Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
The royal family
Original poster

Andrew, his £3M per year Security and Priti Patel

230 replies

Roussette · 24/08/2023 17:54

Well I never.

Andrew is at it again.

He lost his security last year. He enlisted the help of Priti Patel to have it reinstated. She lobbied Charles's Private Security to this purpose, and someone has leaked that.

He never gives up does he....

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
Original poster
Roussette · 25/08/2023 09:25

MrsFiddle · 25/08/2023 09:16

Yesterday you said that Harry is a part of the RF and yet he comments on politics in the UK. Is it OK for him to do so then?

Show quote history

I don't understand your post at all. Harry is a member of the RF being the son of the King.

What has he commented on as far as politics?

OP posts:
Iwantcakeeveryday · 25/08/2023 09:27

I thought Charles had been paying it to the tune of £3M a year, so he obviously has it or thinks he needs it.

Exactly. The problem is its wasted money because they can;t truly protect him.

I do wonder, what would the reaction be if Andrew or Harry were shot and killed in the Uk, while they were unable and prevented from, properly protecting themselves. Like when Diana died and the public pretended they didn't create the demand for pap shots, I think the public would blame Charles despite him doing ti largely because of public pressure.

Iwantcakeeveryday · 25/08/2023 09:27

I thought Charles had been paying it to the tune of £3M a year, so he obviously has it or thinks he needs it.

Exactly. The problem is its wasted money because they can;t truly protect him.

I do wonder, what would the reaction be if Andrew or Harry were shot and killed in the Uk, while they were unable and prevented from, properly protecting themselves. Like when Diana died and the public pretended they didn't create the demand for pap shots, I think the public would blame Charles despite him doing ti largely because of public pressure.

Novella4 · 25/08/2023 09:29

Lots of the Windsors cousins and second cousins have gone quietly enough feom their palaces
Not missed either

Philip said they ‘go quietly ‘ when the time came

I think Charles’s conanation was a turning point . The clothes and costumes , no doubt extremely expensive , looked cheap and comical . The ridiculous velvet cloaks and ribbons and swags - Andrew of course in full regalia - because so what if he raped a teenager- she was a pleb. Throw some money at her .
Make it go away and turn up at the next state occasion in full nonsense made up awards and show what a diseased state the UK currently is

Serenster · 25/08/2023 09:29

Roussette · 25/08/2023 09:24

Of course it's based on need. Andrew obviously doesn't need it as assessed by RAVEC so doesn't have it. Same as Harry. Should RAVEC assess their security risk has changed then their security needs will be altered to apply.

I thought Charles had been paying it to the tune of £3M a year, so he obviously has it or thinks he needs it.

This point was in any event challenged by Harry in the first round of his judicial review - he said it meant the Committee were biased. The court did not agree, and threw this ground of challenge out

Course they did

Sorry, are you saying the judges are biased, Roussette? Or corrupt?

I suppose it’s not at all possible that Harry’s claim was not supportable?

MrsFiddle · 25/08/2023 09:29

Roussette · 25/08/2023 09:25

I don't understand your post at all. Harry is a member of the RF being the son of the King.

What has he commented on as far as politics?

Show quote history

I don't understand why you don't understand it.

You suggested that members of the RF are supposed to be apolitical and you were criticising Andrew for not being so yet Harry commented on UK politics in his recent court case. He broke " the golden rule". It was widely reported. I'm asking how is it OK for Harry to do so but not Andrew? ( I'm not saying it is correct for either of them btw)

grass321 · 25/08/2023 09:30

I genuinely think Harry and Andrew want security because it makes them feel important. Being whisked in and out of cars with bodyguards.

Whereas we see them as two slightly dim and petulant men with nothing of any worth to contribute to the British public.

Original poster
Roussette · 25/08/2023 09:30

@Novella4

So agree on the bags of cash, no case, nothing to see hear folks.

There is a thread running at the mo, whereby a poster has been questioned by her Bank closely about payments to her daughter. Yet a Qatari 'businessman' can hand over bags of cash in carrier bags on three seperate occasions, no questions asked.

And how that money was then used is not really known. Apparently Dumfries House was involved, a property belonging to Charles. Before anyone corrects me, ownership of that isn't clear either.

