Royal Gossip

The British Royal Family *Windsor* => Wessex => Topic started by: rogue on May 28, 2011, 11:19:32 pm



Title: Edward & Sophie losing security.
Post by: rogue on May 28, 2011, 11:19:32 pm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1391916/Edward-Sophie-lose-1m-police-protection-Royal-security-costs-cut.html


Title: Re: Edward & Sophie losing security.
Post by: Kuei Fei on May 29, 2011, 01:13:55 am
Why them? Right after their daughter is broadcasted on international teleivsion, now of all times they lose their security?


Title: Re: Edward & Sophie losing security.
Post by: Kezza on May 29, 2011, 01:14:39 am
It doesnt surprise me that cuts are being made.


Title: Re: Edward & Sophie losing security.
Post by: Nighthawk on May 29, 2011, 01:15:52 am
not like they do much in the first place for the royal family, not like they can't offered it on their own why should the public pay for useless royals who do nothing


Title: Re: Edward & Sophie losing security.
Post by: Kezza on May 29, 2011, 02:05:52 am
I think they do quite a bit in terms of Royal Duties, its just that they keep a very low profile, plus they are not the main attraction of the RF.


Title: Re: Edward & Sophie losing security.
Post by: mousiekins on May 29, 2011, 05:21:47 am
Edward and Sophie do alot and more then some of those that are keeping their security


Title: Re: Edward & Sophie losing security.
Post by: Kezza on May 29, 2011, 07:07:59 am
I agree Mousiekins.

I think it was last year that Pr Edward and Sophie were behind HM, DOE, Pr Charles and Pr Anne in terms of duties.


Title: Re: Edward & Sophie losing security.
Post by: Nighthawk on May 29, 2011, 07:20:50 am
1.15 million for 6 body guards in a year IMO is outragous and the tax payers are being robbed blind for this expense!!! IMO that is about 200,000 a piece for each bodyguard


Title: Re: Edward & Sophie losing security.
Post by: rogue on May 29, 2011, 01:32:41 pm
I think royals should pay for their own social security and only get goverment funding when they do duties for the BRF.The fact that they are so lowkey , makes them very useless to me , whats the point for any charity to have Royals who dont draw any attention to their charity?The queen should give them a trustfund and buy them a nice manor and cut them lose.


Title: Re: Edward & Sophie losing security.
Post by: Kuei Fei on May 31, 2011, 02:38:41 am
Quote
whats the point for any charity to have Royals who dont draw any attention to their charity

To be honest, I'm of the personal opinion that so many people do charity and entertainers do plenty for charity, that royals are increasingly superfluous. There's really no need for them in that respect and unless they adapt, they are going to be considered to be nothing more than a pointless albatross.


Title: Re: Edward & Sophie losing security.
Post by: June on June 15, 2011, 05:56:17 am
I agree and also with rogue. They should pay for their own security, except for when they are "on duty" - with exemptions for the Queen, PP, PC, D of C, William (and Do-Little  :ick:) and Harry. This is a real scam the royals have got going here. They want the best of everything - at the taxpayers' expense.  bignono

However, for the younger royals, not working "full-time", IMO, if they want to jet off for overseas holidays, or go to nightclubs, the security bill should be on their own dollar - not the taxpayers'.  bignono From what I can ascertain, that is what really rankles with the UK taxpayer: having to fund their security for lavish holidays and the like.

What I'm suggesting is that even for William et al, they should contribute to their own security, as the way it stands, it is quite clearly unsustainable. In Australia, students must contribute to their own tertiary education (party funded by Gvt), so a compromise can be done. It's not rocket science, it really isn't.


Title: Re: Edward & Sophie losing security.
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 15, 2011, 07:21:46 am
I dunno; Lady Louise is now more high profile and exposed, while the Wessex family in general is appearing more in the press. My own issue is that on one hand, there is always a crazy person out there with an idea/designs on the royal family; on the other, they aren't really of specific diplomatic importance and I think it's time that HM broke out the checkbook and started writing checks to pay for security. The RF really needs to update their security arrangements anyway.


