerous precedent if VIPs coming to London felt that they too could ask for RPOs for hire and for those RPOs to share their specialist knowledge, as this seems to be one of Harry's issues.... since the RPOs have a line to the Intellgence forces
Quote from: Curryong on February 19, 2022, 11:44:30 AM
These police officers from the Gloucester force were hired for Kate Moss?s wedding and included a police Inspector and sergeant. Therefore it?s clear that police are used by celebrities.
Kate Moss wedding policed by 35 officers - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/kate-moss-wedding-policed-by-35-143157)
Kate Moss wedding policed by 35 officers
THE police deployed 35 officers to blockade a village for Kate Moss?s wedding ? comprising one inspector, five sergeants and 29 PCs.
Thank you for sharing this
@Curryong. I'm not surprised that the local police agency in Gloucester was requested to provide some crowd control knowing that this event could bring some crowds to a small village. However I do not believe that they're are considered the equivalent rank and training level as those in the specialized Metropolitan Police Unit that are there to provide protection for members of the British Royal Family, foreign dignitaries ie: Ambassadors, or the Prime Minister and other members of the British Government who require armed protection officers. As I understand it, the typical police officer in the UK does not carry a service firearm while on patrol . From viewing the photos in the article from Kate Moss' wedding, the officers don't appear to be armed with firearms.
From what I have gathered, Prince Harry is not looking to "hire" one of the rank and file officers who work for the Met Police. IMO he clearly wants the a Royal Protection Officer.
Quote from: Amabel2 on February 19, 2022, 12:54:05 PM
That is ordinary police officers doing normal crowd control and the celebrity or football club or whatever defrays some of the cost. Its very different for someone to want to hire specially trained officers like RPOs for their personal use esp at a time like the Jubillee when they will be busy protecting hte Royal family as a whole. If Harry manages to get around LA with his private bodyguards, why is h he not content to use the RPOs that are available to him in the UK?
@Amabel2 - I would expect that with the upcoming Jubilee events in June as well as a holiday weekend scheduled, that the rank and file officers of the Met Police will all be expected to be on duty. I doubt that officers will be permitted time off during that time period as there will be large crowds at events. Also with COVID restrictions being lifted around the globe there's likely to be a large number of late springtime foreign tourists who are back in the UK for the first time in two years.
well yes I'd say that all police leave will be cancelled and possibly police from forces outside of London will be drafted in to help as the city will (if Covid is in abeyance) be full of people.... but Harry wont be among the throngs.. and he will be watched by specialised coppers of the RP squad. However waht he can't do is say that he wants a half dozen of hte RP men allocated to him personally for all his stay and that he will pay them directly or even via the Met itself.
Quote from: TLLK on February 19, 2022, 02:34:14 PM
Thank you for sharing this @Curryong. I'm not surprised that the local police agency in Gloucester was requested to provide some crowd control knowing that this event could bring some crowds to a small village. However I do not believe that they're are considered the equivalent rank and training level as those in the specialized Metropolitan Police Unit that are there to provide protection for members of the British Royal Family, foreign dignitaries ie: Ambassadors, or the Prime Minister and other members of the British Government who require armed protection officers. As I understand it, the typical police officer in the UK does not carry a service firearm while on patrol . From viewing the photos in the article from Kate Moss' wedding, the officers don't appear to be armed with firearms.
From what I have gathered, Prince Harry is not looking to "hire" one of the rank and file officers who work for the Met Police. IMO he clearly wants the a Royal Protection Officer.
ordinary police sometimes do these things because if a celeb is getting married or whatever, there will be crowds around and it may cause issues, so some celebs offer to pay towards police costs if they have these men and women in place to make theier weddings run smoothly and to ensure public safety at the event. Same with football matches. Football teams pay for these extra men and women for crowd control...
but they are just ordinary police doing ordinary crowd control work.
Harrys argument seems to be that he wants RPOs for his personal use, and that he's willing to pay for them.. because they have info from British intelligence and so will be able to know about any threats or special dangers for him and his family. If he's keeping some of his own security team with him, he may expect the RPOS to share some of that information but they can't do that.
What I don't understand is Harry says the UK is too dangerous for his family, how does he know this?
He has no access to intelligence information, but says he can't return to the UK without specialist protection officers.
perhaps as his ex girlfriend said (Cressida?) he is prone ot exaggerated fears about these things
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on February 20, 2022, 06:55:26 AM
What I don't understand is Harry says the UK is too dangerous for his family, how does he know this?
He has no access to intelligence information, but says he can't return to the UK without specialist protection officers.
Yes I don't believe that they do have access to any intelligence information about any threats that the Met Police and the Home Office have determined to be real. As I understand it the joint committee between the MP and HO has determined that their threat level is low enough that currently they do not require full time security on a private visit to the UK. And I understand that was with the video from when Prince Harry left the Well Child engagement in July 2021. I can only guess that the Sussexes are viewing posts on social media and have come to the joint decision that they believe the UK is too dangerous for them.
The rumor is someone in the family gave him an evidence?
I don't think nobody wants nothing bad to happen to him and his family. Imagine if something happened? The government and the BRF would feel really bad.
Quote from: TLLK on February 20, 2022, 02:18:08 PM
Yes I don't believe that they do have access to any intelligence information about any threats that the Met Police and the Home Office have determined to be real. As I understand it the joint committee between the MP and HO has determined that their threat level is low enough that currently they do not require full time security on a private visit to the UK. And I understand that was with the video from when Prince Harry left the Well Child engagement in July 2021. I can only guess that the Sussexes are viewing posts on social media and have come to the joint decision that they believe the UK is too dangerous for them.
At Jubille events, they will have the protection of RPOs iwht the rest of the RF. Perhaps he feels that he should have it 24/7.. so if he and Meghan go to a private event they would have thier RPOS
The Duke claims that he didn't know who made the decision to remove his Royal Protection Officers.
https://archive.vn/A9C9s
QuoteThe Duke of Sussex has complained that he was not given the identities of those behind a decision to deny him police protection when he is in the UK, the High Court has heard.
He is challenging the February 2020 decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) to withdraw the police protection that he and the Duchess of Sussex enjoyed as senior royals.
He has taken legal action against the Government, arguing that the decision made by Ravec, which is comprised of representatives from the police, Home Office and Royal household, was wrong as ?he falls within the immediate line of succession?.
The Duke has also launched a libel action against the Mail on Sunday over its coverage of the case.
At a preliminary hearing on Friday, Mr Justice Swift set out the four grounds that form the basis of the Duke?s legal challenge.
They include the ?over-rigid application? of Ravec policy and a ?failure? to take into account ?relevant considerations?.
The Duke has also argued that the committee?s conclusions were ?unreasonable? and that ?insufficient information? was provided about Ravec policy ?and/or members or those involved in Ravec?s decision?.
Shaheed Fatima QC, the Duke?s barrister, who was accompanied in court by the Sussexes? solicitor, Jenny Afia, handed the judge two letters "on the membership of Ravec".
But she suggested they had struggled to ascertain who sits on the committee.
Ms Fatima told the court they had ?been asking about the membership", later adding that it was in relation to "the relevance of the claimant's knowledge about who he was dealing with and in what capacity".
The court heard that the Duke had been in correspondence with Sir Mark Sedwill, a senior civil servant who served as Cabinet Secretary from April 2018 until September 2020.
?We now know that entity is a member of Ravec,? Ms Fatima said, referring to the Cabinet Office.
He has argued that his private protection team in the US does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad or access to the relevant UK intelligence that is needed to keep his family safe.
He has insisted that he offered to pay for his own protection in January 2020 but that the offer was refused.
However, Robert Palmer QC, for the Home Office, previously told the court that the offer of private funding was ?irrelevant?.
Mr Palmer said in written submissions: ?Personal protective security by the police is not available on a privately financed basis.?
The preliminary hearings, which were largely held in private, concerned an application by the Duke and the Home Office for some information contained in court documents to be kept private.
Mr Justice Swift repeatedly rebuked Ms Fatima over her submissions, at one point telling her: ?This is not a public inquiry into whether the committee reached the right decision or the wrong decision?, adding that it was a discussion about the legal merits of the case.
The judge said he would hand down his ruling at a later date.
Meanwhile, the Duke is embroiled in separate legal proceedings against the publisher of the Mail on Sunday.
A libel action lodged on his behalf on Wednesday is understood to relate to a story that suggested he had tried to keep the legal fight over his police protection secret.
He is also expected to argue that it was false and defamatory to allege that he lied about offering to pay personally for UK police protection for himself and his family in January 2020.
The article claimed that the offer to pay was not made in the Duke?s initial ?pre-action? letters to the Home Office, which it said suggested that he expected British taxpayers to cover it.
He wants (now) to dox the members of the Ravec Executive Committee?! Let's go as low as possible.
He's not a working royal, hire private UK security when in the UK, get over it.
Pince Harry's lawyers have been given a dressing-down by a High Court judge after a judgment in his police protection claim against the government was leaked.
Mr Justice Swift ruled on Thursday that documents in the Duke of Sussex's legal claim against government could be kept secret.
More: Prince Harry?s lawyers rebuked by High Court judge for ?unacceptable? ruling leak | Evening Standard (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/prince-harry-lawyers-high-court-judge-ruling-leak-security-b990223.html)
I had a feeling that Ken Warfe would share his thoughts on the Duke of Sussex's security concerns and my hunch was right. Warfe shares his belief that Prince Harry faces a greater risk in The Netherlands at the Invictus Games than he would have faced in London for his grandfather's memorial service. The Dutch security service has not stated if it will provide Prince Harry with armed protection, but Warfe believes that it's likely that they will.
Why does Prince Harry think he's safer in the Netherlands than UK? Ex-royal protection officer says | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10696309/Why-does-Prince-Harry-think-hes-safer-Netherlands-UK-Ex-royal-protection-officer-says.html)
QuoteFormer Met Inspector Ken Wharfe, who was protection officer for Princess Diana, William and Harry, has said Invictus' links to the military and former soldiers - common targets for terrorists including ISIS extremists - means the potential threat to them and Harry is arguably higher there than being in London for Prince Philip's service of thanksgiving on March 29.
The High Court heard the duke did not feel safe in Britain without Scotland Yard officers with him. Harry wants to bring his children to visit from the US, but is 'unable to return to his home' because it is too dangerous, a legal representative previously said.
But he is still jetting across the world to The Hague. Police and security services in the Netherlands have refused to say whether he will get royal protection in Holland, although it is likely because one of the event's partners is the Dutch ministry of defence, which is also in charge of the country's security and terrorism.
Ken Wharfe told MailOnline: 'I'm baffled about why Harry thinks he would be safer in the Netherlands than in the UK. He would have travelled to his grandfather's memorial service with his brother or father and received protection from the Met. It's not like he would have been turning up at Westminster Abbey on a bike'.
He added: 'The Dutch police will be doing their own security assessments and liaising with Harry's private security. But my view it is more of a risk to go to Holland to support a charity with a military link than coming to London last week'
Of course the Dutch will provide armed security for Harry?s visit.
As for Ken Warne, he hasn?t worked for the RF for over 20 years, and certainly hasn?t seen Harry for more than 25, but like Paul Burrell comes out regularly, for payment of course, to speak about things that no longer concern him.
"Experts fear Prince Andrew's sex abuse case and Prince Harry and Meghan's quitting royal duties are fuelling the surge."
Royal Family tormented by 170 stalkers - 10 of them at police's 'highest danger level' - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/royal-family-tormented-170-stalkers-26918184?podsave=)
Man, 20, is charged with trying to injure or alarm the Queen at Windsor Castle | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11073317/Man-20-charged-trying-injure-alarm-Queen-Windsor-Castle.html)
Intruder Armed with Crossbow Charged After Christmas Incident at Windsor Castle | PEOPLE.com (https://people.com/royals/intruder-crossbow-charged-after-christmas-day-incident-windsor-castle/)
Relief for the Queen following terrifying incident at home | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/20220802147096/the-queen-relief-windsor-caslte-christmas-day-crossbow-charged/)
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-berkshire-62396574
Quote
A man allegedly found with a crossbow in the grounds of Windsor Castle on Christmas Day has been charged under the Treason Act.
Jaswant Singh Chail, 20, has also been charged with threats to kill and possession of an offensive weapon.
Mr Chail, from Southampton, is in custody and will appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on 17 August.
The charges were brought after an investigation by the Metropolitan Police's Counter Terrorism Command.
He has been charged with an offence under section 2 of the 1842 Treason Act, namely "discharging or aiming firearms, or throwing or using any offensive matter or weapon, with intent to injure or alarm her Majesty", said Scotland Yard.
Under the 1842 Treason Act, it is an offence to assault the Queen, or have a firearm or offensive weapon in her presence with intent to injure or alarm her or to cause a breach of peace.
Under 1842 not since 1981 Marcus Sarjeant was jailed for five years under the section of the Treason Act after he fired blank shots at the Queen while she was riding down The Mall in London during the Trooping the Colour parade.
Man charged with intending to injure or alarm the Queen on Christmas Day at Windsor Castle | UK News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/man-charged-with-intending-to-injure-or-alarm-the-queen-on-christmas-day-at-windsor-castle-12664265)
QuoteAn offence under section 2 of the Treason Act, 1842;
- Threats to kill (contrary to section 16 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861);
- Possession of an offensive weapon (contrary to section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953).
He is currently in custody and is due to appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 17 August.
Nick Price, head of the Crown Prosecution's Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division, said it has authorised the Met to charge Chail "after he was arrested in the grounds of Windsor Castle on 25 December 2021 carrying a crossbow".
He added: "Mr Chail, 20, has been charged with making threats to kill, possession of an offensive weapon and an offence under the 1842 Treason Act.
"The Crown Prosecution Service reminds all concerned that criminal proceedings against Mr Chail are active and that he has the right to a fair trial."
?Crossbow intruder? accused of treason bid to harm Queen at Windsor Castle | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1649622/queen-elizabeth-intruder-harm-treason-windsor-castle)
Man found on Windsor Castle grounds with crossbow charged under treason act - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-man-found-windsor-castle-27639990)
Jaswant Singh Chail, 20, charged with treason after 'storming into Windsor Castle' on Christmas Day | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19397961/man-charged-with-treason-storming-windsor-castle/)
Man charged with treason over Windsor Castle incident ? Royal Central (https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/queen/breaking-man-charged-with-treason-over-windsor-castle-incident-179346/)
Wow! Treason is a very serious charge to add to the obvious ones of Threats to kill and Possession of an offensive weapon. :eyes:
Quote from: TLLK on August 02, 2022, 10:30:55 PM
Wow! Treason is a very serious charge to add to the obvious ones of Threats to kill and Possession of an offensive weapon. :eyes:
It is indeed and treason of this sort was usually invoked in previous centuries in Britain when there were plots to kill the sovereign and put another on the throne or to kill members of the royal family en masse when they were gathered together in one place. Of course we don?t know all the details with regard to this man?s plans but it seems he intended to get to the Queen with a weapon and kill her if he could. That has to be taken seriously.
From the ABC here, some interesting titbits.
?Under the 1842 Treason Act it is an offence to assault the Queen or have a firearm or offensive weapon in her presence with intent to injure or alarm her.
In 1981, Marcus Sarjaent was sentenced to five years' imprisonment under this section of the treason act after pleading guilty to firing blank shots at the Queen when she was riding down The Mall in London for Trooping the Colour.
The last person to be convicted under the separate and more serious 1351 Treason Act was William Joyce, also known as Lord Haw Haw, who collaborated with Germany during the Second World War and was hanged in 1946.?
(Haw Haw broadcast doom and gloom radio broadcasts to Britain from Germany throughout the war. He was Irish-American.)
https://abcnews.go.com/International/man-charged-threatening-queen-elizabeth-possessing-weapon/story?id=87804467
QuoteA man was charged with intending to injure or alarm Queen Elizabeth II following an incident on Christmas Day last year at Windsor Castle, the Metropolitan Police said.
Jaswant Singh Chail, 20, was charged under the Treason Act on Tuesday. He was arrested with a crossbow on the grounds of Windsor Castle, according to the Crown Protection Service.
