Morning:
13°c
Royals face cut in police guards
Justin Davenport14.05.09
A security review is under way over the cost of providing police protection for junior members of the royal family, the Standard can reveal.
Scotland Yard officers have expressed concern behind closed doors over the current bill for royalty protection. Experts estimate that the cost has reached as much as £50 million.
The review will look at where the money is spent and whether some younger family members actually need round-the-clock protection.
The issue has come to a head in recent weeks over the cost of protecting Princess Eugenie during her gap year. Further concern has been raised by reports that the 19-year-old princess, the daughter of Prince Andrew, is considering going to an American university.
The cost of protection for her there would be enormous because she would need two specialist officers constantly at her side. Further strain has been put on the royalty protection squad by the need for high-level security around Princes William and Harry, both serving in the armed forces and both potential targets for terrorists.
Dai Davies, former head of Scotland Yard's Royalty and Diplomatic Protection Squad, said it was time to streamline the operation. He said: “It is perfectly right to ask the question why are we doing it and is it justified at a time when we are sending soldiers to Afghanistan who are not properly equipped. Why don't we give priority to those people who really do need protecting?
“There could be factors that I do not know about, such as fixated people. But when I was running the squad there was no direct threat to these minor royals.”
Changing the system carries huge political risks but there is an acknowledgement within senior police and Palace circles that pictures of young royals being driven from nightclubs by publicly-funded bodyguards are not appreciated by the public.
Scotland Yard is under pressure to keep costs down in line with the rest of the public sector but were an attack to follow the removal of protection, there would be public outcry, presenting a dilemma to police and the royal household.
It would be politically damaging to the Government, as decisions on royal security are ultimately a matter for the Home Secretary. Defenders of the status quo say that the major proportion of the protection budget goes on round-the-clock armed guards on palaces and advanced hi-tech security measures.
Eugenie's gap-year exploits have already raised questions. While she pays for her own travel, the cost of her security officers can quickly mount. Two to three officers are needed to provide 24-hour protection; costs include their flights, expenses, accommodation and overtime.
One estimate is that her gap-year security bill will reach £110,000, on top of the annual £280,000 for regular protection. Police are understood to have asked Prince Andrew in the past to ease the security arrangements but he insisted they should continue to be watched.
Last week Princess Eugenie, 19, and friends were attacked in Cambodia. One had her purse snatched in Phnom Penh before her protection officers tackled the thief and pinned him to the ground.
The tight security around Prince Andrew's daughters is in marked contrast to the protection provided to Princess Anne's daughter Zara. Although she is a high-profile showjumper, neither she nor her brother Peter get routine cover because their mother considers it a waste of public money.
A Royal source defended the cost of protecting Eugenie and Beatrice, pointing out they are fifth and sixth in line to the throne. Neither Scotland Yard nor Buckingham Palace would comment officially on the security issue.
Reader views (54)
I am Bitish and a new U.S. citizen. I have a great repect for the Monarchy even if they not 'elected'. As for the cost, what do the British coveniently fail to understand is that the annual stipend for the royals amounts to fraction of the rents and royalties from their properties paid to the government by the Queen which runs into hundreds of millions a year. Don't take my word for it. Look it up yourself on their website where the finances are detailed. So stop bellyaching. At least she contributes more to the country than just taxes whereas, it seems, your elected officials are just robbing the country blind... as they are here too.
- Terry Widlake, Castalian Springs, Tennessee
David, Sheffield: Right now, the Queen is the only person who can dissolve parliament .... so that's got to be a good thing - right?
- Marianne, SW France/London
"...A bit of democracy". Yes, just look at the 'bit of democracy enjoyed by republics (Vote for Berlusconi, or Putin, anyone?)
The incontrovertible fact remains, David of Sheffield, that the freest, most egalitarian, least sexist and indeed "happiest' countries on earth are all constitutional monarchies. Would you really prefer Italy's polity over Denmark's or Sweden's or, yes, even Britain's?