Title: Re: Edward & Sophie losing security.
Post by: June on June 15, 2011, 07:49:56 am
That is beside the point: they have the means to pay for it themselves. This is an issue about WHO is paying, not whether or not they need it.  :flower:

On that note, I'm sure in their own minds they both need it and that it should be funded by the taxpayer, but ...

If the royals feels so strongly about their protection, then they should pay for it, not the long-suffering UK taxpayer. It's really obnoxious and an obscene waste of money. Lots of people have to face physical danger in their every day lives (having to travel on public transports after dark etc), why should the royals be so protected on the taxpayer dollar?  bignono

Why are minor royals so important in the 21st century? I don't support such elitism under any circumstance. Politicians are definitely more at risk.

If the royals paid for it themselves, they wouldn't be criticised. In fact, I glanced at the comments and some said they would respect the royals more. It's the grandiose sense of entitlement that rubs the wrong way.

And, my God, they live in a house worth ~ AUD $60M! They can afford to pay for it themselves, or downsize.  :rolleyes:

The problem, as I see it, is that the royals want to continue with their proliferate spending of taxpayers' money. They elevate themselves above all others and think they are immune to having to tighten their belts, or having to take less public revenue. They just don't get it because they have been freeloading for too long. That is the perception here.

And the massive security bill for the Duke and Duchess of Do-Littles' wedding hasn't help matters at all.


Title: Re: Edward & Sophie losing security.
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 15, 2011, 09:00:28 am
If they want to go out, they should start playing at the estates of the nobility; they don't talk, climbers can't get in, and security is solid so it's not like the protection officers are always doubling as valets. Plus the vast estates have staff that will remain discreet.


Title: Sophie Upset as Bodyguard is Axed
Post by: Alexandrine on November 12, 2011, 08:16:10 pm
SOPHIE UPSET AS BODYGUARD AXED

http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/283356/Adam-Helliker

thought that Bea&Eugenie didn't have bodyguards anymore?


Title: Re: Sophie Upset as Bodyguard is Axed
Post by: meememe on November 12, 2011, 08:36:11 pm
It was reported that they were going to lose them but there was no confirmation from anywhere else, just as this hasn't been confirmed officially.  The press often makes these sorts of comments but until the palace confirms this, or she is seen without bodyguards in a non-official capacity, I will take it with a grain of salt.


Title: Re: Sophie Upset as Bodyguard is Axed
Post by: Tatiana on November 19, 2011, 04:45:01 am

    Sadly not many are interested in Prince Flounce or Mrs Beige.. not even the "bad guys".

           I remember Edward going somewhere and only one old lady turned up to see him at the event.
                                                                                                                                              :cold:
                        


Title: Re: Sophie Upset as Bodyguard is Axed
Post by: serene grace on December 15, 2011, 10:15:54 am
Beige might not be what the press wants, but it is what the Queen and the Palace likes,  but the press would never say it, because what the press want's is just the opposite.

What I love about Pr.Edward and Sophie is they "get it" they do the work, they seem to enjoy
it and they just get on with it, with or without press camera's. The Queen adores Sophie and it's evident over the years that she enjoys her daughter in laws company on royal outings, I'm not sure that will ever be true for Kate, no matter how much the press might try to pretend the Queen likes Kate.

 and one of the ironies about the press's goldenboy  Pr.William is that he's  starting to look exactly like his Uncle Edward that the press ignores, but who is a hardworker.

 and Kate is the laziest bride to marry into the house of Windsor maybe even lazier than Camilla, but the press would never ever admit that and Kate is also aging quickest of any royal bride I've seen enter the House of Windsor, Sophie looks better than Kate in the face imo but the press will always promote Kate as the beauty because she's with Prince William.

and the thing about Edward and Sophie is over the years, those two have actually become friends with all those European Monarchies, something I don't think Pr.William has the personality for.

http://markcuthbert.photoshelter.com/image?&_bqG=186&_bqH=eJzzLQ8PivIyz0utdM0z96ky93LXrcgq9krKTkm2MjYwszIysDI0AAIrz3iXYOd4Rz8X2xI1MNvW2cMxyMfVz1U73DMkJDjE39lbGygTGuwaFO_pYhsK0pXjXlISZOBl4Ohjohbv6BxiW5yaWJScAQAM4yKi&GI_ID=
I was surprised to see this photo of Sophie with Prince Willem Alexander  at the Monaco Wedding. She really seems to know how to carry herself well.