The charges include making threats to kill, possession of an offensive weapon, and an offense under the 1842 Treason Act. The Treason Act is an offense to assault the queen, or have a firearm or offensive weapon in her presence with intent to injure or alarm her or to cause a breach of peace, according to CPS.
Chail is currently detained and will appear at Westminster Magistrates? Court on Aug. 17, according to police.
Nick Price, head of the CPS Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division, said the initial arrest of Chail happened on Christmas Day in 2021.
Price said the proceedings against Chail now are ?active? and that Chail has ?the right to a fair trial.?
?It is extremely important there should be no reporting,commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings,? Price said in a statement on Tuesday.
Queen Victoria survived eight assassination attempts in her reign, most of them muddled attempts by mentally troubled men. The first was in 1840, but the second, which led to the 1842 Treason Act being introduced, was a little more serious. She was with Prince Albert for the first attempt.
Eight Assassination Attempts on Queen Victoria - Historic UK (https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Queen-Victoria-Eight-Assassination-Attempts/)
He was John Francis. On May 29th 1842, Prince Albert and the Queen were in a carriage when Prince Albert saw what he called ?a little, swarthy, ill-looking rascal?. Francis lined up his shot and pulled the trigger, but the gun failed to fire. He then left the scene and readied himself for another attempt. Prince Albert alerted the Royal security forces that he had spotted a gunman, however despite this Queen Victoria insisted on leaving the Palace the next evening for a drive in an open barouche. Meanwhile, plain-clothes officers scoured the site for the gunman. A shot rang out abruptly only a few yards away from the carriage. Eventually, Francis was sentenced to death by hanging but Queen Victoria intervened and he was transported instead.
QuoteKing George I of Greece
Plans were already well underway to celebrate his upcoming Golden Jubilee when, in March 1913, King George I was assassinated whilst out on an afternoon walk in Salonika. His murderer, Alexandros Schinas, shot him in the back at close range and the monarch was killed instantly.
Born to the Danish royal family and christened Christian William Ferdinand Adolf George, George I had been just 17 years of age when, in 1863, he was elected king by the Greek National Assembly. The previous king, Otto, had been overthrown by a coup, so the pressure was on the new young monarch from the start to endear himself to the Greek people. By and large he succeeded, quickly learning the Greek language and supporting a constitutional monarchy that worked hand in hand with the elected Greek Government.
From the start, King George I made a point of appearing accessible by walking freely amongst his people without bodyguards. This policy continued, even after a foiled assassination attempt in 1898, but ultimately it cost him his life.
The motives behind the assassination on that fateful day in March 1913 have never been fully established. The assassin himself, Alexandros Schinas, was dead within a matter of weeks after falling out of a window at the police station where he was being held. Official sources claimed that Schinas was a homeless alcoholic, who bore a grudge against the unfortunate king. The truth may be more complicated, with rumors circulating that Schinas was recruited by a foreign power looking to get rid of the pro-British Greek king at a time of great political unrest in Europe.
Empress Elisabeth of Austria
The popular Empress Elisabeth of Austria was assassinated in Geneva in September 1898, and Mark Twain wrote of the event, ?even the assassination of Caesar himself could not electrify the world as this murder has electrified it?. The upcoming movie Corsage, which provides an interesting modern take on the Empress Elisabeth?s life and death, is sure to revive interest in her tragic story.
Born in December 1837, ?Sisi?, as she became popularly known, was just 16 years of age at the time of her marriage to Emperor Franz Joseph I. She had enjoyed a carefree childhood in the heart of the Bavarian countryside and struggled to adjust to the formality of life at the Hapsburg court, not helped by a difficult relationship with her mother-in-law, Archduchess Sophie.
However, she proved enduringly popular with the Austrian people. Loved for her charitable work and for her ability to empathize with people from all walks of life, Sisi was also renowned for her beauty and became one of the era?s most fashionable trendsetters. In time, this appears to have only increased the pressure on the fragile Empress, who may well have suffered from an eating disorder. Certainly, her unhealthy obsession with maintaining a slender 16-inch waist, even after four pregnancies, is well documented.
Gradually, Sisi started to lead an increasingly nomadic existence, spending little time at court, and instead travelling all over Europe and North Africa, often under an assumed name and without a bodyguard.
On September 10th, 1898, she was about to step on board a steamship on Lake Geneva when an Italian anarchist named Luigi Lucheni stabbed her in the chest with a pointed file. Initially, it appeared that she had only been slightly injured, but within a matter of minutes she collapsed and died of internal bleeding.
According to evidence given at her assassin?s subsequent trial, Lucheni claimed that he "came to Geneva to kill a sovereign?. His first target, the Duke of Orl?ans (the then-pretender to the French throne), had already left Geneva, so he turned his attention to the Empress Elisabeth. Lucheni was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He spent some 12 years in prison before, in October 1910, he was found hanging in his cell, having committed suicide.
King Gustav III of Sweden
King Gustav III proved a divisive figure throughout his reign. Only one year after he succeeded his father to the throne as a 25 year old in 1771, he seized power from the government in a bloodless coup d??tat.
The subsequent Union and Security Act removed most of parliamentary power and meant that Gustav III ruled as an absolute monarch. As this lessened the influence of the Swedish nobility, the move was popular with large sections of the population and the king was also the subject of a concerted propaganda campaign, being portrayed as a patron of the arts and science.
The Swedish aristocracy, however, never forgave him for removing many of their privileges. In early 1792, a conspiracy was formed to assassinate him.
On March 16th, 1792, Gustav III attended a masquerade ball at the Royal Opera House in Stockholm. Despite being attired in a costume, complete with a mask, the king was easy to spot, as he was wearing the star of the Royal Order of the Seraphim. As he walked into the foyer of the theater, one of the conspirators, a Swedish army officer named Jacob Johan Anckarstr?m, shot the king in the lower back.
Gustav did not die instantly, but instead was helped back to the Royal Palace where he survived for nearly another fortnight before eventually succumbing to sepsis. Several of the conspirators were subsequently sent to prison or into exile. The assassin, Anckarstr?m, was the only one to pay the ultimate price, being executed in late April 1792.
William the Silent, Prince of Orange
Born in the German state of Nassau in 1533, William inherited the title Prince of Orange when he was just 11 years old. He had the dubious distinction of becoming, in 1584, the first head of state to be assassinated by handgun (Gustav III of Sweden being the second, 200 years later).
Conflict arose when Philip II of Spain attempted to impose Catholic rule on the predominantly Protestant population of the Low Countries in Northern Europe (present-day Netherlands and Belgium). William, who believed in religious tolerance, became the head of the Protestant cause, a move which inevitably placed him in great danger. In 1580, he was declared an outlaw and the Spanish king offered a reward of 25,000 crowns to anyone who was prepared to kill him.
On July 10th, 1584, William was at home in Delft when he was accosted by a French assassin named Balthasar G?rard. He was shot in the chest at close range and died almost immediately. His assassin fled the scene, but was swiftly apprehended and executed soon afterwards.
King James I of Scotland
James I was just 11 years old when, in 1406, he became king of Scotland. At least one of his older brothers had died in suspicious circumstances, so plans were made to send James to safety in France, only for his ship to be captured on the way. For much of his remaining childhood he was imprisoned in the Tower of London, until around 1420 when his standing at the English court appeared to have improved dramatically.
Following his 1424 marriage to Joan Beaufort, the cousin of the English king, he was allowed to return to rule in Scotland, albeit after agreeing to pay a hefty ransom of ?40,000 (equivalent to around ?25 million or $29.9 million today) in installments.
When he did finally make it home, James I proved to be an unpopular king. He was viewed as being too authoritarian and attracted much criticism for his extravagant lifestyle at court, particularly as, after the first two installments, he stopped paying the ransom. This put in grave danger the lives of some two dozen Scottish noblemen who were being held hostage by the English until the ransom was fully paid.
During the winter of 1437, some of the hostages? relatives, together with the king?s own uncle, the Earl of Atholl, plotted to kill the monarch.
On February 21st, 1437, James I and his wife Joan were staying in Perth, at lodgings in the Blackfriars Monastery, when the conspirators entered the building. James was warned and had time to hide in a sewer, but was discovered and murdered. Joan was wounded, but managed to escape.
Despite the king?s unpopularity, the assassination was widely condemned and most of the Scottish nobility rallied round the Queen and her young son, James. The main conspirators, including the Earl of Atholl, were subsequently arrested, tortured, and executed.
5 Royal Figures Who Were Assassinated (https://explorethearchive.com/assassinated-royalty)
https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/celebrity/article/3186245/6-british-royals-who-survived-attempted-assassinations
Quote1.Prince Charles
The view of the royals in Australia has always been slightly complicated, but things took a frightening turn back in 1994 when Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, was giving a speech at an Australia Day ceremony. David Kang, who was 23 at the time, leapt over a fence at the event being held in Sydney and fired two shots at the heir to the throne.
Although the weapon was later shown to be a starting pistol loaded with blank bullets, security leapt into action immediately. Security and politicians alike were quick to tackle Kang as the guest of honour was swiftly taken away from the speaker?s podium.
2.King James I
Although the attempted assassination of King James I (aka King James VI of Scotland) was made over 400 years ago, the occasion is remembered almost the entire world over on November 5, as Guy Fawkes Day.
Conceived as a way to fight back against the Protestant government and monarch of the United Kingdom, Catholic Fawkes was the frontman of a plot to blow up the British Houses of Parliament while King James was there, loading the cellars of the buildings with an estimated 36 barrels of gunpowder ready to be lit. It was at around midnight the night before that Fawkes was found lurking around the cellar and was caught, tortured before being sentenced to death.
3.King Edward VIII They now Duke of Windsor
Although best known as the monarch who abdicated to be with the love of his life, Wallis Simpson, an attempt was made on the life of the short-reigned King Edward VIII in 1936, per The Guardian. While riding in his carriage in London?s Hyde Park, an assailant by the name of George McMahon appeared among the crowd on the route of the royal procession.
By dropping the firearm, members of the crowd realised McMahon?s intentions. In the scuffle with him, McMahon then was said to have picked up the gun to fling it at the monarch ? missing him entirely. It later emerged that the name McMahon was an alias, and that the would-be assassin, Jerome Bannigan, was actually an individual with known ties to the Nazis. That, however, was never fully established.
4.Queen Victoria
In another carriage ride that almost ended in tragedy, Queen Victoria, arguably one of the most famous monarchs in the world, also faced a threat to her life ? while four months pregnant, no less. In June of 1840, the queen and her husband, Prince Albert, were at Constitution Hill in London on a carriage rider when they passed a man among the audience named Edward Oxford.
In possession of two pistols, he fired at the sovereign, with both projectiles missing her. Again, bystanders intervened. Accounts report that Oxford said immediately upon his apprehension, ?It was I, it was me that did it.? He was declared mentally unfit to stand trial, and detained. He was one of seven people who attempted to assassinate Queen Victoria.
5.Princess Anne
Princess Anne, the princess royal, was the subject of a frightening attack in 1974 while travelling back to Buckingham Palace after an event, accompanied by her husband at the time, Captain Mark Phillips. After a car blocked off the one she was travelling in, a man named Ian Ball approached Princess Anne?s vehicle with a gun drawn. The attacker shot the driver and the princess?s security guard, before physically trying to wrestle Anne out of the car.
Refusing to budge, Anne uttered words that would later become famous: ?Not bloody likely!? A passer-by intervened at that point, allowing time for the princess royal to be removed from the scene.
6.Queen Elizabeth
Queen Elizabeth has faced no fewer than three attempts on her life. First, in 1970, while on a tour of Australia, an attempt was made to derail a train she and the late Prince Philip were on while travelling from Sydney to Orange in New South Wales, according to former Detective Superintendent Cliff McHardy. No one was ever charged with the crime.
Then, during the Trooping the Colour celebrations in London in 1981, Marcus Sarjeant fired blanks at the queen, saying he had been inspired by the 1980 shooting of John Lennon, according to The Times.
The queen again faced another assassination attempt during a visit to New Zealand in 1981 (just months of the Trooping the Colour incident) while visiting a museum in Dunedin. Christopher John Lewis, 17, was waiting in a nearby building and fired at the monarch as the queen was exiting a vehicle. He missed, and was arrested eight days later and served three years, partly in a psychiatric facility.
Prince Charles went to Australia in 1994 and David Kang tried to shooting the Prince Charles thankfully for police and security protection of Prince Charles and arrested immediately but Prince Charles wouldn?t says anything about that it?s private matters but Prince Charles have security with him 24/7 During tours in UK,Wales,Ireland,Scotland,Canada and overseas trips
The IRA Assassination of Lord Mountbatten: Facts and Fallout - HISTORY (https://www.history.com/news/mountbatten-assassination-ira-thatcher)
The blindness of some of Charles?s comments on this documentary are truly astounding. Republicanism in Australia only seems to have impacted on him when he began official visits here. In fact there has been a vociferous Republican movement in Australia since the last quarter of the 19th century. He seems to regard the republican movement as deluded because they regard the Windsors as, in his words, ?foreign ?.or something?. Well, they certainly aren?t Australian!
Later in the doco Charles goes into martyrdom mode when apparently an offer to become GG was brought up for consideration. Hardly surprisingly the Labor Govt weren?t enthusiastic (and if the offer had been accepted the Australian population would in fact have exploded in protest, something that doesn?t seem to have entered Charles?s mind.) He goes on to moan ?How are you supposed to feel when you want to help but you are told you aren?t wanted?? Er, perhaps it would have been better to have realised (a) he wasn?t wanted by the majority of Aussies as a GG and (b) how he felt doesn?t matter, and (C) Exactly how him being GG of Australia would ?help? the Australian population.
I wouldn?t be surprised if this is the kind of strange reactionary bubble the BRF are still surrounded by (with Charles especially) which again explains the shock and sheer surprise the latest members of the Windsor brigade suffered on their recent Caribbean excursions.
Quote
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's claim that they are entitled to their own protection was exposed to criticism today after it emerged royals such as Princess Anne, Prince Edward and Sophie, Countess of Wessex, who quietly carry out hundreds of engagements each year, live most of their lives without taxpayer-funded security.
The Queen, Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Charles, Camilla, Prince William and Kate all get round-the-clock protection - while Princess Anne, Prince Edward and Sophie are guarded only on official duties and engagements.
Other royals including the Queen's granddaughters Zara Tindall, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie do not have state-funded security, while Prince Andrew lost his after stepping down from royal duties in November 2019
Princess Diana also famously jettisoned her police protection team in 1993 after her divorce from Charles - despite the Metropolitan Police making efforts to get her to change her mind before she died in Paris in August 1997.
Scotland Yard provides automatic protection to only the most senior royals and members of the Government, but the force will also give protection for any individual who faces a big enough risk, according to the newspaper.
Simon Morgan, a former royal protection officer, told MailOnline today how decisions on what publically-funded security is given to individual royals are made by Ravec, which controls the security budget for the Royal Household.
'They basically decree what RaSP (Royalty and Specialist Protection, the Metropolitan Police Service's dedicated protection teams) as the delivery agent will give to various members of the royal family, the Government and anyone coming to the UK - if there's a presidential visit, or if there's a G20 summit.'
He said they will consult with parties including the Royal Household, the intelligence services, the Foreign Office and the Home Office and then subsequently decision 'who's going to get what'.
Mr Morgan, who worked for members of the Royal Family between 2007 and 2013 in the UK and overseas and who now runs Mayfair-based private security company Trojan Consultancy, added: 'The Queen gets a full package as you would naturally expect, that's actually on the statute books.
'By law the Metropolitan Police Service will look after the throne and the heir to the throne, so that's how you start to cascade back with who gets what.
'The Queen has her package along with the Duke of Edinburgh, then you have the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall as the heir to throne, then you have the heir's heir to the throne, as with the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and their children.
Speaking about Harry and Meghan, he continued: 'They are no longer working members of the British Royal Family, they now live in America, which deals with a different set of legislation with regards to you operating as a UK police officer.