The Westminster system is the worst system on earth – except for all the others.
And yes, of course protect the princesses Eugenie and Beatrice. Why would you want them to be in danger? Get a life.
- Judet, Melbourne, Australia
Succession should be changed to allow Anne her rightful place after Charles. What a wonderful Queen she would make. Let Andrew and his crew work like the rest of us.
- Republican, Armidale Australia
Andrew has ponded off this country his whole life and contributed almost nothing. His children and ex-wife are even worse. Don't know why they even have titles let alone get money from the taxpayer.
- Darrill, UK
Princess Eugenia will be totally safe over here. With those eyelashes,no attacker would risk their life attacking her. Those eyelashes appear to be a deadly weapons! One sideswipe with those, and a attacker would be decapitated.
- Dave M, Gallatin.TN.USA
All this begs the question: shouldn't the monarch finally be removed from her - unelected - post as head of state and her family reduced to mere mortals to spend their billions in private, free of taxpayer support? Wouldn't a bit of democracy be nice, a nation in which we the people elect our head of state? A state in which the anachronism that is the contemporary monarch is relegated to the history pages.
Wonder why there is so little accountability in Britain today? It starts at the very top.
- David, Sheffield
My heart is warmed to see how many of my fellow ES readers share my views. The Royal family are a bunch of incredibly rich, freeloading parasites. There is absolutely no reason for any of them to be supported by the tax payer, they could just sell a couple of their castles. As for security - they can pay their own way or else take their chances in the world like the rest of us do.
- Sarah Bradshaw, Enfield, Middx
Another way of milking the taxpayers. Why cant the army supply people to "protect" them. The army protecting all of us so include this lot as well.Spare few regiments from her mother in laws ring of steel.
T H Leeds
- Thomas Hayes, Leeds UK
They are a drain on the economy. They should get a job- a real one!
- Hatchet, Newcastle Australia
If they do wish to go to America and they feel they need protection, then they should pay for it themselves. They are not really anybody important in America.
- Ann, London
Gap year? Seems she has had no education at all by the way she acts and it cannot be blamed on the divorce of her parents as she has plenty of mentors. I say just forget them and let them get on with it.
- Anon, uk
I have not knowingly ever met any royals,it sounds as if there are hundreds of them,I would not recognize any of them.However I think the police guarding them will soon be needed elsewhere,guarding thieving polititions.
- John, benidorm,spain
Such a lonely world out here!--Never explain, right?-- University of Tennessee, Knoxville, has a nicer campus than Vanderbilt,and all-you-can-eat buffe, which England may not have--neither does Vanderbilt or other Ivy Leagues, as far as one knows. . .
- Anonymous For ., in Ooltewah, somewhere on the blue planet one calls Earth. . .
The Bush daughters are looking better every day.
- Lavinia, Boston, MA
Princess Anne - thank goodness for her common sense attitude. She has always been no-nonsense and she is one of the the Royals who gets my vote! I don't think Beatrice and Eugenie or any minor royals should get protection (well let them pay for it themselves if they want it) and lets face it that incident in Vietnam could have happened to any teenager on a holiday.
- Barbara, sYdney, Australia,
The Royal family is stone rich. They must pay their own bills.
They might think that, when we have finished with the members of Parliament and the House of Lords, we might begin to look at them.
- Roy, London, England
NO
- C Cusano, Bedford
Again the tax payer is being taken for complete mugs. What a complete nonsence that we are paying for the protection of these minor Royals. If they want gap years and need security then Andrew and their Mother should pay. Not us.
Stop this abuse now!
- Mike, Esher, Surrey
Doing away with the Feudal nonsense would be a good thing for the British taxpayer in the huge amount of money saved. They already have regiments of the army protecting them and fifth and sixth in line will never be able to take the job up.