Title: Re: Sophie Upset as Bodyguard is Axed
Post by: Kuei Fei on December 18, 2011, 04:35:02 pm
Quote
and Kate is the laziest bride to marry into the house of Windsor maybe even lazier than Camilla,

Camilla was raised to be a wife and mother and socialite, not a career woman and neither was Diana. Kate is part of a generation that is expected to end up working until marriage and certainly after, so there is no excuse for Kate. Camilla raised the kids and ran a household, she did not just go out and booze it up and enjoy the perks of a position. She was born and bred for what she did and Kate has not been raised or acted like Camilla or the way she has been acting. Camilla grew up to live a comfortable country lifestyle, while KAte has been supposed to have been brought up to mkae her way in the world, like Margaret Thatcher.

Quote
and the thing about Edward and Sophie is over the years, those two have actually become friends with all those European Monarchies, something I don't think Pr.William has the personality for.

Despite press bashing, Edward and Sophie strike me as the most sophisticated and cosmopolitan members of the British RF and really make a genuine (and the acceptance shows) effort to fit in, not take the spotlight, and have genuine goodwill to give to the guests of honor. they are always chosen to represent HM and the BRF and it's telling that they do it without becoming the center of some tabloid drama. Sophie should have her bodyguard, mainly because it's getting crazier and crazier out there and there is little chance that something wont' happen, especially if Sophie does overseas engagemetns and her daughter Louise has a higher profile since after the wedding. All it takes is one crazy with a weapon and twisted motive.


Title: Re: Sophie Upset as Bodyguard is Axed
Post by: HC on December 18, 2011, 05:24:20 pm
Wasn't Sophie involved in a scandal about a client who asked for sexual services? Not from her but some pedofile request.


Title: Re: Sophie Upset as Bodyguard is Axed
Post by: Kuei Fei on December 18, 2011, 11:11:33 pm
I have no idea, but I think that it was Fergie who kissed an Arab sheik for money.


Title: Re: Sophie Upset as Bodyguard is Axed
Post by: Tatiana on December 19, 2011, 12:32:28 am
   Here are some of the details

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20134186,00.html

The Countess of Wessex seemed anything but as she was captured on videotape gossiping about her royal relations and trashing British pols. Her woes began when a reporter for Britain's News of the World, posing as the personal assistant to a wealthy sheik and potential client, set out to trap Murray Harkin, Sophie's partner in R-JH Public Relations, into admitting to questionable business practices

 Sophie herself arrived for a March 14 meeting at London's Dorchester Hotel and, with hidden cameras rolling, blabbed away on a number of topics—including the breakup of Charles and Diana's marriage—while intimating that her loft connections were a great business asset. To make matters worse, at a meeting sans Sophie, Harkin suggested he could organize a sex party for the right client and even hinted that the jury was still out on Prince Edward's sexual preferences. "There's no smoke without fire," he reportedly said.



Title: Re: Sophie Upset as Bodyguard is Axed
Post by: Mooster on December 19, 2011, 12:42:40 am
At least Waity hasn't been photographed topless in the back of a car with Chris Tarrant like Sophie has...she's no angel either  bignono


Title: Re: Sophie Upset as Bodyguard is Axed
Post by: meememe on December 19, 2011, 03:17:34 am
Prior to her relationship with Edward what she did was her own business.

Kate modelled underwear to snare a prince - she goes on official duties wearing no underwear and wears dresses so that we can see that - hardly the image of a future Queen.  She sets out to show us her altogether while Sophie has been a model of propriety since being with Edward -there is a difference.