'You also have to consider the welfare of those police officers - ultimately they are London-based. While you accept you will be away from home in the UK or overseas on a royal tour, you certainly don't expect to be posted permanently away from home.'
He added: 'The key thing about the protection is it's just not the Queen's gift to give or take away, it's been very much quoted that protection (for Harry and Meghan) was withdrawn by the Royal Family or Household, but Ravec is an independent body that sits to make sure protection is accountable.'
And John O'Connell, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, told MailOnline: 'The Duke and Duchess of Sussex can't have it both ways: either they're working royals with the obligations which that entails, or they're private citizens seeking independence.'
Meghan claimed in the bombshell interview that she was told her son Archie would not receive security because he would not be a prince.
Harry also told Oprah: 'I never thought that I would have my security removed, because I was born into this position. I inherited the risk. So that was a shock to me. That was what completely changed the whole plan.'
But those familiar with royal protection have criticised both claims, with one police source telling The Times: 'If you cease to be a royal, you lose your HRH and you go to another country like America, your threat level is going to reduce quite considerably because basically, who wants to kill you?
'You're not a royal. It still will exist - there still will be a threat against Meghan and Harry but it won't be high. And the threat against their children is non-existent so the notion that her son should get protection just because they were born to Meghan and Harry is nonsense, really.'
Dai Davies, a former chief superintendent who led the Metropolitan Police's royalty protection unit, said that Harry and Meghan's plans for royal protection after they moved to North America were 'utterly unrealistic' and could have put British police officers at risk.
Meghan Markle wrote to ITV's boss to complain about Piers Morgan hours before the Good Morning Britain co-host quit on the day the show scored its highest ever ratings and beat BBC Breakfast, it was revealed today.
The Duchess of Sussex insists she was not upset that Mr Morgan said he 'didn't believe a word she said' in her Oprah interview - but was worried about how his comments could affect people attempting to deal with their own mental health problems, an insider told the Press Association.
Standing firm today, Mr Morgan told reporters outside his West London home: 'If I have to fall on my sword for expressing an honestly held opinion about Meghan Markle and that diatribe of bilge that she came out with in that interview, so be it.'
On Monday Meghan went directly to ITV's CEO Dame Carolyn McCall, the former boss of the left-wing Guardian newspaper, who signed off on the broadcaster's ?1million deal to show the Oprah interview and said yesterday they were 'dealing with' the GMB host.
Mr Morgan is understood to have been ordered to apologise - but he refused and quit instead saying he had the right to tell viewers his 'honestly held opinions' and declaring: 'Freedom of speech is a hill I'm happy to die on'.
His departure from ITV's breakfast show, which he helped transform into a ratings hit that beat its BBC rival for the first time yesterday, came amid the fallout from the extraordinary Oprah interview that has caused the Royal Family's worst crisis since Edward VIII's abdication in 1936.
Hours after it was broadcast Mr Morgan branded Meghan 'Princess Pinocchio' after the Duchess said she was suicidal while five months pregnant but was denied any help by the palace. She also accused the Royal Family of being concerned Archie's skin would be too 'dark' and denying him the title of prince because he is mixed race, with Mr Morgan demanding the Sussexes back up their claims with evidence.
His views, and his refusal to back down in the row, sparked more than 41,000 complaints made to Ofcom, fuelled by an orchestrated social media campaign spearheaded by his critics including several Labour MPs. But despite Mr Morgan's years of successful skewering of ministers on the show, which led to a Government boycotts if GMB during the pandemic, Transport Secretary Grant Shapps said he 'would miss him'.
The Duchess of Sussex's decision to intervene in the row came as Mr Morgan doubled down today after leaving GMB, calling Meghan's incendiary claims to Oprah about the Royal Family 'contemptible' and declaring: 'I don't believe almost anything that comes out of her mouth'.
He added: 'I think the damage she's done to the British monarchy and to the Queen at a time when Prince Philip is lying in hospital is enormous and frankly contemptible', before revealing that he left on the day more people watched GMB than its BBC rival, five years after Piers transformed the ITV ratings flop. He tweeted later: 'Good Morning Britain beat BBC Breakfast in the ratings yesterday for the first time. My work is done'.
Mr Morgan described his departure from the programme he helped transform into a ratings hit as 'amicable', saying: 'I had a good chat with ITV and we agreed to disagree.' He added: 'I'm just going to take it easy and see how we go. I believe in freedom of speech, I believe in the right to be allowed to have an opinion. If people want to believe Meghan Markle, that's entirely their right'.
Donald Trump, the then US president, made it clear they would have no US-funded secret service bodyguards shortly after the couple moved to California from Canada last March.
He tweeted: 'Now they have left Canada for the U.S. however, the US will not pay for their security protection. They must pay!'
Russell Stuart, a former California State Guard officer turned celebrity bodyguard, pointed out that Harry and Meghan had increased their threat level by moving from Vancouver: 'This is America. We're a nation of gun owners, we've got a lot of weapons. We're ten times the population of Canada. California is a much bigger place, it's more dangerous, you have a lot more potential threats than back in Vancouver.'
Initially when they went to Canada, the couple's royal protection officers were given assistance by Canadian mounties, but this was only ever intended as an interim measure until other arrangements could be made.
Harry said they were told on 'short notice' that their Met police security detail would be cut off. 'Their justification was a change in status,' the Duke said, which he 'pushed back' at.
But effectively when their senior royal status officially ended at the end of March last year, they were on their own.
The Canadian Government confirmed it would stop providing security assistance to the family 'in keeping with their change in status'.
This week Mr Davies, said he was 'gobsmacked' the couple expected British taxpayers to pick up the bill. Aside from the legal and practical difficulties of protecting a royal living abroad, the financial burden would have been huge.
The cost of a close protection team and static security at events was estimated at more than ?1million a year when officers' salary, overtime payments, overseas allowance, pensions, flights and accommodation costs were added up.
An armed team made up of at least six people including a principal personal protection officer and back up close protection officers accompanied the family at all times.
They work in pairs and if the couple travelled separately or attended separate engagements it required at least four of them to do the job as they work on relay shift patterns.
Many of the Scotland Yard officers who protected them had families in the UK and it would have been unfair to expect them to travel back and forth.
Such a vast expense would have been untenable at a time when Scotland Yard had already nearly doubled its flight budget to cover the escalating cost of protecting of globe-trotting Royals on official visits and holidays in 2019.
When Harry and Meghan first announced they were breaking from the Royal Family, a statement appeared on their website saying they were classified as 'internationally protected people which mandates this level of security.'
But hours later, the phrase 'internationally protected people' disappeared as it quickly transpired that would never be the case.
Following their move, a joint committee made up of the Home Secretary, the Metropolitan Police's royalty protection command chief, and palace officials decided their 24-hour protection could not continue now they were no longer working royals living in the UK.
On Monday, Mr Davies said: 'It shows you their naivety and sense of entitlement. 'It was utterly unrealistic to think they could continue to have their royal protection team working in America, in fact it would have put their lives at risk.
'There is a reciprocal agreement in place with the US for occasions like official state visits, but British officers couldn't just carry on working there, unable to bear firearms and with no access to integrated intelligence from the security services. It was unworkable.
'Other royals and their children do without protection. They aren't working members of the Royal Family, why should they have it? It was simply arrogant to presume they and their baby would get protection..'
Meghan said she and Harry wanted Archie to be a prince so he would have security and be protected, and she suggested he was not given the title because of his race.
But Archie, who is seventh in line to the throne, is not entitled to be an HRH or a prince due to rules set out more than 100 years ago by King George V.
He will be entitled to be an HRH or a prince when the Prince of Wales accedes to the throne.
At the time of his birth, a royal source said Harry and Meghan had decided he should be a regular Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor. But Meghan told Oprah this was not correct, adding: 'It was not our decision to make.'
Yet Harry had always previously stressed the importance of wanting to be seen as normal, and he was thought to have wanted to give his baby the opportunities of an ordinary life that he never had, without the burden of being a prince.
He once said he was always more comfortable being Captain Wales in the Army than being Prince Harry.
As the first-born son of a duke, Archie was actually entitled to have become Earl of Dumbarton - one of Harry's subsidiary titles - or have been Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor.
But a source said after Archie was born in May 2019: 'They have chosen not to use a courtesy title.'
Being a prince or princess does not automatically mean royals have police protection. But as a full-time working royal, Harry and his family would have been entitled to 24-hour security by Metropolitan Police protection officers.
Final decisions are taken by the Home Office, in consultation with Buckingham Palace. In recent years, the royal family has shifted towards a slimmed-down monarchy, focusing on those at the top of the line of succession.
Archie, who will move down the succession list if the Cambridge children have their own families, was never expected to be playing a key role in royal duties when older.
When Harry and Meghan quit as senior working royals and moved to the US, it changed the situation.
The prospect of the couple and their son living permanently in the US and not carrying out royal duties, but also having Metropolitan Police protection officers, paid for by British taxpayers, at their side was untenable.
But the royal family could have agreed to foot their security bill privately, and used a private firm.
Royal Family members who DON'T get police protection despite Meghan and Harry claims | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9346083/Meghan-Markle-interview-Members-Royal-Family-dont-police-protection.html)
Articles says HM Queen Elizabeth II,Prince Charles,Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridges have police protection and security 24/7
A very detailed and informative article all about *Protection for the Royal Family* and the trouble is the way I see it is that neither Harry or Meghan want to hear that nor will they accept that. All these lawsuits are about them getting their own way with what they want when they want it. NOTHING is ever going to make them see that they are wrong period.....one lawsuit after another again..boy the money for lawyers must be in the tens of thousands and Thank you Netflix for paying them.
If this isn't arrogant, selfish and egos full of entitlement, I don't know what is....their attitude sounds so much like a former president still wanting the oval office. Bet this will go on for the rest of their lives....they just refuse to accept the truth! Time to take away those titles and HRH's for good now.
@sara8150 -Yes the article is correct that only the Queen, the PoW/DssoC, and the five Cambridges currently receive around the clock protection. All other members of the family might have had full time RPOs during some point in their life but now just have protection when on their official royal duties. However I do expect that even though they no longer have full time protection, likely there's electronic surveillance installed in their homes and on the grounds.
He's probably making all this brouhaha to bend his dad to pay his ''private'' security. Embarrassing family member who manipulates until the rest of the family want the individual to shut up with moneys (everything is a cost, nothing is for free). BUT so far they let Harry hang himself with his own shameful shenanigans.
Honestly Harry (and Meghan) saga will end in tears. (IF they don't get what they want, as the NY Times latest article says about the divided USA; the microaggressions (until halfway Gen Millenial change the word for spoiled brat being denied, now a days microaggressions) of being denied and said NO, baby throwing toys out of the pram is IF not finger pointing cancelled via social media ordered by them to their army of trolls, they will use classifiers; sexist, racist and other classes 'st').
Quote from: wannable on August 09, 2022, 05:22:31 PM
He's probably making all this brouhaha to bend his dad to pay his ''private'' security. Embarrassing family member who manipulates until the rest of the family want the individual to shut up with moneys (everything is a cost, nothing is for free). BUT so far they let Harry hang himself with his own shameful shenanigans.
Honestly Harry (and Meghan) saga will end in tears. (IF they don't get what they want, as the NY Times latest article says about the divided USA; the microaggressions (until halfway Gen Millenial change the word for spoiled brat being denied, now a days microaggressions) of being denied and said NO, baby throwing toys out of the pram is IF not finger pointing cancelled via social media ordered by them to their army of trolls, they will use classifiers; sexist, racist and other classes 'st').
You have informed about NY times articles on Sussex or NOT!!
It's another article in the NY Times about half of the millennial onward to Gen Z (worst spoilt brats_ who use ''classification'' of the different ''st'' words to fault, maniupulate, try to obtain from someone else without a care of collateral damage or loss of employment. In the past 2 years the word racist, sexist, misogynist and 'other' classes of classifying have incremented 400% to these group of generational people who don't take responsibility of their spoilt brat attitude.
Harry suing for security and insisting making another case is the above. Although rumours today are heavily inclining to a serious mental health situation, which I will not say more. And will only discuss IF the crap hits the wall.
Quote from: TLLK on August 09, 2022, 02:59:47 PM
@sara8150 -Yes the article is correct that only the Queen, the PoW/DssoC, and the five Cambridges currently receive around the clock protection. All other members of the family might have had full time RPOs during some point in their life but now just have protection when on their official royal duties. However I do expect that even though they no longer have full time protection, likely there's electronic surveillance installed in their homes and on the grounds.
And I bet that the Sussex's also have electronic surveillances installed around their home and property also. In fact that is a given in today's world, I had that in my home and yard when I lived in Houston, alarms went off even if an animal came on the property. Most homeowners today do the same...nothing new to me as that was many decades ago and in fact in the building I live in now has installed security outside and cameras all over the first floor and doors with alarms. All around my area where I live are condos, and single family homes with security and lights go on if you walk by even on the street to let people know someone is out there. Just a way of life in this violent world we live in today...very sad because as a child our doors were never locked and we could walk down the street without fear of a bullet, not in today's world can we do that anymore.
I really don't get these lawsuits unless it is a way of blackmailing the royal family into getting what they want....they live in the US and what do they think that the British security by whomever is coming here to protect them? Harry is shouting angrily at the royal family anyway he can and I think these lawsuits are part of the way he is shouting back at them for the world to see. Both he and Meghan are in for a very rude awakening someday when they hit bottom.....we all make decisions in life and some take us to places we don't really think about until it is tooooooooo damn late.....that is what will happen to the Sussex's someday...sooner than later I bet! Just a fact of life when our lives are out of control and anger runs the decisions we make....boy do I know that yet learned those lessons the hard way and put anger where it belongs, in the garbage can with a locked lid....LOL Thank you my dear sister for teaching me that.
Quote from: Nightowl on August 10, 2022, 03:04:13 AM
And I bet that the Sussex's also have electronic surveillances installed around their home and property also. In fact that is a given in today's world, I had that in my home and yard when I lived in Houston, alarms went off even if an animal came on the property. Most homeowners today do the same...nothing new to me as that was many decades ago and in fact in the building I live in now has installed security outside and cameras all over the first floor and doors with alarms. All around my area where I live are condos, and single family homes with security and lights go on if you walk by even on the street to let people know someone is out there. Just a way of life in this violent world we live in today...very sad because as a child our doors were never locked and we could walk down the street without fear of a bullet, not in today's world can we do that anymore.
I really don't get these lawsuits unless it is a way of blackmailing the royal family into getting what they want....they live in the US and what do they think that the British security by whomever is coming here to protect them? Harry is shouting angrily at the royal family anyway he can and I think these lawsuits are part of the way he is shouting back at them for the world to see. Both he and Meghan are in for a very rude awakening someday when they hit bottom.....we all make decisions in life and some take us to places we don't really think about until it is tooooooooo damn late.....that is what will happen to the Sussex's someday...sooner than later I bet! Just a fact of life when our lives are out of control and anger runs the decisions we make....boy do I know that yet learned those lessons the hard way and put anger where it belongs, in the garbage can with a locked lid....LOL Thank you my dear sister for teaching me that.
@Nightowl-Yes the Sussexes' property as well as their neighbors would have surveillance security to help protect themselves and their property. With today's technology it allows the homeowners the opportunity to keep track of who is coming on to their property and could be used to aid the police in investigating any breaches.
I am on the house corporation board for my college sorority chapter and having surveillance cameras are a must to keep our collegiate members safe. The footage goes directly to the house director's phone/computer and she can keep tabs on who is coming onto the property.
As to the Sussexes' continued lawsuits against the Home Office/Metropolitan Police and Prince Harry's offer to pay for armed Met Police while in the UK on private business, I do believe that their ultimate aim is to achieve the 24/7 security status that they had prior to their departure from the UK and senior royal duties.
Thank you for the information. :wink: As for the Sussex's, somehow I think there is more to this then just wanting the police to protect them when they visit the UK, and even if they do visit which is highly unlikely for they are no longer working members of the royal family, just who and what events would they be at?