T H Leeds
- Thomas Hayes, Leeds UK
The Queen should be given back the revenue from the crown estates which ought to be hers anyway; then they could not only afford their own protection, but also upkeep on the palaces and the civil list could be scrapped. It's hilarity to me that people call them spongers when we take the profits from their land every year, let them control the revenue from their own property and leave the tax payer out of it.
- Shannon, Miami, US
Michael, london - you don't know much about people and snob-value, do you mate. Most won't care, but there will be a significant few (not least social climing mommas), as anywhere, who will milk an association with the young royals to the hilt.
The myriad terrorist groups? Do you honestly think they wouldn't make a high profile target of even a minor 'royal' if the opportunity arose? Sounds like you don't know much about people at all mate.
- Rogan, Irving
Surely Fergy's daughters are at the bottom of the pile when it comes to wasting money on protection. The money should be spent on more important things.
- Michael, Kensington, UK
£50 MILLION for minor non-enterties.
How many sets of body armour could be bought for our front line troops for this sum.
- Michael Boughton-Fox, Cambridge England
No problem to have guards just let them rather than us pay for it
- Mike, London England
I don't believe the public should pay for Beatrice, Eugenie, Edward, Andrew etc, although we should pay for the queen, Philip, Charles, William and Harry, as they are legitimate security targets, but I do find it quite ironic that people are using the younger royals' partying as an example of them being out of touch, when that is exactly what everybody else their age is doing.
- Chris, London
what a nonsense--the minor royals don't need protection especially not in the usa--nobody knows or cares who there are in that country.
- Michael, london
Wouldn't it be grand if the Royals could do something for themselves for a change and not have to spoon fed at every step by the Taxpayer!
- E.Nuff, london
Time these utter spongers were curtailed. They can give up their freebie tax-payer expenses and change their lives to normal people and live normal anonymous lives.
- Thomas, London
Leave them alone, why shouldn't they have some fun? The Princesses are only teenagers and are entitled to protection. It's a dangerous world out there. We expect far too much from our Royals. If the Queen ruled parliament we would never have got in the mess we are today.
- Elli, Poole, Dorset
Make the parents/grandparents pay...
- Ck, Bath, UK
Two princesses with no likelihood of ever suceeding to the throne do not need full-time protection. Princess Anne's children do not have it (or old-fashioned titles for that matter) and they appear to be the only normal well-rounded children in the whole family.
- Louise, Essex
Not for a minute do I believe that security should be offered to minor royals and paid for by tax payers. The queen and her family have more than enough money to hire their own security and in these austere times, they should show some humility and pay for the likes of Bea and Eugenie, two wholly hedonistic young women, who shame the royal family by costing so much to the tax payer due to their lavish, privileged life style. They in no way benefit the UK. I think it morally reprehensible that tax payers pay for the likes of these people when they themselves are unable to afford great luxury.
- Karen, London, UK
Daddy apparently insists that these two silly girls(who don't live in the world of reality) are protected. From what I may ask? Their clothes, make up and figures are frightening and it's the public, being bombarded with their images in the press, who should be protected!
- Laura, Sutton UK
we certainly shouldn't be paying for their security when they go out clubbing!
- Cat, Essex
Let them pay for their own protection.
- Raymond, Poole
A Royal source defended the cost of protecting Eugenie and Beatrice, pointing out they are fifth and sixth in line to the throne, well the line off succession goes on for ever as far as I can see. If one were to go there would be plenty more to take there place, so that is no argument at all.
Protection should be provided for the Queen and Prince Charles, and whilst we are at it ban protection for ex Prime Ministers as well.
- Lloyd, Glan Conwy UK
I think that the senior members of the royals should have protection for official engagements, and for their homes, i think it is the actual officers who need their costs cut, their Salary and exspensives would be half that if they was not protecting a royal,and i dont think its the royals thought that they costs so much.
I would rather my Tax go towards the Royals than the greedy snobs in parliment.