Title: Re: Sophie Upset as Bodyguard is Axed
Post by: Kuei Fei on December 19, 2011, 04:55:49 am
  Here are some of the details

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20134186,00.html

The Countess of Wessex seemed anything but as she was captured on videotape gossiping about her royal relations and trashing British pols. Her woes began when a reporter for Britain's News of the World, posing as the personal assistant to a wealthy sheik and potential client, set out to trap Murray Harkin, Sophie's partner in R-JH Public Relations, into admitting to questionable business practices

 Sophie herself arrived for a March 14 meeting at London's Dorchester Hotel and, with hidden cameras rolling, blabbed away on a number of topics—including the breakup of Charles and Diana's marriage—while intimating that her loft connections were a great business asset. To make matters worse, at a meeting sans Sophie, Harkin suggested he could organize a sex party for the right client and even hinted that the jury was still out on Prince Edward's sexual preferences. "There's no smoke without fire," he reportedly said.

One thing I am beginning ot learn about with business, is that if you are to meet and schmooze a client, do it in an office setting and not a hotel, room or a restaurant. Just do these things in a professional setting.


Title: Re: Sophie Upset as Bodyguard is Axed
Post by: Kate2 on January 01, 2012, 09:37:56 pm
Do any of you recall the photo of Sophie , very stressed out, having an argument with her body guard? She was either crying or on the verge, out side of some shop, just prior to Prince Wm's wedding.  At the time I did wonder about that photo. It had a "personal" element to it, IMo. What possibily could The Duchess been so upset about that she lost control in public?
When higher ups thought that Mr. Manakee was getting to close and cozy with Diana, he was removed. When Mr. Cross, was getting to close to Princess Anne, he, to was removed.  Perhaps the "down-slimming"(?) could have been the way to remove Sophie's body guard because he (they) was/were getting too close! Just a thought... ;)

Edward and Sophie know how to work together as a team and do so very well!They respect each other..


Title: Re: Sophie Upset as Bodyguard is Axed
Post by: Tatiana on January 01, 2012, 09:43:20 pm
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theworldroyals/message/6179

   I found it for you Kate2

   I felt sorry for the man, he couldnt argue back ..  Friends say the Countess has a reputation for being 'grand'

    She is also known for her short temper.

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1380021/Royal-Wedding-2011-Countess-Wessex-wearing-Bruce-Oldfield.html#comments

  Comments are quite interesting.


Title: Re: Sophie Upset as Bodyguard is Axed
Post by: Mooster on January 02, 2012, 01:42:27 am
I have read previously that she is not a very nice character, didn't the servants nickname her The Cow?


Title: Re: Sophie Upset as Bodyguard is Axed
Post by: Tatiana on January 02, 2012, 01:46:04 am


      I have heard that mentioned a time or two  :tehe:


Title: Re: Sophie Upset as Bodyguard is Axed
Post by: Kuei Fei on January 02, 2012, 05:37:25 am
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theworldroyals/message/6179

   I found it for you Kate2

   I felt sorry for the man, he couldnt argue back ..  Friends say the Countess has a reputation for being 'grand'

    She is also known for her short temper.

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1380021/Royal-Wedding-2011-Countess-Wessex-wearing-Bruce-Oldfield.html#comments

  Comments are quite interesting.

Well, when you think about it, at that point the entire RF was probably on tenterhooks and losing their temper and being snappish at everyone. Wouldn't you if Kate were marrying into your family because of your idiot relative?


Title: Re: Sophie Upset as Bodyguard is Axed
Post by: Kate2 on January 02, 2012, 01:09:46 pm
Thank you, Tatiana, for finding and posting the link.
I just think there was more too it all then merely the wedding. Sorry , but my suspicious nature clicked on when I saw this. In the comment section, on page 5 ( or the first page) I posted a comment, with my full name of Catherine.
Anyway , Sophie has stayed at a hotel in our town, at least 2 or 3 times. All the staff dealing with her, found her to be very friendly and easy to please..