I really believe Harry is just a very angry man who did not get his own way when he left the family, (he did not nor did Meghan think or realize that the Firm would take away things they were used to in the beginning like the Bank of Dad, security)I strongly believe they still want the half in and half out deal that they tried to get when leaving, that would give them *everything* they want without the Firm or BP telling them what to do or not do. I think that is their main goal in life right now and Harry is fighting mad to do whatever to get that, even blackmailing the family with his book or Meghan's book or Omid's book, all those books to me appear to be threats to the royal family.
This is not working for them so they are doing everything and anything to get what they want.....pushing all the buttons of the Family/Firm.....and to think they could care less about the family, look at how they did that Oprah interview while Harry's grandfather lay dying in a hospital, to me that was cruel and hateful and mean spirited as they put themselves first instead of his grandfather, that showed me Harry had NO feelings of compassion, love or respect for his grandfather or grandmother and neither did Meghan, it all had to be about what the Sussex's want and that is one of many situations that they have created on their own to get what they want.....and the thing is even if they had everything they want from the royal family, they still would not be happy or content with life....it always has to be about the Sussex's period as they have shown us. Security be damned as that is an excuse to me as to why they are so angry at the royal family and the world.
Harry all his life before Meghan has the Family/Firm and everyone cleaning up after him in whatever he wanted or did.......EVERYTHING was about Harry's wants and needs when he wanted it.......and gosh, he quite the Family/Firm and a bombshell hit him, all his cleaning up left and all the perks gone......a very big *awakening* happened and he finds now he has to take care of himself and clean up after himself.....so that makes him a very angry man today....security is a very small part of his anger and just one of many things he is furious at the family for, so he writes a book to threaten them into giving him whatever he wants.
What book has Meghan written that criticises the RF? Link to it please, because I have never seen it.
Harry has said nothing about the RF for months. The Oprah interview is receding into the past. And the Sussexes had nothing to do with when the interview was scheduled to be shown. The Queen knew it and the Palace knew it. Harry would have been told not to attend Philip?s funeral if that had not been so.
This lawsuit is aimed directly at the consultative Committee which decides such things as royal security and is packed with Home Office officials (civil servants) and some senior courtiers. No royal sits on it, so how Harry?s lawsuit is aimed at the Queen or BRF I don?t know. Even the tabloids aren?t reporting on the court proceedings regularly at the moment.
As for Harry ?always having to be cleaned up? after anything by Court officials that certainly wasn?t so in his teens and early twenties. If ever William drank heavily at the Rattlebones Inn near Highgrove or anywhere else (and drugs were on the premises) the Palace would direct the media to the fact that his brother was there too. The media often would refer to Harry as the ?playboy Prince? when he and Chelsy were in London clubs and drank too much, regardless of the fact that William and Kate were often in the same clubs drinking heavily as well. It?s just that the media ignored them.
And what ?cleaning up? did the Palace have to do for Harry when he was twice in Afghanistan, having been refused service in Iraq? I have his schedule in bios and he came under fire on his first tour of service there at a remote hill fort at least twice.
First, this is *not about William* only Harry. And yes Meghan has not written a book, so far, yet time will tell. Harry and Omid books are being written about the royal all the members of the royal family.....just how many books will it take for the honest truth to come out, the royal family is what....evil, racist, murders, robbers, etc and hate the pubic......just how many more LIES does Harry or Omid or any one of Harry's family in Ca need to write about?
Harry has always had someone clean up after him all his life until he left his life in the royal family..Just because he is quiet NOW does not mean a darn thing, and the Oprah will never go away or fade into the blue skies of beyond....it is out there on the internet forever and will be part of the history of Harry and the royal family forever so we can't spin it away either. And yes, it was damn despicable, cruel and hateful what both of them did while Philip was dying and that effected HM his grandmother no less and that will NEVER fade away either. The royal family would no more tell Harry not to come to Philip's funeral because they are not that cruel or hateful like Harry and Meghan are, they rose above the horror that the Sussex's created. They endured and showed the world that they can and are gracious to Harry even when he did not deserve it in my opinion.
Harry's past has shown someone always cleans up after him .........*always* and the subject is the way he and Meghan left the family/firm and what has been going on since. He and Meghan created this hell they are in, so if they are sooooooooo darn happy in Ca and love it and all the sunshine and polo ponies and picnics whatever, stay there, be happy, be quiet and leave the royal family to do it's own thing while they do their own thing......and drop the titles, and stop trying to use the titles to keep your so called importance alive as if you are still important to the royal family for they have shown you are NOT important to them anymore as that is their own doing.
They did not get the *half in and half out* that they wanted and they really thought the family/firm would go for it...that shows how little they think of the family/firm. Everyone I have talked to about this says that is the main issue with Harry, wanting what Harry wants when Harry wants it.....half in and half out......they *Betrayed* the family/firm, no one else but them. Trust is the most important word in the English language and that they will never have again with the family/firm and that I will take to the bank. They broke that TRUST, *trust is gained in drops and lost in buckets never to be gained back* as a friend said to me.
Harry's book will keep the flames of distrust and drama alive as will any book by anyone associated with him.......that shows me and the world they still want to be part of the royal family which they do not deserve to be part of.
Harry knows all the perks that come with official government protection. I took the time to read the very long official document for diplomatics worldwide that are officially protected by government or tax funded police signed by ALL the countries in agreement at the United Nations.
IF Harry loses, then he will STILL have to pay for security, which is costing him approx USD10M. He very likely has a plan B to push buttons to manipulate his burnt bridges with the BRF.
IF Harry wins partially for the UK only he will only get a tiny drop of the (extra) perks that come with having it. Similar to their Jubilee appearance. This is what IMO will happen with the pressure of probably the court establishing he will have to stay within Windsor estate where security is already in place.
IF harry wins 100% = International Protected Person as he thought when Exit happened then he disappeared it in 24 hours from their defunct website, he then will receive ALL the UN resolution perks.
Basically the perks is really having power, I mean it. The power is so huge, diplomatics or their entourage as witness can easily find loopholes to abuse it against individuals, organizations. BUT if caught abusing it, the downfall is equally powerful. It's all in the UN security document.
Quote from: wannable on August 11, 2022, 01:59:25 PM
Harry knows all the perks that come with official government protection. I took the time to read the very long official document for diplomatics worldwide that are officially protected by government or tax funded police signed by ALL the countries in agreement at the United Nations.
IF Harry loses, then he will STILL have to pay for security, which is costing him approx USD10M. He very likely has a plan B to push buttons to manipulate his burnt bridges with the BRF.
IF Harry wins partially for the UK only he will only get a tiny drop of the (extra) perks that come with having it. Similar to their Jubilee appearance. This is what IMO will happen with the pressure of probably the court establishing he will have to stay within Windsor estate where security is already in place.
IF harry wins 100% = International Protected Person as he thought when Exit happened then he disappeared it in 24 hours from their defunct website, he then will receive ALL the UN resolution perks.
Basically the perks is really having power, I mean it. The power is so huge, diplomatics or their entourage as witness can easily find loopholes to abuse it against individuals, organizations. BUT if caught abusing it, the downfall is equally powerful. It's all in the UN security document.
I?m agreed with you
Harry must pay for security and mores because Harry is no longer HRH but Harry definitely insult his own family for no reason include his father and his grandmother the Queen Elizabeth II as moderator for Sussex he must pay security on his own not Royal family and include his father and grandmother the Queen Elizabeth II
Last June Harry try to seat with Senior Royals but Queen Elizabeth II told Harry NO!! Not on his grandmother the Queen Elizabeth II?s big day but Harry seat with his cousins permanent
If Harry and Meghan wins UK security protection he must pay security for visit UK see family and include his grandmother the Queen Elizabeth II
Quote from: Nightowl on August 11, 2022, 02:47:10 AM
First, this is *not about William* only Harry. And yes Meghan has not written a book, so far, yet time will tell. Harry and Omid books are being written about the royal all the members of the royal family.....just how many books will it take for the honest truth to come out, the royal family is what....evil, racist, murders, robbers, etc and hate the pubic......just how many more LIES does Harry or Omid or any one of Harry's family in Ca need to write about?
Harry has always had someone clean up after him all his life until he left his life in the royal family..Just because he is quiet NOW does not mean a darn thing, and the Oprah will never go away or fade into the blue skies of beyond....it is out there on the internet forever and will be part of the history of Harry and the royal family forever so we can't spin it away either. And yes, it was damn despicable, cruel and hateful what both of them did while Philip was dying and that effected HM his grandmother no less and that will NEVER fade away either. The royal family would no more tell Harry not to come to Philip's funeral because they are not that cruel or hateful like Harry and Meghan are, they rose above the horror that the Sussex's created. They endured and showed the world that they can and are gracious to Harry even when he did not deserve it in my opinion.
Harry's past has shown someone always cleans up after him .........*always* and the subject is the way he and Meghan left the family/firm and what has been going on since. He and Meghan created this hell they are in, so if they are sooooooooo darn happy in Ca and love it and all the sunshine and polo ponies and picnics whatever, stay there, be happy, be quiet and leave the royal family to do it's own thing while they do their own thing......and drop the titles, and stop trying to use the titles to keep your so called importance alive as if you are still important to the royal family for they have shown you are NOT important to them anymore as that is their own doing.
They did not get the *half in and half out* that they wanted and they really thought the family/firm would go for it...that shows how little they think of the family/firm. Everyone I have talked to about this says that is the main issue with Harry, wanting what Harry wants when Harry wants it.....half in and half out......they *Betrayed* the family/firm, no one else but them. Trust is the most important word in the English language and that they will never have again with the family/firm and that I will take to the bank. They broke that TRUST, *trust is gained in drops and lost in buckets never to be gained back* as a friend said to me.
Harry's book will keep the flames of distrust and drama alive as will any book by anyone associated with him.......that shows me and the world they still want to be part of the royal family which they do not deserve to be part of.
Yes
If Harry?s book got bombshell and his family will not forgive not since Oprah and NBC bombshell interview as moderator for Sussex need seriously carefully who wrote book i know Harry wrote book and embarrassed his own family and his grandmother the Queen Elizabeth II I can?t wait for Harry?s book in shelf
I understand Meghan have her a-list friends in the circles and also her mom lived in California but Royals family wouldn?t approved for Meghan have A-list friends
THE LAST DESPERATE STAND
Omid Scobie
@scobie
The safety of others should never be up for debate. The Duke of Sussex and Home Office may not see eye to eye, but there?s only one acceptable solution to this fight: reinstate Harry?s security at his own expense?before it?s too late.
Harry and Meghan need security before it's too late
Omid Scobie, Yahoo UK's Royal Executive Editor, says Harry, Meghan and their two children need their UK security reinstated before it's too late.
There is always a first, Omid is being bombarded with heavy critical tweets and reaching the hundreds, unseen before. :therethere: and from Americans! telling him to ask the couple to request USA law enforcement at Harry's own expense so he can see how fast he will be dismissed.
Quote from: wannable on August 11, 2022, 09:27:35 PM
THE LAST DESPERATE STAND
Omid Scobie
@scobie
The safety of others should never be up for debate. The Duke of Sussex and Home Office may not see eye to eye, but there?s only one acceptable solution to this fight: reinstate Harry?s security at his own expense?before it?s too late.
Harry and Meghan need security before it's too late
Omid Scobie, Yahoo UK's Royal Executive Editor, says Harry, Meghan and their two children need their UK security reinstated before it's too late.
Unbelievable Omid
If Harry will pay their security for trips to UK not from his father or grandmother the Queen Elizabeth II
Quote from: wannable on August 11, 2022, 10:05:46 PM
There is always a first, Omid is being bombarded with heavy critical tweets and reaching the hundreds, unseen before. :therethere: and from Americans! telling him to ask the couple to request USA law enforcement at Harry's own expense so he can see how fast he will be dismissed.
Yes
Just another way of manipulating the royal family into giving Harry and Meghan what they want!
That is an ugly scare tactic by Harry, Meghan and Omid to create drama, hell and fear in some of the royal family....It is HM that is the concern I bet in the royal family.
How in the hell Harry can't see what he is doing to his grandmother.....I so miss my grandmothers with a passion. I just don't him, someone please explain to me what he is thinking these days..... :ugh: :ugh:
Quote from: Nightowl on August 12, 2022, 03:44:46 AM
Just another way of manipulating the royal family into giving Harry and Meghan what they want!
That is an ugly scare tactic by Harry, Meghan and Omid to create drama, hell and fear in some of the royal family....It is HM that is the concern I bet in the royal family.
How in the hell Harry can't see what he is doing to his grandmother.....I so miss my grandmothers with a passion. I just don't him, someone please explain to me what he is thinking these days..... :ugh: :ugh:
I?m agreed with you
Harry and Meghan definitely dramatic what both wanted but his family and William?s pals says but Harry cross the line according express and mirror says
Prince Harry and Meghan 'crossed line' when 'slagging' off Kate so rift with William 'will not be solved' - MyLondon (https://www.mylondon.news/news/celebs/prince-harry-meghan-crossed-line-20515330)
William's pal says Harry has 'crossed a line' and been 'sucked into alien world' - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/williams-pal-says-harry-crossed-27266875)
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Didn't Publicly Cross Paths with Senior Royals (https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-prince-harry-do-not-publicly-cross-paths-senior-royals-platinum-jubilee/)
Meghan Markle had Prince Harry cross line he swore to never cross | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1142934/Meghan-Markle-news-Prince-Harry-Royal-Family-Duke-Duchess-of-Sussex-news-latest)
Quote from: sara8150 on August 12, 2022, 04:03:19 AM
I?m agreed with you
Harry and Meghan definitely dramatic what both wanted but his family and William?s pals says but Harry cross the line according express and mirror says
Prince Harry and Meghan 'crossed line' when 'slagging' off Kate so rift with William 'will not be solved' - MyLondon (https://www.mylondon.news/news/celebs/prince-harry-meghan-crossed-line-20515330)
William's pal says Harry has 'crossed a line' and been 'sucked into alien world' - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/williams-pal-says-harry-crossed-27266875)
?According to what the Mirror and the Express says? ? Well of course London tabloids always speak the truth! Especially when reporting what Angela Levin who has loathed Meghan from the start. Plus, Why are all these elderly articles from tabloids going back to 2019 being brought here today for, btw?
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Didn't Publicly Cross Paths with Senior Royals (https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-prince-harry-do-not-publicly-cross-paths-senior-royals-platinum-jubilee/)
Meghan Markle had Prince Harry cross line he swore to never cross | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1142934/Meghan-Markle-news-Prince-Harry-Royal-Family-Duke-Duchess-of-Sussex-news-latest)
Quote from: Nightowl on August 12, 2022, 03:44:46 AM
Just another way of manipulating the royal family into giving Harry and Meghan what they want!
That is an ugly scare tactic by Harry, Meghan and Omid to create drama, hell and fear in some of the royal family....It is HM that is the concern I bet in the royal family.
How in the hell Harry can't see what he is doing to his grandmother.....I so miss my grandmothers with a passion. I just don't him, someone please explain to me what he is thinking these days..... :ugh: :ugh:
Yup, as I said in my first two comments in the recent discussion in this thread, create a brouhaha to manipulate his family and the second comment with the 3 options Harry has. The manipulating (basically victimhood stance they've taken since Exit) is very scary, con artist textbook.
Yes it is very scary and I think the royal family should just shut the darn door on them and let them sink or swim on their own......no more contact is really necessary now is it? How can anyone trust them? How can you talk to them without fear it would be reported to some media reporter or news outfit? You just can not trust them ever again and that is ON the SUSSEX's only. I had to do that to someone in my family whom I loved and the hell that was created was devastating till that person ended up dead because of what they did to hurt so many people that bent over backwards to help.....now as time passes I still have no guilt in how I handled the situation as my mental health was at stake and I needed help. Sometimes a person just has to shut doors and windows and all things to let the other person find their own way in life and pray for the best.....the royal family needs to do that with the Sussex's for if they don't, their mental health will suffer and they can not afford to let anyone who betrays the family back in. The Family/Firm needs to be very strong minded these days for their own sake and the job that they do for the country.
Letting go is very tough yet it can be done......