- Russell, London
why do we have to pay for "Air Miles Andy's" two daughters to carry on this fiasco? Lets have Queen Ann on the throne when this Queen goes. Probably make a dammed good job of it. She brought up her two children sensibly and I seldom remember Peter or Zara falling out drunk from nightclubs as the present four seem to do. What a future Great Britain has in this family's greedy grasp. Suppose he could turn Hyde Park into a giant golf course - that would keep out the common herd as they all obviously think we are.
Amber in Mitcham
- Amber In Mitcham, Mitcham Surrey
What's wrong with Universities in the UK?
- Paul, London
I'm sick and tired of all these spongers. If she wants to travel fine, pay for her own protection. Her mother earns a fortune she can afford it. We shouldn't have to fork out.
- Lou, London
It is totally unacceptable to expect tax payers to pay for protection for these two parasites. If Andrew and Fergie consider their little darlings need protection then they must be made employ and pay private protection officers. I resent my taxes being used to pay officers to accompany them as they stagger from one night club to the next.
- R.F., Yorks, UK
Just get rid of the lot of them. They are no more no less than scroungers leaving off benefits paid by the people of Britain who can ill afford it. Let's face it they are of no benefit to the country and please don't tell me they are "ambassadors" for Britain, with Philip always happy to upset people, Andrew going round the world playing golf and Edward, ah yes Edward, what is the point of him? You might as well forget the others as for the Queen, sorry but no she definitely does not increase tourism in this country. Paris (no royalty for centuries) is top of tourist destinations in Europe.
- Fanfan La Tulipe, London
Crikey, given the size of Eugenies chest and the mad makeup, we need protecting from her methinks!
- Kerry, Purley
If Members of Royalty want to leave protection of living in the Realm i.e. live abroad. Either arrange protection in the principality where they are due to live or abrogate their succession to the Throne.
- William, Haywards Heath UK
They should have royal protection for official engagements but I do not like my tax money going towards holding up drunk rich teenagers and escorting them home from nightclubs
- Ag, London Village
Queen Anne for the throne, common sense at last
- Spring Heeled Jack, london
Why not give them the plastic police as they are as useless as the people they are protecting
- Terry Chambers, London
Much of this is down to the sheer snobbishness of Prince Andrew who is the one insisting that his daughters are given the full royal treatment, irrespective of the cost.
Andrew should note that the people of this country are no longer willing to stand aside meekly while their taxes are squandered. The political wasters are already being rooted out and it might well be that public fury turns against the huge waste of public money spent on guarding his daughters as well his own cost to the taxpayers of the country.
Anyway, what young girl would enjoy having her teenage years stifled by the constant presence of a bodyguard?
- Scotty, Cambridge UK
They should be encouraged to stay at home and watch reality television like the rest of us!
- Gwaddilove, london ENGLAND
Why can't they pay for it themselves and who cares where they are in line to the throne? Hear, hear to Princess Anne!
- Jane, Middlesex
She should go to Afghanestan and fight the Taliban like Harry did.
- Jim Of Oz, Melbourne Australia
What a selfish waste of public funds at a time when the country can ill afford it!
It's obvious that these girls consider neither their own safety nor public finances when gadding about town til the early hours and jet-setting with their pals. Andrew should foot the bill himself if he continues to `insist' that his daughters receive such costly protection since they are unlikely ever to ascend to the throne. His sister sets a far more sensible example: he should follow suit.
These people - and the MPs currently being investigated for flagrant abuse of public funds - should hang their heads in shame! JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULD!
- Outraged Citizen, Nottingham, UK
Good!
It's about time these lazy money grabbing pseudo-royals got off our backs and paid their way. What the hell are we doing paying £100k per year to look after someone swanning around the world on holiday? And if they are prepared to frolic topless on a public beach they certainly DO NOT need police at our expense.
Cut out 90% of the police protection and see the difference.... none! Get the police back on the beat looking after the real people in this country, us!
- Poorman, England
