Page 2 | King Charles to pay for Duke of York’s private security

tatalan · 2022-12-20T01:35:35+00:00

Monarch expected to foot £3m bill for guards. [[https://archive.ph/2022.12.19-193449/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/12/19/king-charles-pay-duke-yorks-private-security-refusing-do-prince/#selection-1193.1-1193.56 King Charles to pay for Duke of York’s private security]] Fascinating. What do we think?

Stopclutchingpearls · 20/12/2022 04:52

The vile media not veil lol

HamBone · 20/12/2022 04:57

I suppose Charles can do what he wants with his own money. Just as Harry can with his. Not sure why he’d waste it on Andrew, but anyway.

SallyLockheart · 20/12/2022 05:08

Preferable to the tax payer paying
if Harry had wanted to stay in the Uk as a non working royal, live in frogmore cottage, get a regular job out of the public eye - ie avoid all media intrusion - in a role that doesn’t merit protection as a a working royal, I’ve no doubt Charles would have likewise provided protection as required

£3m sounds very steep when PA is presumably not out and about hardly at all

HitMeWithAHotNoteAndWatchMeBounce · 20/12/2022 05:10

HamBone · 20/12/2022 04:57

I suppose Charles can do what he wants with his own money. Just as Harry can with his. Not sure why he’d waste it on Andrew, but anyway.

Well of course he can.

And because of who he is, and the institution he represents, everyone can think what they like about him, as well. And see quite clearly where his priorities lie.

Just two days ago, I was amongst those wishing H&M would just disappear. And I still do. But after the last couple of days, I’m now very much seeing what they’re so aggrieved about.

Original poster

tatalan · 20/12/2022 05:11

SallyLockheart · 20/12/2022 05:08

Preferable to the tax payer paying
if Harry had wanted to stay in the Uk as a non working royal, live in frogmore cottage, get a regular job out of the public eye - ie avoid all media intrusion - in a role that doesn’t merit protection as a a working royal, I’ve no doubt Charles would have likewise provided protection as required

£3m sounds very steep when PA is presumably not out and about hardly at all

I'm sure Harry's fine.

It just sends a message that the RF will pay £7 million or £12 million to protect an alleged rapist, spend £3 million on his yearly protection.

OP posts:

sinkyt · 20/12/2022 05:16

It's ridiculous that there is so much outrage over Harry but not Andrew. Why did Clarkson not want to shame Andrew or compare him to Fred West? Andrew gets security, what about the millions he had from shady business deals?

I’m not in the UK, but surely this will come out of Charles’ pocket and not the tax-payers…?

Are the finances transparent enough that we will know this?

sinkyt · 20/12/2022 05:18

And, no, it's not taxpayer funded

perhaps Charles will have a few more bags of cash gifted to him!

Ukri · 20/12/2022 06:09

Prince Andrew is in the Uk for a start, he’s one person not four, he doesn’t have many public engagements and, wait for it, he’s an elderly man who has been accused of something but has never been prosecuted or been proven guilty. For all we know he could be completely and utterly innocent. Yet his life has been ruined (ok he still has the ability to live a nice quiet life but his life has been changed completely).

I don’t know whether he slept with a 17 year old who had been sex trafficked or not. If he slept with her, who knows whether he knew she had been sex trafficked or wether he thought she was a 17 year old who was loving having an all expenses paid party lifestyle in a multimillion pound mansion/yacht. We don’t know. Likelihood is however that you’d assume she was there willingly. She was 17 and old enough to get married (at the time). There has been no prosecution. He’s innocent until proven guilty in the UK.

King Charles can do whatever he likes with his own money. If he wants to use it to ensure the safety of his younger brother who no doubt proclaims his innocence then that’s a kind and generous thing. If I had the money to protect a sibling whom I loved and believed(or wanted to believe) was innocent then I would do it too.

sinkyt · 20/12/2022 06:11

he’s an elderly man who has been accused of something but has never been prosecuted or been proven guilty.

he's guilty of keeping dodgy company though isn't he?

sinkyt · 20/12/2022 06:11

not sure why his age matters though?

sinkyt · 20/12/2022 06:13

There has been no prosecution

because the case was settled for millions

Toddlerteaplease · 20/12/2022 06:16

He can spend his own money as he likes.

SantaStoleMyPies · 20/12/2022 06:16

Don't be silly @sinkyt - he though Epstein was just a jolly fellow who was dripping in money and girls because of how nice he was.

No clues at all that he was a dodgy fucker who was screwing people over and abusing them.

He definitely didn't have decade old legal problems with accusations of underage sexual abuse of girls. Had never done a plea deal himself to get charges of underage prostitution dropped. Or had been tagged a sex offender.

How ever was Andrew to know?

sinkyt · 20/12/2022 06:17

yep poor Andrew!

JenniferBarkley · 20/12/2022 06:20

It won't be a popular view, but if he needs security I think the state should be providing it, and people at risk shouldn't have to pass a morality test to get security.

The same goes for Harry, Boris Johnson, Trump etc etc.

Ukri · 20/12/2022 06:22

sinkyt · 20/12/2022 06:11

he’s an elderly man who has been accused of something but has never been prosecuted or been proven guilty.

he's guilty of keeping dodgy company though isn't he?

I work in a very respectable job but still have dodgy friends and associates. I have a school friend whom I love dearly. He has spent many years in prison. I also know that lots of parents at school do a lot of drugs. I know my friends husband has had three affairs with young women in their early twenties (she knows too). I know plenty of people who are not above board with hmrc. I still mix with these people.