Right, when someone tells you ''Before it's too late''...
How does it affect you; threat, scary, guilt manipulated action reaction, there is so many 'feelings' with it. The thing about the couple is they've lied so much in the past to date, manipulated people for their own gain without a care the person (S) they USED ended up fired, forced resignation, look like losers, put a group in a bad light with the public...the real victims. (The Tom Bower book describes all of these situations with sources, footnotes, one needs to make long pauses from the book because easily one feels sick, queasy)
Lastly, Omid and Meghan lied to a court of law, the penalty Duchess Meghan of Sussex will receive the nominal sum of 1 pound after a court found that the Mail on Sunday invaded her privacy. That was the punishment in lieu of lying rather than 150 days of jail or community service. Basically the court saved this pair. With that in mind, how do I feel when Omid says ''Before it's too late''. Lot's of DOUBT. I mean wolf wolf, this time it MIGHT be true, only the home office knows, in which case we will get to know by the 15th August or near that date.
My point is whatever one feels about ''Before it's too late''...none of the feelings are good, they are all bad! There's a book of before it's too late in reference to educating children, the psychology of it is making parents paranoid, transfer that to adults, well, the result is the same.
Quote from: wannable on August 12, 2022, 06:33:03 PM
Right, when someone tells you ''Before it's too late''...
Lastly, Omid and Meghan lied to a court of law, the penalty Duchess Meghan of Sussex will receive the nominal sum of 1 pound after a court found that the Mail on Sunday invaded her privacy. That was the punishment in lieu of lying rather than 150 days of jail or community service. Basically the court saved this pair. With that in mind, how do I feel when Omid says ''Before it's too late''. Lot's of DOUBT. I mean wolf wolf, this time it MIGHT be true, only the home office knows, in which case we will get to know by the 15th August or near that date.
Please stop inferring that Meghan lost either part of the case against the Mail on Sunday. She was in fact awarded an apology and ?substantial damages? for the copyright infringement. As it was a civil case there would have been no punishment under British law had she lost the invasion of privacy part, certainly not jail. However she WON her privacy case against the Fail as well.
Duchess of Sussex: Meghan gets ?1 damages over Mail On Sunday privacy case after paper disclosed letter to father | UK News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/duchess-of-sussex-meghan-gets-1-damages-over-mail-on-sunday-privacy-case-after-paper-disclosed-letter-to-father-12509755)
From this article (not a publication that is pro-Meghan at all, quite the contrary.)
?The nominal ?1 damages are for misuse of private information, and Meghan's spokesperson said the undisclosed copyright damages were "substantial" and would go to charity.
Nominal damages are a symbolic and usually small sum awarded when legal rights have been violated, but there is no substantial loss or injury.?
Get that? ?Misuse of private information?, and ?when legal rights have been violated but there is no substantial loss or injury?. In other words Meghan won BOTH sections of her case and there was no penalty to her whatsoever.
In fact the Fail had to sheepishly agree to put the judgement on their front page. Scobie didn?t come into the judgement phase at all.
In fact, both Harry and Meghan have won court cases against tabloids in the past year or so, Harry?s latest win was after a tabloid printed lies about him and the Royal Marines. I suppose this couple should just lie down and take it all according to some. Well not me. If newspapers printed lie after lie about me I would sue, and win.
Prince Harry Wins Substantial Damages False Reports Military (https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-wins-substantial-damages-over-false-reports-he-turned-his-back-on-the-military/)
Harry wins ?substantial damages? over false reports he turned his back on the military.
A remote hearing at the High Court in London on Monday heard that Associated Newspapers accepted the claims made in two "almost identical" articles published in October 2020 were "false."
And why is Prince Andrew still receiving police protection, at a cost to the tax payer of 400,000 pounds a year? The Home Office decided to withdraw it after he left royal duties but apparently the Queen asked for a review of their decision, so it remains. He?s not paying for his protection, unlike Harry who has made it clear that he intends to pay for his family?s security.
Dr Shola RAGES at Royal Family as Andrew keeping security while Harry goes without | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1654555/dr-shola-rages-at-royal-family-as-prince-andrew-keeping-security-while-prince-harry-goes-w)
Newsweek article on the Andrew RPO decision, by the same Committee that withdrew Harry?s security.
Andrew To Keep Security After Review by Committee Central to Harry Lawsuit (https://www.newsweek.com/prince-andrew-security-review-committee-harry-lawsuit-1733112)
?Despite having to step down from all public facing royal roles including his military patronages in the wake of a sexual assault lawsuit lodged by Jeffrey Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre in 2021, Andrew will still receive taxpayer-funded protection at an estimated cost of between ?500,000 to ?3 million per annum, Britain's The Daily Telegraph reports.?
Hence I think option 2 from my comment is most likely to happen. Living at Windsor estate, threat assessment from nutcases that are at odds with Harry and Meghan shenanigans.
Option 3 IPP is too difficult
The court will not set a precedent in cops for sale, rent.
Andrew gets protection whenever he leaves his home. Whether on golf courses or visiting friends or wherever. It isn?t just on the Windsor estate. For instance we know that he travels up to Balmoral every summer. The route between Windsor and Balmoral isn?t royal property, Andrew has to traverse it whether by car and/or plane. The rules for Andrew obviously don?t define the Windsor estate as the boundary limits for RPOs.
Yes and lives in the UK not in the USA. His RPO don?t need ✈️ flights
Harry just 1 month Canadian mounted police was CAD 182K not counting the 2UK RPO that took flights every 2 weeks, freedom acts from Dec to March was GBP 1m?see what I mean.
Windsor estate and UK security. If what I think will happen, the other royals will also be reinstated.
Quote from: wannable on August 13, 2022, 01:20:57 AM
Yes and lives in the UK not in the USA. His RPO don?t need ✈️ flights
Harry is arguing about the safety of himself and family within the UK.
So apparently it?s fine and dandy with you that the Committee made the decision that Andrew can have full protection everywhere he goes then, costing the taxpayer millions over the years. Well, let?s hope he never travels on holidays to foreign lands every again in his lifetime then. As RPOs do accompany their royals on their vacations. And they?ve already been on flights to Scotland (another country) with Andrew.
I just added what Harry cost in 4 months in my previous comment.
Anyway I doubt Meghan wants to live in the UK.
?Prince Harry can take the British government to court over his security arrangements IN THE UK, a judge in London ruled Friday.
Harry and his wife Meghan lost publicly funded UK police protection when they stepped down as senior working royals and moved to North America in 2020.
The Duke of Sussex wants to pay personally for police security WHEN He Comes to BRITAIN, and is challenging the government's refusal to permit it.?
That is what I?ve highlighted from this news report and that is what the latest legal battle is about.
And Meghan and the children may well come on visits, accompanying Harry.
IMO his payment will be dismissed.
Quote from: wannable on August 13, 2022, 01:43:30 AM
IMO his payment will be dismissed.
Whose payment? Harry hasn?t been paid anything. Are you talking about his legal case?
Paying the police
Quote from: wannable on August 13, 2022, 01:53:17 AM
Paying the police
Well, we will see at the end of this case. And as Andrew will continue to get security protection then that anomaly will stick out like a sore thumb for as long as he continues to receive it. It will be highlighted in the British media.
And what does this mean from your August 11th posting on this thread. (I missed it before.)
?IF Harry wins partially for the UK only he will only get a tiny drop of the (extra) perks that come with having it. Similar to their Jubilee appearance. This is what IMO will happen with the pressure of probably the court establishing he will have to stay within Windsor estate where security is already in place.
IF harry wins 100% = International Protected Person as he thought when Exit happened??
It appears from this post that you thought that Harry wishes for his IPP back. In fact, as I have pointed out, Harry?s legal case against the Committee and the Home Office, is for the UK alone and the IPP thing doesn?t enter into it.
And a court deciding that Harry (and family) can only get security if they stay on the grounds of the Windsor estate. I hardly think any court would order anything of that kind. And the Committee and Home Office certainly wouldn?t. Not with Andrew being able to travel to golf courses, see friends in London, go up to Scotland with impunity, lol!
Prince Andrew to KEEP bodyguards after review of his security detail post Jeffrey Epstein scandal | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11103949/Prince-Andrew-bodyguards-review-security-post-Jeffrey-Epstein-scandal.html)
Andrew?s security is estimated to cost the public purse between ?2million and ?3million annually. (that?s pounds.)
He had 2 cases, the granted hearing for security and he filed the new case of paying.
He does not live in the UK, by next week allegedly both cases will be decided. Experts say if he wins the security in the UK he will open and push for IPP. He already opened a new case, he is prone to push in every direction related.
Quote from: wannable on August 13, 2022, 03:59:09 AM
He had 2 cases, the granted hearing for security and he filed the new case of paying.
He does not live in the UK, by next week allegedly both cases will be decided. Experts say if he wins the security in the UK he will open and push for IPP. He already opened a new case, he is prone to push in every direction related.
Yes if Duke of Sussex wins and he will pay security for trips to UK not from his father and grandmother the Queen Elizabeth II period
I believe regardless of winning or losing that Harry and Meghan will push every button they can think of and then some against the royal family just because they did not get their own way in the beginning......Harry does not get it at all, just because he was *born* a royal prince does not mean he can have what ever he wants in life when he wants it.....there are lots of born princes out there that have to work for a living and just how much work has Harry done since leaving the royal family......40 hours weeks of work are not something he is used to in life, is it? He needs to dig some trenches, pick up garbage in parks, clean toilets in gov buildings for a week of work, 40 hours doing that might shake up him a bit....LOL
I doubt that any member of any royal family anywhere in the world undertakes 40 hour working weeks on a consistent basis as ordinary people do. As for picking up garbage and digging trenches, yes Harry has done that, there were stories of him doing so in Nepal and other places. And there would be very few courtiers, if any, let alone royals or family of royals, who have cleaned toilets in government buildings on a regular basis. Do Andrew, Zara, Peter P, Beatrice, Eugenie, Edward, Sophie, Louise? I would bet not. People born into elite families rarely do. However, Harry has done manual labour and it?s documented.
Yes, Harry has way back when he was young, dumb and foolish, yet now he is making horrific decisions for his life and family as he gets older and I bet today he would not dig trenches nor pick up garbage nor clean toilets...that is for those that he looks down on it seems like.
I always expect fans of the Sussex's to come to their rescue when I say something they don't like here or on other sites......and I stand with the fact that they are showing the world just who they are and are not......lying does not become anyone even a royal prince and his commoner bride (and yes Meghan was born a commoner and nothing wrong with that as it is just a fact).
And I would bet hundreds of thousands of very wealthy people, commoners and otherwise, don?t dig trenches, pick up garbage or clean government toilets. Yet they don?t get constantly blasted for it. Harry and Meghan are living with their family in California, not costing the British taxpayer or anybody else, a penny, unlike Uncle Andrew, and are leading private lives. They?re hardly heard of from one week to the next. So why the demand for them to be picking up garbage etc?
And how do you know the Sussexes don?t clean their own toilets, look after their children themselves, cook their family food, garden in their own surrounds, and why should it bother you so much? There have been reports here about the Sussexes on other threads of charitable donations given, of Invictus and charity polo matches and conferences and meetings attended both via Skype and in person. Look it up!
It?s OK for Andrew to cost his mother and the Home Office a fortune in security and living expenses apparently, and not be expected to dig trenches and clean toilets. Yet he and his wife have brought an enormous amount of shame onto the BRF with corrupt activities and everything else. However, that is fine it seems.
Quote from: Nightowl on August 14, 2022, 06:51:57 AM
I believe regardless of winning or losing that Harry and Meghan will push every button they can think of and then some against the royal family just because they did not get their own way in the beginning......Harry does not get it at all, just because he was *born* a royal prince does not mean he can have what ever he wants in life when he wants it.....there are lots of born princes out there that have to work for a living and just how much work has Harry done since leaving the royal family......40 hours weeks of work are not something he is used to in life, is it? He needs to dig some trenches, pick up garbage in parks, clean toilets in gov buildings for a week of work, 40 hours doing that might shake up him a bit....LOL
It is a problem. The court document has to be fully detailed, precisely because the couple will comb it to find loopholes to push a new button. The senior royals pattern is to navigate from royal crown or private property apart from work. The work op is more complicated with roads to take, sweeping the location, crowd barriers etc.
Will Harry comply with this secured royal properties or will he want the celebrity hangouts where the police and RPOs are more operationally costly. A rebel is a rebel is a rebel.
An example is the change of pattern with the Cambridge family holidays, cost related image cost related security. From mustique to duchy owned scilly isles. It is pr image and security perfect.
What kind of stay in the UK will Harry want. Details with the Sussexes is very important.
Really? Is Jordan part of the BRF properties?
Inside the Cambridges? Jordan holiday ? where Prince William?s touching new Father?s Day photo was taken | Tatler (https://www.tatler.com/article/duke-and-duchess-of-cambridge-jordan-holiday-family-christmas-card)
In reality, though Mustique is finished for the moment (Covid?) the Cambridges have often been overseas, and taken their RPOs with them of course. France, skiing etc etc.
Inside Prince William and Kate Middleton's Family Ski Trip (https://www.elle.com/culture/celebrities/a39803476/prince-william-kate-middleton-family-ski-trip/)
Jordan Royal Family is very good friends with the British Royal Family.. Hotels were scored by paparazzi and journos to no avail! :hearts: Yes, the Cambridges have changed their patterns very much. I do know that for example a perfect secured location in France is where James and Alizee married. These type of properties that are friends with the British Royals is security wise highly regarded and a relief to any police force. The owners of both ski and where James married is British aristos.
With Andrew's Epstein case, the RPO's book of eventualities was detailed in court. The pattern of his movements, his usual hangouts, including police recommendations, was it taken or not by the subject, etc.
The Sussexes changed by the hour/day during the Queen's Jubilee. They were listed to attend ALL the events, they made last minute changes which affects police escort, etc. Luckily the change was take me back to Frogmore, located in a secured crown estate.
I can in favor factor in that the Sussexes are a family now, but their last minute moves surely will keep (if they win) security on their (extra and likely unnecesary) toes. Then also the rumors of sending RPO's to do messenger jobs (Canada and Frogmore whilst she was pregnant with Archie and had cravings).
The downside of being VIP and having security write all the movements and whatever security discusses with the subject is jotted down to a T, date/time/location, etc.
But you were saying that the Cambridges only holiday on Crown property like the Scilly Isles because it?s such good PR and so cheap and traditional. Jordan is overseas, the family wouldn?t have stinted themselves, the nanny went with them and so did the RPOs. I didn?t say anything about hotels.
And what are we to make of the other trip overseas to Courchevel? They weren?t staying with the ?French royal family? there, but in a luxury ski resort, complete with skiing lessons for the kids and RPOs. That?s very far from Balmoral and the Scillies. The truth is that the Cambridges do holiday abroad, stay in excellent hotels and don?t stint themselves ever. They are like all the others bar the Queen. Even the Wessexes go to Switzerland and other overseas jaunts. So don?t let?s go down that road of pretending that the Cambridges just love cheap summer holidays within Britain.
They've been going to their UK beach holiday in the past 3 years. They could have gone this year to Mustique and did not. Mustique is a private island, the Caribbean has been open since January.
Quote
The vacation took place in a chalet owned by a family friend valued at $5 million.
Unquote
The detailing of whatever the court decides is a must according to expert lawyers. Complying to security recommendations has to be detailed.
Yes, and went overseas, including also going to Jordan and to France in the last year. And just because a property is owned by a family friend that doesn?t mean the Cambridges got it for free. They played that game in Mustique. The destinations have changed but the overseas holidays haven?t. And The Scilly Isles holidays were PR add-ons.
And these expert lawyers you keep quoting (links?) have always seemed to be saying the Sussexes are going to lose their court cases in the past year. And they haven?t.
The ongoing drama of the Sussexes makes the 'reactions' of whatever and whoever the couple involve in to be detailed and precise.
The Cambridges do not act this way.
The Cambridges are financially beholden to the UK taxpayer and the Duchy of Cornwall for their lifestyle. They have to be kept in place.