Title: Re: Sophie Upset as Bodyguard is Axed
Post by: giamodel60 on January 02, 2012, 04:05:50 pm
It seems odd? If HM has to do with this I doubt she is the only one. Maybe both their security was reduced?


Title: Re: Sophie Upset as Bodyguard is Axed
Post by: Tatiana on January 03, 2012, 04:54:22 am


Well, when you think about it, at that point the entire RF was probably on tenterhooks and losing their temper and being snappish at everyone. Wouldn't you if Kate were marrying into your family because of your idiot relative?

     errrr... I believe Sophie has been the same person since 1996, when Kate wasnt even a blink in Will's eye.

     People tend to watch their manners around different staff, with their own staff is quite another story.


Title: Re: Sophie Upset as Bodyguard is Axed
Post by: Mooster on January 03, 2012, 01:10:17 pm
http://www.orange.co.uk/images/editorial/sophie-wessex-031108-480.jpg

Sophie flashing the royal boob.  The photo is pixellated but I remember the original article and you could quite clearly see the lot  :naughty: say what you like about Kate but even she hasn't revealed this much!


Title: Re: Sophie Upset as Bodyguard is Axed
Post by: Tatiana on January 05, 2012, 01:38:22 am
                   

                                                                   :laugh:


Title: Re: Sophie Upset as Bodyguard is Axed
Post by: Varya on January 05, 2012, 04:05:23 am
http://www.orange.co.uk/images/editorial/sophie-wessex-031108-480.jpg

Sophie flashing the royal boob.  The photo is pixellated but I remember the original article and you could quite clearly see the lot  :naughty: say what you like about Kate but even she hasn't revealed this much!

That we know of!


Title: Re: Sophie Upset as Bodyguard is Axed
Post by: Yooper on January 05, 2012, 05:23:01 am
Everybody's 'special'.  I get that mentality.  But, everybody's, um, not special.

That's what it comes down to, doesn't it?  The Brits don't seem to understand that our Security is for Bodily Defense. 

We honestly believe that the UK security is for defense of unsavory misbehavior, barring HM.  The rest, to us, seems silly because no other member of the royal family does anything that we find noteworthy.  And even if it's noteworthy, that doesn't require high-level defense.

Our point is, get an agenda, get a stature, then get defense.  Otherwise, there's corn to raise.


Title: Re: Sophie Upset as Bodyguard is Axed
Post by: Contessa on January 05, 2012, 12:54:34 pm
When that boob shot was taken Sophie wasn't dating Edward then was she?

In all honesty, I think there's more to it than what we've been told as to why the BG has been let go.
Maybe he left.


Title: Re: Sophie Upset as Bodyguard is Axed
Post by: Kuei Fei on January 06, 2012, 12:56:50 am

Quote
That's what it comes down to, doesn't it?  The Brits don't seem to understand that our Security is for Bodily Defense.
 

I think the Brits fail to understand just how high a target even our ex-presidents are. They are the most powerful people in the world and quite frankly the President is exposed to a lot of information, that if gotten by our enemies, could result in the annihilation of our country. The President just runs everything and I don't see how on earth it is the same as guarding members of the RF.

Quote
We honestly believe that the UK security is for defense of unsavory misbehavior, barring HM.  The rest, to us, seems silly because no other member of the royal family does anything that we find noteworthy.  And even if it's noteworthy, that doesn't require high-level defense.

I have to agree with you there and to me it sounds like the security guards are seriously underappreciated by the RF. The RF makes their job harder each time the royals hang out with unsavory types and how the royals don't let security run background checks on eople, like William did in getting involved with Kate.



Title: Re: Sophie Upset as Bodyguard is Axed
Post by: Tatiana on January 07, 2012, 01:01:23 am
      Really ? ..  what about when Earl Mountbatten was assinated with members of his family?

         Or when bombs with nails in them were detonated and killed numerous horses and injured soldiers in a parade in London ?

           I believe Queen Victoria had 7 attempts on her life.