Ukri · 20/12/2022 06:26

sinkyt · 20/12/2022 06:13

There has been no prosecution

because the case was settled for millions

No. You can’t escape criminal prosecution by settling a case. It isn’t possible.

you can settle a civil law suit. In the us a person can try to bring a civil law suit for practically anything they want to. I could try to bring a civil law suit because your cat comes into my garden and digs up my flower bed for example.

Soontobe60 · 20/12/2022 06:27

sinkyt · 20/12/2022 06:13

There has been no prosecution

because the case was settled for millions

If there was enough evidence, the CPS would have been able to take him to court over this regardless as to how much money his accuser received as a pay off.
As much as I dislike the institution of the Monarchy, I believe very strongly that everyone is entitled to a fair trial, and should be considered innocent until found guilty. That’s the basis of our democratic society. PA has not stood trial and therefore is not guilty in the eyes of the law of the ‘crime’ he is accused of.

Sindonym · 20/12/2022 06:28

MarshaMelrose · 20/12/2022 03:24

Because Andrew lives close to already secure premises and doesn't travel much. I doubt he's looking for 24 hour guards. He doesn't work anymore so not required for every day duty.
Whereas Harry wanted security for all four of them 4/7, so if they'd need the children to have security at home if they were away. Plus Harry and Meghan travel extensively round the US including making several trips a year to Europe. When they travel abroad they have to pay for a whole team to go so they can have shifts off.
You're talking about a much larger amount of money.

And, no, it's not taxpayer funded.

Show quote history

Andrew has never been known to stay happily at home. He has always wanted to be mixing with the hugely wealthy and basking in being a Prince. Maybe Charles has done this to stop Andrew doing a deal with someone extremely dodgy in return for them paying for his security.

It doesn’t send a great message to H&M though considering theirs was pulled with little notice.

Interesting idea that the tabloids might turn on RF to save themselves. Perhaps this is a warning shot. God knows why anyone reads them (The Telegraph is pretty tabloid like these days, it’s always been right wing, but the last few years has become a lot grimmer).

MyMumSaysALot · 20/12/2022 06:35

JenniferBarkley · 20/12/2022 06:20

It won't be a popular view, but if he needs security I think the state should be providing it, and people at risk shouldn't have to pass a morality test to get security.

The same goes for Harry, Boris Johnson, Trump etc etc.

Trump has it. As a former president, he’ll always have it, although it’s reduced from what it was when he was POTUS.

JenniferBarkley · 20/12/2022 06:40

MyMumSaysALot · 20/12/2022 06:35

Trump has it. As a former president, he’ll always have it, although it’s reduced from what it was when he was POTUS.

Show quote history

Oh I know that, but there was talk of removing it as a result of January 6th.

Venetiaparties · 20/12/2022 06:50

They are completely different situations.

It is very clear cut in my mind.

Harry does not LIVE in the UK.
He lives in the US, which is his choice.

Should he decide to move to the UK permanently again no doubt there would be a conversation around his security arrangements. There is no way UK tax payers should stump for 247 security in another country, when he has chosen to abandon the UK and his royal duties of which he has had the best part of forty years of tax paid luxury already and the best of everything all funded by us. His choice to move to the US and his choice to fund his own security. No question. As and when he is here to for functions connected to the royal family, security is ALREADY included, as we saw at the funerals and jubilees.

Prince Andrew lives in the UK. He is an obvious target and he is the Queen's son. This is being paid for privately by the family not the tax payers. I have no issue with it. I imagine it was the late Queen's wish that this should be provided.

It is like comparing apples and pears.

If Harry moves back, a conversation can be had about his security. If he chooses to stay in the US the onus is on him to provide it.

Original poster

tatalan · 20/12/2022 06:58

Venetiaparties · 20/12/2022 06:50

They are completely different situations.

It is very clear cut in my mind.

Harry does not LIVE in the UK.
He lives in the US, which is his choice.

Should he decide to move to the UK permanently again no doubt there would be a conversation around his security arrangements. There is no way UK tax payers should stump for 247 security in another country, when he has chosen to abandon the UK and his royal duties of which he has had the best part of forty years of tax paid luxury already and the best of everything all funded by us. His choice to move to the US and his choice to fund his own security. No question. As and when he is here to for functions connected to the royal family, security is ALREADY included, as we saw at the funerals and jubilees.

Prince Andrew lives in the UK. He is an obvious target and he is the Queen's son. This is being paid for privately by the family not the tax payers. I have no issue with it. I imagine it was the late Queen's wish that this should be provided.

It is like comparing apples and pears.

If Harry moves back, a conversation can be had about his security. If he chooses to stay in the US the onus is on him to provide it.

Who said anything about UK tax payers? If Charles can fund Andrew privately, some will question why Harry couldn't be.

Harry is also an obvious target and the King's son

OP posts:

sinkyt · 20/12/2022 06:59

@Ukri I don't understand your point? Any idiot would think it's not good PR to be a royal & stay over at a friends house who has been charged with such crimes. You still being friendly with someone who doesn't pay tax isn't quite on the same level 😆

sinkyt · 20/12/2022 07:01

@Ukri there was never going to be a prosecution. My point is just because there isn't one doesn't mean Andrea's innocent. I don't think OJ is either.