More reason why Harry shouldn't have sued the home office. Hire your own private security company rather than making yourself look like a fool to the world with these fights. He doesn't work for the Monarchy since 2 years ago.
Well, he is suing them, and the Committee. In the meantime perhaps the Home Office would care to explain why Andrew still gets 24/7 security when he is a non working royal. It?s making them look like fools. He?s at Balmoral, still being looked after by mummy and the HO.
Prince Andrew joins Queen Elizabeth at Balmoral (https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/981974-prince-andrew-joins-queen-elizabeth-at-balmoral)
He lives in the UK. He lives in Windsor Estate, his pattern of movements are booked, no surprises of last minute changes. A last minute change is deemed an emergency outside situation rather than a personal meltdown. He has security = RAVEC has evidence of real threat.
Harry doesn't want the options set forth by the BRF when he travels to the UK. He wants his own RPO's and that comes too with no imposition of where I will stay. It is very clear. Rejected Clarence House with Charles RPO's. Went to the Jubilee and accepted the impositon of the Queen's RPO's. Yet still is suing because he wants his own. The detailing of the court hast to establish FIRM PLANS of when they come rather than treat every trip as an ''emergency'' due to mood swings of booing and skipping everything else listed, arrive 15 minutes late, to take a cost effective coach/bus with other royals, bus had police escort and RPO's in the bus and during ALL the events. Harry wants his own escort team.
My understanding is security is provided based on threat assessment. If Harry was truly in the danger he thinks he is, the security would be provided. The Home Office, which has access to all the intelligence, clearly doesn't think Harry's life is in danger.
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on August 14, 2022, 02:00:22 PM
My understanding is security is provided based on threat assessment. If Harry was truly in the danger he thinks he is, the security would be provided. The Home Office, which has access to all the intelligence, clearly doesn't think Harry's life is in danger.
And they think Andrew?s is? My understanding is that the HO were preparing to pull it all after he no longer performed royal duties but the Queen objected so it wasn?t done. It had nothing to do with danger according to the news report.
https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/prince-andrew-to-keep-taxpayerfunded-bodyguards-after-queens-intervention/news-story/77cefa49d25ddab1e5739d1693fb6a48
Yes, hence Omid's article that the Home Office doesn't see it as Omid sees it. Omid has contact with the Sussexes, he can deny it until death, but he has been caught lying and his mask was taken off at Court (thanks to Jason, and the reason why the sussexsquad despise him)! Omid wants security for all the royals like back in 2010. I do think Andrew needs his RPO's due to his bad behaviour related to public sentiment related to usually mentally ill people with guns. The cost when leaving Windsor estate is minimal GBP400K a year. It can reach GBP 3M a year depending on his movements. He doesn't go out much hence the min/max theory of op costs by journalists.
Harry was used to having his own escort, Meghan got a taste of it, he doesn't want to be with the minor royals, reality check nor wants to be sleeping over at Clarence House with Charles escorts, nor wants the Queen's.
IF he was Okay with the options he wouldn't have sued. He wants to land in the UK and be independent by paying public police privilege rather than a private security company. He doesn't care to fight the UK government, but he wouldn't do this type of action with the US government state or federal. Since they live in the USA, and also have the bad behaviour related to public sentiment related to usually mentally ill people with guns...they need their security in the USA rather than focusing on their once in the blue moon visit to the UK, then here comes the lawyer experts saying his end game is IPP. :laugh:
Many people see clearly through the Sussexes now a days, the few who did since the beginning have been bang on right. What relationship does this statement have to do? Everything, hence the court has to be detailed to a fine comb. If not, it is 'textbook'' being conned.
Quote from: Curryong on August 14, 2022, 01:24:08 PM
But you were saying that the Cambridges only holiday on Crown property like the Scilly Isles because it?s such good PR and so cheap and traditional. Jordan is overseas, the family wouldn?t have stinted themselves, the nanny went with them and so did the RPOs. I didn?t say anything about hotels.
And what are we to make of the other trip overseas to Courchevel? They weren?t staying with the ?French royal family? there, but in a luxury ski resort, complete with skiing lessons for the kids and RPOs. That?s very far from Balmoral and the Scillies. The truth is that the Cambridges do holiday abroad, stay in excellent hotels and don?t stint themselves ever. They are like all the others bar the Queen. Even the Wessexes go to Switzerland and other overseas jaunts. So don?t let?s go down that road of pretending that the Cambridges just love cheap summer holidays within Britain.
The *main* thing is that the Sussex's are
NOT working royals anymore and they themselves gave that up to make more money....the Cambridges, the Wessex's and so many other royals in the family actually DO the job so they are entitled to some vacation time while the Sussex's do what in Ca? I haven't seen them do much except that stunt in the Netherlands....giving a speech here and there is not much work and just what does Meghan do all day long, sure she has children as does the Cambridges and the Wessex's (their children are a bit older and can fend for themselves) yet not the Cambridge children and even with a nanny William and Catherine are hands on parents.
Work wise, say in the year 2022 so far.....compare the number of events to help other people, Harry vs William and Meghan vs Catherine.....no contest there! Seems that lifestyle in Ca is a very laid back easy going sit in the sun and drink whatever...lifestyle. While in the UK, royals in the Firm actually go out to events and promote the people and the country for the better good of the same...the people and the country as a whole. Not much coming out of Netflix or this Spotify thing that they signed on the dotted line now is there? Bet in time these will blow up in their faces as they have done next to nothing for all that money they signed up for.
Best thing anyone can do about the Sussex's is just sit back and watch the ball drop...on them! There is nobody to put the blame on for the Sussex's are doing it their way and it is showing.
Quote from: Nightowl on August 15, 2022, 02:26:44 AM
The *main* thing is that the Sussex's are NOT working royals anymore and they themselves gave that up to make more money....the Cambridges, the Wessex's and so many other royals in the family actually DO the job so they are entitled to some vacation time while the Sussex's do what in Ca? I haven't seen them do much except that stunt in the Netherlands....giving a speech here and there is not much work and just what does Meghan do all day long, sure she has children as does the Cambridges and the Wessex's (their children are a bit older and can fend for themselves) yet not the Cambridge children and even with a nanny William and Catherine are hands on parents.
Work wise, say in the year 2022 so far.....compare the number of events to help other people, Harry vs William and Meghan vs Catherine.....no contest there! Seems that lifestyle in Ca is a very laid back easy going sit in the sun and drink whatever...lifestyle. While in the UK, royals in the Firm actually go out to events and promote the people and the country for the better good of the same...the people and the country as a whole. Not much coming out of Netflix or this Spotify thing that they signed on the dotted line now is there? Bet in time these will blow up in their faces as they have done next to nothing for all that money they signed up for.
Best thing anyone can do about the Sussex's is just sit back and watch the ball drop...on them! There is nobody to put the blame on for the Sussex's are doing it their way and it is showing.
So wealthy people who aren?t royal aren?t entitled to any vacations? That would come as a laughable surprise to those who are loaded as a result of inherited wealth. No holidays for them then! And actually what I posted was an answer to Wannabie?s posts averring that the Cambridges only take holidays on Crown property like the Scillies. My post was to point out that just isn?t so.
What does it matter to you what the Sussexes do with their time? Are they costing you any money? Are they ringing you up asking for you (or anybody else who dislikes them) to help with their domestic arrangements? Anti Sussexites seem to regard it as a personal insult to them that the couple are enjoying family life in California.
And ?that stunt in the Netherlands? happened to be the Invictus Games which from the beginning has helped enormously with wounded vets mental and physical health. Even the British media praised it again this year.
As for the royals going out and about promoting the people and the country. Well, it?s pretty obvious you don?t live in the UK as for many of the population, members of the BRF are somewhere between a yawn and a joke. People just don?t care about them and their doings in the way that foreigners imagine they do. And polling has showed that more and more, especially among the young. Just wait until after the Queen?s death and see how popular Charles and Camilla are.
I hate to tell you this, but being a senior royal isn?t akin to working on a coal face or in any truly intellectual occupation. A few hours a week at most on the job for pretty well all of them. Even when Anne does multiple engagements she often bunches them up into one day a week. And for that they get accommodation help (and the Sussexes have paid off the FC expenses so let?s not go there) and in the Cambridges? case three homes once Adelaide Cottage is fixed up. Plus Daddy and Grandma?s paying their expenses.
It would be nice to see some raging on this forum from those who loathe the Sussexes about Andrew still living at the very grand Royal Lodge and still receiving 24/7 security. Over the years he and his wife have done more harm to the reputation of the BRF than the Sussexes could ever do. Corrupt money laundering money for access attempts, dodgy friendships with oligarchs and a pedophile (something Charles knows as well) freebie holidays all over Europe and a court case involving a sex trafficking victim Andrew had to pay out for. But no, Andrew gets off scot free here and at home with Mummy as well.
Why bring other people into this conversation when it is just about the Sussex's? I don't like them....they LIED and told more LIES......period! And I do not like or trust
a LAIR ever. I hit a nerve and for that I am sorry so the end of this conversation before it explodes into something neither of us want. :notamused:
They've been on a long holiday since quiting work for the Monarchy. Like 11monthsholiday/1monthwork. Their local security is lucky.
The couple lucky? only if it didn't involve trashing people.
Oh, yes a very nice long holiday. One thing it seems like that people don't see about them....they bad mouthed their family in front of the whole world and told lies after more lies and that shows the very type of people that are..is this the kind of person to represent other people or a country? I don't think so in my book.....and please this is what is happening now with them.....not a decade ago. Nobody is perfect and all the members of any royal family make mistakes and some learn and some don't. The Sussex's took it one step further by lying about HM and the royal family to the world....sure people have disagreements with family and keep it in the family not out there for every one to read and talk about.
And what really bugs me is that they did this Oprah interview while Philip was dying, this is HIS GRANDFATHER and GRANDMOTHER no less and for Meghan to lie also about them......I so cherish my grandmothers (grandfathers died early in life) and so wish I could talk to them today and hug them....is Harry so mean and hateful and lack of compassion for his own family? I have so little family left anymore and I cherish each member now more than ever....losing my sister recently has just devastated me yet I treasure each moment with her to this day......What the hell is Harry thinking when he trashes his family on national TV no less? I can say if I was a member of that royal family, he would hear from me loud and clear and no holding back either...that is the worst kind of betrayal he could do and I expected that of Meghan from the first....she sure has shown the very type of person she is and it is very ugly and nasty. Her behavior is on her only as is Harry's is on him.....no blaming HM or anyone else for their decisions ever.
I?m not sure if Cambridges will allowed to release the pictures or NO!! But will private last time William and Catherine did bring George and Charlotte to first day of school and release the pictures up to Cambridges decisions to release the pictures from Palaces you know William protect their kids from paparazzi and media not since late Diana,Princess of Wales back to 1997 but William and Harry is grownups adult both brothers is married,dad and have children of their own but William and Harry have rightful private not since his mother?s death but this not photocall before Diana?s death paparazzi and media been follow Diana anywhere include USA,UK and world get on Diana but William and Harry wouldn?t tolerate on his mom?s target get pictures William and Harry warned paparazzi and media no release pictures include children and haunted his mother?s death
The Royals & Television Media, Tabloid Press/Photographer Pack (http://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=89669.75)
See #85 and #86 on privacy of late Diana,Princess of Wales
Quote14 AUGUST 2015
Kensington Palace has today sent the attached letter to leaders of media industry bodies and standards organisations in the UK and in other international markets.
In recent months, there have been an increasing number of incidents of paparazzi harassment of Prince George. And the tactics being used are increasingly dangerous. This letter is being published now to inform the public discussion around the unauthorised photography of children. It is hoped that those who pay paparazzi photographers for their images of children will be able to better understand the distressing activity around a two-year old boy that their money is fuelling. We also feel that the readers who enjoy the publications that fuel this market for the unauthorised photos deserve to understand the tactics deployed to obtain these photos.
The vast majority of publications around the world ? and all British publications ? have refused to fuel the market for such photos. This is an important and laudable stance for which The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are hugely grateful. They have enjoyed sharing an increasing number of photos of their children and look forward to continuing to take them to more public events as they get older.
From: Jason Knauf, Communications Secretary to TRH The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and HRH Prince Henry of Wales, 14th August, 2015
I am writing to provide an overview of the current challenges facing Kensington Palace as we seek to protect Prince George and Princess Charlotte from harassment and surveillance by paparazzi photographers. I hope our experience will inform the ongoing effort to uphold standards on the protection of children in a rapidly changing media landscape.
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have expressed their gratitude to British media organisations for their policy of not publishing unauthorised photos of their children. This stance, guided not just by their wishes as parents, but by the standards and codes of the industry as it relates to all children, is to be applauded. They are pleased also that almost all reputable publications throughout the Commonwealth ? in particular Australia, Canada, and New Zealand ? and in other major media markets like the United States have adopted a similar position.
The Duke and Duchess are glad that leaders in the media industry share the view that every child, regardless of their future public role, deserves a safe, happy, and private childhood. They have been delighted to share official photographs of Prince George and Princess Charlotte in recent months to thank the public for the thousands of kind messages of support they have received. News photographers have had several recent opportunities to take photos of the family and these will be a regular occurrence as both children get older.
Despite this, paparazzi photographers are going to increasingly extreme lengths to observe and monitor Prince George's movements and covertly capture images of him to sell to the handful of international media titles still willing to pay for them. One recent incident ? just last week ? was disturbing, but not at all uncommon. A photographer rented a car and parked in a discreet location outside a children's play area. Already concealed by darkened windows, he took the added step of hanging sheets inside the vehicle and created a hide stocked with food and drinks to get him through a full day of surveillance, waiting in hope to capture images of Prince George. Police discovered him lying down in the boot of the vehicle attempting to shoot photos with a long lens through a small gap in his hide.
It is of course upsetting that such tactics ? reminiscent as they are of past surveillance by groups intent on doing more than capturing images ? are being deployed to profit from the image of a two-year old boy. In a heightened security
environment such tactics are a risk to all involved. The worry is that it will not always be possible to quickly distinguish between someone taking photos and someone intending to do more immediate harm.
This incident was not an isolated one. In recent months photographers have:
? on multiple occasions used long range lenses to capture images of The Duchess playing with Prince George in a number of private parks;
? monitored the movements of Prince George and his nanny around London parks and monitored the movements of other household staff;
? photographed the children of private individuals visiting The Duke and Duchess's home;
? pursued cars leaving family homes;
? used other children to draw Prince George into view around playgrounds;
? been found hiding on private property in fields and woodland locations around The Duke and Duchess's home in Norfolk;
? obscured themselves in sand dunes on a rural beach to take photos of Prince George playing with his grandmother;
? placed locations near the Middleton family home in Berkshire under steady surveillance
It is clear that while paparazzi are always keen to capture images of any senior member of The Royal Family, Prince George is currently their number one target. We have made the decision to discuss these issues now as the incidents are becoming more frequent and the tactics more alarming. A line has been crossed and any further escalation in tactics would represent a very real security risk.
All of this has left The Duke and Duchess concerned about their ability to provide a childhood for Prince George and Princess Charlotte that is free from harassment and surveillance. They know that almost all parents love to share photos of their children and they themselves enjoy doing so. But they know every parent would object to anyone ? particularly strangers ? taking photos of their children without their permission. Every parent would understand their deep unease at only learning they had been followed and watched days later when photographs emerged.
The Duke and Duchess are of course very fortunate to have private homes where photographers cannot capture images of their children. But they feel strongly that both Prince George and Princess Charlotte should not grow up exclusively behind palace gates and in walled gardens. They want both children to be free to play in public and semi-public spaces with other children without being photographed. In addition, the privacy of those other children and their families must also be preserved.
Rest assured that we continue to take legal steps to manage these incidents as they occur. But we are aware that many people who read and enjoy the publications that fuel the market for unauthorised photos of children do not know about the unacceptable circumstances behind what are often lovely images. The use of these photos is usually dressed up with fun, positive language about the 'cute', 'adorable' photos and happy write ups about the family. We feel readers deserve to understand the tactics deployed to obtain these pictures.