            

Two of the attempts occurred within two days of each other! One of the Queen’s attempted assassins shot at her and escaped, so the Prime Minister used her as bait to catch him. She and her husband returned to the same location (along with plainclothes police officers) two days later to draw out the gunman. The crazy thing was, this plan actually worked!

In addition to assassination attempts, she also had a crazy man chase her on her carriage claiming that she stole the throne from him, and another man hit her in the face with his cane!

 Three of the assassination attempts occurred in the same year. Three of her would-be assassins received reduced sentences because their pistols were either broken or improperly loaded. Four of the attempts occurred in the same location, on Constitution Hill. Three of her attackers were found to be insane, and were sent to mental institutions instead of prison.

None of her attackers were given the death penalty, and only one a life sentence (the one who attacked her twice). Three of the attackers (including the crazy man that chased her) went to a mental asylum, though one of them was released after 7 years and allowed to leave the country. Two of the attackers were transported to Australia for 7 years, one received only an 18-month sentence, and one was caned 20 times and given a 1 year prison sentence. Victoria wasn’t thrilled about all of the light sentences. At the Queen’s insistence, the laws were changed so that defendants could be found both “insane” AND “guilty”.

           Yes I believe we Brits do "get it".


Title: Re: Sophie Upset as Bodyguard is Axed
Post by: thtregoddess11 on April 11, 2012, 09:27:05 am
SOPHIE UPSET AS BODYGUARD AXED

http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/283356/Adam-Helliker

thought that Bea&Eugenie didn't have bodyguards anymore?

At this time, only Sophie's were axed. IMO, if you're a WORKING royal or dependent of one, you deserve it. Otherwise, no. Sophie did roughly 300 engagements on HM's behalf last year, both at home and abroad, solo and with her husband, and Beatrice & Eugenie?

Let me see...barely passing uni...falling out of London clubs in the wee hours of the morning...smiling at events that all of the BRF show up at...acting like high priced socialites at Paris Fashion Week (Princess Beatrice's security to another attending Princess who tried to introduce herself: "The Princess does not wish to meet other princesses":rollseyes:)...nope....no official royal duties there....

They recently (well, Beatrice anyway, Eugenie's losing hers after graduation) lost theirs too-but Daddy's paying from his civil list $$ for them to have former/retired guards come back {Source (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/angry-prince-andrew-has-to-pay-for-three-778240)}, so technically, the tax payers are still footing the bill for it!


Title: Re: Sophie Upset as Bodyguard is Axed
Post by: June on April 11, 2012, 09:33:22 am
Prior to her relationship with Edward what she did was her own business.

Kate modelled underwear to snare a prince - she goes on official duties wearing no underwear and wears dresses so that we can see that - hardly the image of a future Queen.  She sets out to show us her altogether while Sophie has been a model of propriety since being with Edward -there is a difference.

I absolutely agree.  :thumbsup: And let's now add the vulgar display when she was with the Queen.  bignono Kate's clothes have always been for the benefit of men: skimpy, tight, revealing. Her jeans must have been so uncomfortable, always showing Will what awaited him behind closed doors.  :ick:


Title: Re: Sophie Upset as Bodyguard is Axed
Post by: thtregoddess11 on April 11, 2012, 09:37:42 am
Prior to her relationship with Edward what she did was her own business.

Kate modelled underwear to snare a prince - she goes on official duties wearing no underwear and wears dresses so that we can see that - hardly the image of a future Queen.  She sets out to show us her altogether while Sophie has been a model of propriety since being with Edward -there is a difference.

I absolutely agree.  :thumbsup: And let's now add the vulgar display when she was with the Queen.  bignono Kate's clothes have always been for the benefit of men: skimpy, tight, revealing. Her jeans must have been so uncomfortable, always showing Will what awaited him behind closed doors.  :ick:

I couldn't agree with you more.


Title: Re: Sophie Upset as Bodyguard is Axed
Post by: June on April 11, 2012, 09:43:46 am
Once again: :thankyou: