Royal Gossip
September 25, 2017, 02:35:05 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Edward & Sophie losing security.  (Read 16451 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
rogue
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2661



« 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
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 36207


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #1 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?
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
Kezza
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 758



« Reply #2 on: May 29, 2011, 01:14:39 am »

It doesnt surprise me that cuts are being made.
Logged

You're the most beautiful woman I've ever seen, which doesn't say much for you.

Nighthawk
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 5471


« Reply #3 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
Logged
Kezza
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 758



« Reply #4 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.
Logged

You're the most beautiful woman I've ever seen, which doesn't say much for you.

mousiekins
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7773


Harryite #2


« Reply #5 on: May 29, 2011, 05:21:47 am »

Edward and Sophie do alot and more then some of those that are keeping their security
Logged

Kezza
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 758



« Reply #6 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.
Logged

You're the most beautiful woman I've ever seen, which doesn't say much for you.

Nighthawk
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 5471


« Reply #7 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
Logged
rogue
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2661



« Reply #8 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.
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 36207


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #9 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.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
June
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3700


« Reply #10 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.
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 36207


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #11 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.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
June
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3700


« Reply #12 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.  X-Mas_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.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2011, 07:56:09 am by June » Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 36207


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #13 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.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14040



« Reply #14 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?
Logged



“Three things are to be looked to in a building: that it stand on the right spot, that it be securely founded, that it be successfully executed.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
meememe
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2241



« Reply #15 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.
Logged
Tatiana
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


I come from a long line of Monarchists.


« Reply #16 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
                        
Logged

serene grace
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10395


Appointed Moderator


« Reply #17 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.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 10:23:33 am by serene grace » Logged

[/URL]
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 36207


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #18 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.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
HC
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1626



« Reply #19 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.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines | Imprint Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!