We hope a public discussion of these issues will help all publishers of unauthorised photos of children to understand the power they hold to starve this disturbing activity of funding. I would welcome constructive conversations with any publisher or editor on these topics. And I would ask for your help as we work to encourage the highest standards on the protection of children in every corner of the media. The Duke and Duchess are determined to keep the issues around a small number of paparazzi photographers distinct and separate from the positive work of most newspapers, magazines, broadcasters, and web publishers around the world.
The text from this letter, which has been sent to a number of people in leadership positions, will be placed in the public domain to raise awareness of the issues discussed.
Jason Knauf,
Communications Secretary, Kensington Palace
From seven years ago in 2015 not happened since late Diana,Princess of Wales back in 1997 but when William and Harry have rightful privacy no release the pictures of Cambridges and Sussex kids also without permission or consent from Cambridges and Sussex or authority Without permission from Kensington palace,Buckingham Palace and Clarence House to release the pictures
Quote from: sara8150 on August 16, 2022, 08:34:51 PM
I?m not sure if Cambridges will allowed to release the pictures or NO!! But will private last time William and Catherine did bring George and Charlotte to first day of school and release the pictures up to Cambridges decisions to release the pictures from Palaces you know William protect their kids from paparazzi and media not since late Diana,Princess of Wales back to 1997 but William and Harry is grownups adult both brothers is married,dad and have children of their own but William and Harry have rightful private not since his mother?s death but this not photocall before Diana?s death paparazzi and media been follow Diana anywhere include USA,UK and world get on Diana but William and Harry wouldn?t tolerate on his mom?s target get pictures William and Harry warned paparazzi and media no release pictures include children and haunted his mother?s death
The Royals & Television Media, Tabloid Press/Photographer Pack (http://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=89669.75)
See #85 and #86 on privacy of late Diana,Princess of Wales
I believe that just as we saw Princes William and Harry on their first days of nursery, primary and secondary school that we'll see photos of the Cambridge children when Prince Louis starts school this September just like his siblings did in 2017 and 2019. If the speculation is correct that all three will be attending the same school, then we'll likely see them together in their new uniforms.
Quote from: TLLK on August 17, 2022, 04:13:17 AM
I believe that just as we saw Princes William and Harry on their first days of nursery, primary and secondary school that we'll see photos of the Cambridge children when Prince Louis starts school this September just like his siblings did in 2017 and 2019. If the speculation is correct that all three will be attending the same school, then we'll likely see them together in their new uniforms.
Yes
Update news
Man caught with loaded crossbow at Windsor Castle said 'I am here to kill the Queen', court hears | UK News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/man-caught-with-loaded-crossbow-at-windsor-castle-said-i-am-here-to-kill-the-queen-court-hears-12675064)
Royal Family news: Man arrested at Windsor said 'I'm here to kill the Queen', court hears | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1656425/royal-family-news-man-arrested-windsor-castle-crossbow-court-hearing)
Man 'caught with crossbow at Windsor Castle said "I'm here to kill the Queen"' - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-man-caught-crossbow-windsor-27761038)
Man 'caught with crossbow said "I'm here to kill the Queen" after being arrested at Windsor Castle in hood and mask' | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19534494/man-crossbow-kill-queen-windsor-castle/)
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2022/08/the-crossbow-wielding-windsor-castle-intruder-i-am-here-to-kill-the-queen/amp
:orchid: :windsor1: :Jen:
Why would someone want to kill the queen? I wouldn?t! :royalsneeze: :P :happy15: :notworthy: :cry: :no: <_< :windsor: :thumbsdown:
Prince Harry 'tried to circumvent Royal household over security concerns', court told.
Legal papers claim Duke of Sussex orchestrated a meeting with Sir Mark Sedwill after he felt his fears weren't 'given proper consideration'.
archive.ph (https://archive.ph/IAnvZ)
Prince Harry 'tried to circumvent Royal Household and lobbied No10 adviser over security concerns' | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11320033/Prince-Harry-tried-circumvent-Royal-Household-lobbied-No10-adviser-security-concerns.html)
Prince Andrew is likely to lose his fulltime security RPOs in December, according to the Sun, and as always with the tabloids, consider the source! I love the Al Capone-like ?armed cops? bit this trashy paper has popped in the article. The only likely thing Andrew will be in danger of is being shouted at by members of the public or an egg or tomato being thrown, at least in Britain.
Prince Andrew's fury after ?3m-a-year taxpayer-funded armed cops to be removed within weeks | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/20562392/prince-andrew-fury-losing-armed-cops/)
All the same I wouldn?t be surprised if it?s true. The RF are very cost conscious these days and there was a minor stink in the media some time ago about Andrew still having RPOs and the taxpayer forking out for them. I was always surprised at Andrew getting the fulltime security and Anne and the Wessexes not, to be frank. He will have to pay for his own security now if this article is correct. However all the Andrew writing to the Met and the Home Office to complain seems to me to be typical Sun padding and journalistic imagination.
Ex counter Terrorist chief (now retired) states that Meghan received ?credible and disgusting threats to her life? (from presumably several organisations and members of the public) during her time as a royal.
Meghan Markle 'faced many credible and ''disgusting'' threats to her life' | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11482351/Meghan-Markle-faced-credible-disgusting-threats-life.html)
Meghan Markle faced ?very real? threats from far right - says terror cop - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj83wjrdSoY)
QuoteThe most senior serving ethnic minority officer in the country, as head of counter-terrorism he was the man at the very top during the Manchester Arena bombing, the London Bridge attack and the Salisbury poisonings.
Tonight, hours before leaving the Metropolitan Police, he's been speaking exclusively to this programme about battles with his own colleagues on racism, falling out with the government, protecting the royals - and the inside story of the terror plots he foiled, and those he didn't.
IMHO it's worth a watch for this very interesting opportunity to learn about the counter-terrorism as well as royal protection in the UK from one of the country's top CT chiefs. Note-
There is only a short portion that is about the Sussexes and the threat that they received. It's about a third of the way into the interview around the 4 minute mark if that's what you are looking for.
Great video, why is he retiring?
The retirement age at the Met Police is 60, he's 54
Prince Andrew's armed protection police are being replaced by private security officers | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11553441/Prince-Andrews-armed-protection-police-replaced-private-security-officers.html)
This seems reasonable for Andrew to not have security that is fully armed. He is not a working member of the BRF anymore.
And so Charles will be paying the 3 million a year from his own private fortune, according to the Fail of course. However, if that?s correct, what a charming gesture. Yes, Andrew, I?ll pay, in spite of the fact that apparently you (and Fergie) have sold your Swiss chalet. And as usual, it comes out (via this article) that this couple owe money to others as well. Gee, what a shame Epstein can no longer provide a few dollars towards their lifestyle, lol!
Quote from: Curryong on December 19, 2022, 08:28:27 PM
And so Charles will be paying the 3 million a year from his own private fortune, according to the Fail of course. However, if that?s correct, what a charming gesture. Yes, Andrew, I?ll pay, in spite of the fact that apparently you (and Fergie) have sold your Swiss chalet. And as usual, it comes out (via this article) that this couple owe money to others as well. Gee, what a shame Epstein can no longer provide a few dollars towards their lifestyle, lol!
so what if Charles pays? Nobody wants andrew to get money form the tax payer, and he will need security at times. So his brother may well pay for him. waht is the problem?
Quote from: Amabel2 on December 19, 2022, 09:03:37 PM
so what if Charles pays? Nobody wants andrew to get money form the tax payer, and he will need security at times. So his brother may well pay for him. waht is the problem?
There will certainly be a problem with the British taxpayer if, as is possible and is suggested by one of the articles I read, Charles channels it through Duchy of Lancaster money (indirectly through the taxpayer to help support relatives) and then claims it through tax as coming from his private moneys. You can bet your bottom dollar that the media, especially the tabloids will be going through the annual accounts next July with a fine tooth comb.
why not let Charles decide what to do, rather than attacking him
Quote from: Amabel2 on December 19, 2022, 09:43:04 PM
why not let Charles decide what to do, rather than attacking him
Well it?s not me that?s printing what?s been said about this development in every tabloid! Of course it?s up to Charles. However, the Press are just telling HIM with these stories that THEY will be keeping on eye on what happens with this in the future.
Quote from: Amabel2 on December 19, 2022, 09:03:37 PM
so what if Charles pays? Nobody wants andrew to get money form the tax payer, and he will need security at times. So his brother may well pay for him. waht is the problem?
I wonder if the late Queen made this request to her heir? I wouldn't be surprised if RAVEC had determined that Andrew faced a greater security risk than Anne, Edward, Sophie and her cousins and would continue to need security for awhile.
And in other Windsor security related news today, the Extinction Rebellion protestor who threw eggs at King Charles wants the monarch to give evidence in his defense. :blink:
Student charged with threatening behaviour after eggs thrown at King Charles during walkabout | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11554927/Student-charged-threatening-behaviour-eggs-thrown-King-Charles-walkabout.html)
QuoteMr Thelwell said today: 'I am charged with section four of the public order act.
'My plea hearing is on the 20th of January I will plead not guilty, of course.
'The charge relates to someone feeling fear of imminent physical violence.
'The question is did the King fear imminent violence? So I don't know how to get an answer to that without getting a statement from him.'
Asked if he would also call the King to give live evidence, he replied: 'These are questions for my solicitor I think. It should be fun.'
Well I think this young man is ?a bit of a stirrer?, as we say in Australia. Where they eggs caught in this case or smashed on the ground? Can?t remember.
Quote from: TLLK on December 19, 2022, 11:46:38 PM
I wonder if the late Queen made this request to her heir? I wouldn't be surprised if RAVEC had determined that Andrew faced a greater security risk than Anne, Edward, Sophie and her cousins and would continue to need security for awhile.
I'd say that Since Andrew does not go out much, his security isn't going to break the bank and yes Charles may have promised the queen that he'd make sure that he had security for the rest of his life. As long as he does it form his private fortune, I cant see what the problem is.
Quote from: Curryong on December 19, 2022, 10:02:25 PM
Well it?s not me that?s printing what?s been said about this development in every tabloid! Of course it?s up to Charles. However, the Press are just telling HIM with these stories that THEY will be keeping on eye on what happens with this in the future.
Of coures they will be looking for stories about Andrew and Charles, that's what they get paid for. I doubt if the press is going to bring down the monarchy, if that's what you are saying. Charles will probalby pay for this from his private fortune, i doubt if he's going to use Duchy of Lancaster money - and the main thing is that ANdrew wont be getting tax payer funded security
Quote from: Amabel2 on December 20, 2022, 12:02:18 PM
Of coures they will be looking for stories about Andrew and Charles, that's what they get paid for. I doubt if the press is going to bring down the monarchy, if that's what you are saying. Charles will probalby pay for this from his private fortune, i doubt if he's going to use Duchy of Lancaster money - and the main thing is that ANdrew wont be getting tax payer funded security
No I?m certainly not saying that the Press would be able to destroy the monarchy, merely that every July when the Sovereign Grant and Duchies moneys have been presented and audited, the Press (and the tabloid Press in particular) goes through every little thing to see who among the royals has been flying too many miles, which Royal Household has gone near to over-spending and other things that can be used in articles to embarrass one or another of them. Any suggestion of large sums of Lancaster money going to Andrew for anything that hasn?t been made clear and the media will be onto it in a flash.
i daresay Charles will take that into account.
King Charles to pay for Duke of York?s private security - after refusing to do so for Prince Harry (https://archive.ph/SMFFu)
Quote
The Duke of York?s private security bill is likely to be funded by the King, despite the monarch?s refusal to pay for Prince Harry?s protection.
Prince Andrew is to be stripped of his taxpayer-funded Metropolitan Police protection as he no longer performs public duties.
His armed personal protection officers will be replaced by private security guards at an estimated cost of up to ?3 million a year.
The King is expected to foot the bill as the Duke has no discernible regular income.
I can only imagine that the British citizens and residents would not be supportive of the DoY receiving that level of protection from taxpayer funds.
QuoteThe Duke of York is said to have written to the Home Office and Scotland Yard to complain about losing his police protection.
His entitlement to taxpayer-funded bodyguards was subjected to a full review after he was relieved of his duties as a working royal by Queen Elizabeth II earlier this year, shortly before agreeing a hefty financial settlement with Virginia Guiffre, his sex abuse accuser. The Duke of York has always strenuously denied her allegations.
While he is understood to have enjoyed the benefits of police protection since then, the deal is believed to be coming to an end.
All decisions about royal security are made by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, known as Ravec.
Members include senior figures from the King?s household, including his private secretary, as well as a representative from the Prince of Wales?s household.
They are joined by the chairman of the National Police Chiefs? Council counterterrorism coordination committee, the deputy assistant commissioner specialist operations at the Metropolitan Police, the director-general of the Homeland Security Group at the Home Office, and the deputy director of the National Security Secretariat at the Cabinet Office.
Again I believe that RAVEC has determined that Andrew likely needs some protection while out in public, but they can't/won't recommend that it be funded publicly.
He was lucky that he held onto it for while, perhaps due partly to Covid, and the fact that he was living a very restricted life, like many of us. But once the queen was gone and life is back to normal I think it was bound to be reviewed and he would lost his entitlement. I think he does need some protection, the unpleasant scenes at the queen's death show that...but non armed guards should be enough to keep people at a safe distance form him, when he does go out.
we dont know what money ANdrew has, there may be more salted away than you wold expect but I dont think he could afford to pay for security on a regular basis.
I do wonder if there will be a loud voice of disapproval from the west coast.....the thing is PA lives in the country while others do not as Ca is thousands and thousands of miles away. Yet nobody on the West Coast of the US will even look at it that way as they will only see that they were denied something they thought they would get for life. I also doubt if it will cost 3 million for PA as he seems to just ride horses anymore, after all those horses need exercise too. That keeps the cost down on the horses when PA rides them...wonder if he grooms them also!
The Sussexes do receive tax payer funded protection for themselves and the children when they're in the UK for official business ie: funerals, celebrations and visiting their remaining British patronages/charities. They don't receive it for private events ie: Statue Unveiling in 2021. However since the couple have not dropped their legal action against the British Government regarding their security, I wouldn't be surprised if they did release a statement of their own or through a spokesperson.
Quote from: TLLK on December 20, 2022, 04:22:01 PM
The Sussexes do receive tax payer funded protection for themselves and the children when they're in the UK for official business ie: funerals, celebrations and visiting their remaining British patronages/charities. They don't receive it for private events ie: Statue Unveiling in 2021. However since the couple have not dropped their legal action against the British Government regarding their security, I wouldn't be surprised if they did release a statement of their own or through a spokesperson.
Is Harry still on about wanting to use the Met police RPOs and have access to intelligence services information? I dont think he can still be expecting for Charles to shell out for his security, while he is a yong man capable of working and living in the USA
Quote from: Amabel2 on December 20, 2022, 04:40:02 PM
Is Harry still on about wanting to use the Met police RPOs and have access to intelligence services information? I dont think he can still be expecting for Charles to shell out for his security, while he is a yong man capable of working and living in the USA
Yes I believe that Prince Harry would like that type of security and information when he and his family are in the UK for private visits which are not covered by RAVEC approved security for the Sussexes.
I?m just wondering why, if the danger level to Andrew is supposedly so high and RAVEC has been consulted (members include officials from the MET and the Royal Household) why Charles would feel he has to fund Andrew?s security. You would think that the Home Office (civil servants from that Department are also on the Committee) would be coming forward stating that they will be funding the whole thing if Andrew is in such mortal danger. .
And Harry isn?t asking Charles to shell out for his security or anything else. The Sussexes don?t get a penny from Charles or directly from the British taxpayers. Harry is in the middle of a legal challenge to RAVEC?s decision, and the case is wending it?s way through the courts at the moment,
Um I thought that was the reason for disputes between Charles and Harry that he felt that someone else, whether the tax payer or his father, should pay for his security.
From a report in the Guardian in June regarding Harry?s dispute with RAVEC and the Home Office.
Prince Harry?s case against Home Office can proceed, high court judge rules | Prince Harry | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/22/prince-harry-case-against-home-office-can-proceed-high-court-judge-rules)
?The Duke of Sussex has won a bid to bring part of his high court claim against the Home Office over his security arrangements while in the UK.
Harry is bringing legal action over a decision not to allow him to pay for police protection for himself and his family when they are in the UK. At a preliminary hearing last month his lawyers sought permission for a full judicial review of the Home Office decision.?
Quote from: Curryong on December 20, 2022, 08:45:08 PM
I?m just wondering why, if the danger level to Andrew is supposedly so high and RAVEC has been consulted (members include officials from the MET and the Royal Household) why Charles would feel he has to fund Andrew?s security. You would think that the Home Office (civil servants from that Department are also on the Committee) would be coming forward stating that they will be funding the whole thing if Andrew is in such mortal danger. .
And Harry isn?t asking Charles to shell out for his security or anything else. The Sussexes don?t get a penny from Charles or directly from the British taxpayers. Harry is in the middle of a legal challenge to RAVEC?s decision, and the case is wending it?s way through the courts at the moment,
I'm guessing that there's a strange conundrum of evidence that there's a legitimate threat but not one that requires RPOs armed with firearms. Going forward, they can only have tasers. Also Andrew has stepped back from those royal duties so there isn't a threat to the safety of the public who might have gathered to see him either. As for the cost, I expect that Charles may have volunteered to take it on knowing that there would be huge backlash if the taxpayer was to foot the bill. I have a feeling that this financial arrangement was settled between mother and son(s) prior to QEII's death.
And it does give Charles a bit of leverage over his brother too. :notamused:
It has reached a point of 'private' security, their own business. Solved. The media can't complain any longer.
Their pocket, it could matter of fact be a Tyler type private pocket and still be their own business.
Quote from: TLLK on December 21, 2022, 02:41:22 PM
I'm guessing that there's a strange conundrum of evidence that there's a legitimate threat but not one that requires RPOs armed with firearms. Going forward, they can only have tasers. Also Andrew has stepped back from those royal duties so there isn't a threat to the safety of the public who might have gathered to see him either. As for the cost, I expect that Charles may have volunteered to take it on knowing that there would be huge backlash if the taxpayer was to foot the bill. I have a feeling that this financial arrangement was settled between mother and son(s) prior to QEII's death.
And it does give Charles a bit of leverage over his brother too. :notamused:
Andrew is probably at risk a bit when he goes out of the Windsor estate, but he's not entitled to royal security as he is not a working royal. SO Charles or someone can pay for his security which will probably not be that high as he does not go out that much. POssibly the queen left money to cover his security when she was gone, or possibly Charles will cover it himself. Its not being paid for by the tax payer
Update news he guilty three charges include treasons but his sentence will be on march 31
Crossbow-wielding intruder Jaswant Singh Chail admits trying to harm the Queen | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11709627/Crossbow-wielding-intruder-admits-trying-harm-Queen.html)
Man admits to trying to harm the Queen after being caught at Windsor Castle with crossbow | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/20230203163462/man-charged-crossbow-windsor-castle-the-queen/)
Man caught on Windsor Castle with crossbow admits treason after threat to 'kill the Queen' | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1730190/queen-news-windsor-castle-crossbow-treason-jaswant-singh-chail)
https://www.itv.com/news/2023-02-03/man-admits-treason-act-charge-after-threatening-to-kill-queen-with-crossbow
Crossbow man guilty of TREASON after threatening to kill Queen in Windsor break-in - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-man-crossbow-guilty-treason-29123602)
Masked man admits storming Windsor Castle on Christmas Day with a crossbow saying 'I'm here to kill the Queen' | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21261724/masked-man-windsor-castle-crossbow-queen/)
Man becomes first person convicted of treason in over 40 years ? Royal Central (https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/queen/man-becomes-first-person-convicted-of-treason-in-over-40-years-186197/)
A recent YouGov UK poll on the Duke of Sussex's security while in the UK. Question was posed on February 20, 2023. I've shared the results for "all adults." What I found surprising is that when I switched it to "age" the youngest poll participants who typically are most supportive of the Duke of Sussex were less likely to want to have protection provided to him when compared to the 25-49 year olds.
Daily Question | 20/02/2023 | YouGov (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/entertainment/survey-results/daily/2023/02/20/dcbe5/1)
QuoteDo you believe Prince Harry should or should not be entitled to police protection when in Britain?
All adults
Region
Gender
Politics
Age
Social Grade
He should be entitled to police protection funded by the state
19%
He should be entitled to police protection, but only if he pays for it himself
37%
He should not be entitled to police protection
28%
Don?t know
16
but that's nonsense. really, he wants to have the police and security services working in tandem wiht his own bodyguards. He ca't have that.
(Story was originally in the Daily Telegraph.)
Since the Sussexes no longer had round the clock taxpayer funded security, I can understand why the Home Office and the Met Police would require some advance notice of the intention of their trips ie: Official royal duty ie 2021 Funeral of the Duke of Edinburgh vs. Personal-Unveiling the statue of Diana, Princess of Wales as the former would be the one where Met Police protection would be provided. Also the Met Police would have to look at their officers' schedules and see who would be available at that time to provide security.
Prince Harry asked to give a month?s notice before making trip to the UK, reports claim (https://news.yahoo.com/prince-harry-asked-month-notice-095921920.html)
QuotePrince Harry was told to give 28 days? notice of his planned trips to the UK, it has emerged.
The Duke of Sussex was told that the time would allow for security requests to be processed and that it would be a matter for the Home Office to consider whether the requested security arrangements were necessary.
According to The Telegraph, Harry pushed back on the decision, asking the Home Office committee responsible for royal security to give him an example of a person with the same threat assessment as him who had received no security after stepping back from public duty.
The Independent has contacted representatives of the Duke of Sussex and the Home Office for comment.
Details of Harry?s security arrangements have been disclosed in papers as part of his attempt to rule that the publishers of the Mail on Sunday libelled him with an article about his request for police protection when he and his family visit the UK.
The prince is suing Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over the story, which was published in February 2022 under the headline: ?Exclusive: How Prince Harry tried to keep his legal fight with the government over police bodyguards a secret? then ? just minutes after the story broke ? his PR machine tried to put a positive spin on the dispute.?
The court heard that in an April 2020 email to Sir Edward Young, the Queen?s private secretary, Harry ?made it clear we couldn?t afford private security until we were able to earn?.
Harry?s lead attorney asked Judge Matthew Nickin either to strike out the publisher?s defence or to deliver a summary judgment, which would be a ruling in the prince?s favour without going to trial.
A man has been arrested outside of Buckingham Palace and a controlled explosion has taken place.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65464885?at_campaign_type=owned&at_link_type=web_link&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_link_origin=BBCBreaking&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_link_id=B884C150-E923-11ED-969F-7990ECABB293&at_medium=social&at_format=link&at_bbc_team=editorial
QuoteA controlled explosion has taken place and a man was arrested outside Buckingham Palace after throwing suspected shotgun cartridges into palace grounds, police said.
A cordon is in place after the man was detained by police at around 19:00 BST on Tuesday after approaching the gates of the palace, Scotland Yard said.
He was arrested on suspicion of possession of an offensive weapon.
There are no reports of shots fired or injuries to officers or the public.
The man was also found to be in possession of a suspicious bag, the Metropolitan Police said.
A controlled explosion was carried out as a precaution after an assessment from specialists.
The King and the Queen Consort were not at Buckingham Palace at the time of the arrest.
Chief Superintendent Joseph McDonald said: "Officers worked immediately to detain the man and he has been taken into police custody.
"There have been no reports of any shots fired, or any injuries to officers or members of the public.
"Officers remain at the scene and further enquiries are ongoing."
Update on the hearings for Jaswant Singh Chail who arrested when he was trying to kill the Queen at Windsor Castle.
Jaswant Singh Chail wanted ?heroic death? after AI girlfriend told him to kill Queen (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/27/jaswant-chail-windsor-crossbow-ai-girlfriend-heroic-death/)
QuoteAn intruder who broke into Windsor Castle after his AI girlfriend encouraged him to kill the Queen wanted a ?heroic death? like Star Wars villains, a court has heard.
Jaswant Singh Chail, 21, was dressed in the style of the Sith group of characters from Star Wars when he climbed into the grounds with a loaded crossbow on Christmas Day 2021.
Chail discussed his plan, which he had been preparing for nine months, with a chatbot he was in a ?sexual relationship? with and that reassured him he was not ?mad or delusional?, the Old Bailey heard.
During a sentencing hearing on Thursday, psychiatrists for the defence claimed Chail, who admitted treason in February, had been suffering from psychosis, depression and autistic spectrum disorder at the time, and said he should be kept in hospital.
Dr John Hafferty, who assessed Chail?s mental state, said: ?I struggle to believe that he would have actually [killed the Queen] and I don?t believe that was his intention. He just wanted to kill himself.
The Met Police are investigating former officers who served between 2001-2015 for allegedly sending racist messages.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66512440
QuoteSix former Metropolitan Police officers have been charged with sending racist messages on WhatsApp after a BBC Newsnight investigation.
The officers served in various parts of the force but all spent time in the Diplomatic Protection Group, now known as the Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection Command.
They were not serving during their alleged participation in the group.
But the BBC believes serving officers were in the group until early 2022.
A statement from the Met said: "The charges follow an investigation by the Met's Directorate of Professional Standards which was launched following coverage by the BBC's Newsnight programme in October last year."
It said the officers, who retired between 2001 and 2015, have been charged by post with offences under Section 127(1) (a) of the Communications Act 2003.
They will appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on 7 September.
Vegan activists charged after 'stealing' the King's sheep from his royal Sandringham Estate and 'driving away' with the animals | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12431619/Animal-Rising-protesters-charged-stealing-Kings-sheep-royal-Sandringham-Estate-driving-away-animals.html)
Trio girls charge stealing sheep at Sandringham last May 24 and court date will be on Thursday September 28 but the trio girls are on release with bailed
Vegan activists charged after 'stealing' the King's sheep from his royal Sandringham Estate and 'driving away' with the animals | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12431619/Animal-Rising-protesters-charged-stealing-Kings-sheep-royal-Sandringham-Estate-driving-away-animals.html)
QuoteThree Animal Rising protesters have been charged over allegedly stealing King Charles' sheep from his royal Sandringham Estate.
Sarah Foy, 23, Rose Patterson, 34, and Rosa Sharkey, 23 have been charged with theft, three counts of causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal and three of failing to record the movement of an animal, according to police.
The vegan protest group, an offshoot of climate group Extinction Rebellion, claimed to be behind the theft on May 24 when it released a video of three women walking through a field in West Newton, Norfolk, and loading three lambs into the back of a vehicle.
What did these activists intend to do with these animals I wonder. Do they have friends with farms? It?s not as if they could let them loose on suburban streets and gardens. It?s battery hens and poor pigs (intelligent animals by all accounts) kept in the dark in awful factory farming conditions I feel sorry for. If they let them go I?d give a mighty cheer. At least sheep are out in the open air, experience sunlight. Those other animals never do.
@Curryong -I was wondering the same. I recall when the lambs were first taken, that veterinarians along with the Sandringham farm estates were concerned about what would happen to them. Were the lambs old enough to be removed from their mothers? Lambs and sheep are noisy and require open space. Hopefully they were taken to another farm and received medical attention.
Why King Charles III Got Apology From Top Politician (https://www.newsweek.com/king-charles-apology-top-politician-prince-andrew-priti-patel-1822211)
QuoteKing Charles III was given an apology by former U.K. Home Secretary Priti Patel over talks about Prince Andrew's police protection.
Patel, the most senior Home Office minister until 2022, emailed the king's most senior aide, private secretary Clive Alderton, to suggest that reviewing the decision to strip Andrew of his police team "could be something to consider."
The Metropolitan Police bodyguards were removed in the wake of the scandal over his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, which saw him resign from public duties.
Former Metropolitian police officers plead guilty to sending racist messages through What's App messaging.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-66743803
QuoteFive former Met Police officers have admitted sending racist messages on WhatsApp, following a BBC Newsnight investigation.
The men pleaded guilty at Westminster Magistrates' Court to sending grossly offensive racist messages, including about the Duchess of Sussex.
Other messages referenced the Prince and Princess of Wales, Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip.
The communications were sent between September 2020 and 2022.
According to the charges, the five men also made reference to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, former Home Secretary Priti Patel and former Health Secretary Sajid Javid.
The men served in various parts of the Met Police but all spent time in the Diplomatic Protection Group. The five, who retired between 2001 and 2015, were charged under the Communications Act 2003.
The ex-officers are:
Peter Booth, 66, of Llandeilo, Carmarthenshire, who pleaded guilty to four counts of sending by public communication grossly offensive racist messages. He retired from the Met in April 2001
Robert Lewis, 62, of Camberley, Surrey. He admitted eight counts of the same offence. He retired from the Met in May 2015 and became a Home Office official before he was dismissed for gross misconduct last November, according to the government department
Anthony Elsom, 67, of Bournemouth, who pleaded guilty to three counts. He retired from the Met in May 2012
Alan Hall, 65, of Stowmarket, Suffolk, also entered guilty pleas to three counts. He retired from the Met in June 2015
Trevor Lewton, 65, of Swansea, pleaded guilty to one count. He retired from the Met in August 2009. Another former Met officer, Michael Chadwell, denied one count of sending by public communication grossly offensive racist messages. He retired from the Met in November 2015.
The 62-year-old, from Liss, Hampshire, will stand trial on 6 November at City of London Magistrates' Court.
The other officers will be sentenced on the same day and at the same court at the conclusion of his trial. All six have been granted unconditional bail.
The charges came after a BBC Newsnight investigation in October that prompted a probe by the Met's Directorate of Professional Standards.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-66830925
QuoteA man has been arrested in the Royal Mews area next to Buckingham Palace following reports a person was seen climbing a wall into the area.
A 25-year-old man was detained outside the stables at about 01:25 BST and held under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act on suspicion of trespassing.
The stables, home to the historic royal carriages, were not entered by an intruder, Scotland Yard said.
The man was taken to a London police station for questioning.
The force added "at no point" did the intruder "enter Buckingham Palace or the Palace Gardens".
I think often people drink too much and try and slip over Palace walls. Not everyone is an interloper with illwill in mind, but everyone who tries to get into BP and its grounds still has to be stopped and apprehended of course.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-berkshire-66113524
QuoteA crossbow-wielding man who arrived at Windsor Castle with plans to assassinate the Queen has been jailed for nine years for treason.
Jaswant Singh Chail, 21, was arrested while the late monarch stayed in the castle on Christmas Day 2021.
The Old Bailey heard he was spurred on by his artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot "girlfriend" Sarai and inspired by storylines from Star Wars.
Chail will also be subject to a hybrid order under the Mental Health Act.
This means he will remain in a psychiatric hospital for now but will be transferred to custody when he receives the treatment he needs.
Prison sentence for man who took crossbow to Windsor Castle to ?kill Queen Elizabeth II? ? Royal Central (https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/prison-sentence-for-man-who-took-crossbow-to-windsor-castle-to-kill-queen-elizabeth-ii-193727/)
QuoteA young man has been sentenced to nine years in prison after being arrested on the grounds of Windsor Castle with plans to assassinate the late Queen Elizabeth II.
Jaswant Singh Chail appeared at The Old Bailey on Thursday to learn his fate after he was arrested on Christmas morning 2021 with a crossbow. Chail is the first person in the United Kingdom to be convicted of treason since 1981 and also pled guilty to charges of making threats to kill and offensive weapon possession.
Imo this individual was and is extremely mentally ill. It?s good that he was caught and placed in custody before he could harm anyone. He my have been undergoing a schizoid episode. Now he?s in the care of the authorities it?s treatment by health professionals that this man needs, including insistence on taking medication regularly each day. After he becomes mentally stable at least, he can then serve the rest of his prison sentence.
Agreed
@Curryong. He clearly needs mental health treatment in conjunction with his prison sentence. If he's in a secure hospital setting, then he's away from the public. IMO that is similar to a prison sentence.