OP posts:
Angrycat2768 · 25/08/2023 09:30

Iwantcakeeveryday · 25/08/2023 09:19

There should of course be communication between the royal staff and officials where it is relevant, they do not need to be on a decision making committee. At all. I don't care if thats the way its always been, it isn't right IMO and shoudl change.

Harry is the one who has had threats made against him where people have been jailed for threatening him and his family. The hysterical press about his wife in particular in the UK would probably mean it was more likely they would be in danger from some nutters than Andrew, as long as he kept his head down. Admittedly he seems incapable of doing so. Harry being denied security does smack of vindictiveness, and it does make sense if members of the Royal Household are on the committee. I can't see how they can be truly objective. They should be informed of and dangers but should not be making decisions.

YetMoreNewBeginnings · 25/08/2023 09:33

I thought Charles had been paying it to the tune of £3M a year, so he obviously has it or thinks he needs it.

I’d put a bet on that that was an agreement Charles made with his mother.

Andrew was furious in 2011 when his daughters lost their security. It was privately funded, most probably by his mother, since then. He was also fuming when his was downgraded, like Anne, Sophie and Edward’s, to when working only so a private element was added to his to make it 24 hours again from what I remember about reports at the time.

I think now we’re at the year mark things like “yes mother, I’ll continue paying for Andrew’s security” are being reviewed.

I also wouldn’t be remotely be surprised if Andrew’s camp is behind this leak. The more people that think he should have security the more pressure he can put on his brother to continue paying for it…

Angrycat2768 · 25/08/2023 09:33

grass321 · 25/08/2023 09:30

I genuinely think Harry and Andrew want security because it makes them feel important. Being whisked in and out of cars with bodyguards.

Whereas we see them as two slightly dim and petulant men with nothing of any worth to contribute to the British public.

I agree that is probably true as well, but that doesn't mean that a security committee shouldn't be wholly independent.

Serenster · 25/08/2023 09:33

There is a thread running at the mo, whereby a poster has been questioned by her Bank closely about payments to her daughter. Yet a Qatari 'businessman' can hand over bags of cash in carrier bags on three seperate occasions, no questions asked.

That’s not true - we know there were questions asked. The banks and the charity both confirmed that due diligence procedures (i.e. asking questions - just like the poster you refer to is being asked now) took place, and as that showed no issues the donations were accepted.. Hopefully the same will happen foe this poster too. In both cases, that means proper process has been followed.

Original poster
Roussette · 25/08/2023 09:34

MrsFiddle · 25/08/2023 09:29

I don't understand why you don't understand it.

You suggested that members of the RF are supposed to be apolitical and you were criticising Andrew for not being so yet Harry commented on UK politics in his recent court case. He broke " the golden rule". It was widely reported. I'm asking how is it OK for Harry to do so but not Andrew? ( I'm not saying it is correct for either of them btw)

Show quote history

And I don't understand why you don't understand that I don't understand!

Andrew has a PR friend. Patel knows him. I think (but am not sure) that is how this came about.

I talked about the RF being apolitical, but we know that not to be true. Look at Charles and the spider letters and the hundreds of laws the Queen lobbied to change to benefit her and the Monarchy.

OP posts:
Iwantcakeeveryday · 25/08/2023 09:34

Angrycat2768 · 25/08/2023 09:30

Harry is the one who has had threats made against him where people have been jailed for threatening him and his family. The hysterical press about his wife in particular in the UK would probably mean it was more likely they would be in danger from some nutters than Andrew, as long as he kept his head down. Admittedly he seems incapable of doing so. Harry being denied security does smack of vindictiveness, and it does make sense if members of the Royal Household are on the committee. I can't see how they can be truly objective. They should be informed of and dangers but should not be making decisions.

Show quote history

I agree. People had a lot to say about Harry offering to pay, but he cannot access that kind of security which he needs otherwise because of our gun control laws. I think it was him trying to find a way of having the security he needs but paying for it himself. If your own security can't carry weapons, that limits what protection they can offer and also if they will even take on the risk.

Original poster
Roussette · 25/08/2023 09:35

Serenster · 25/08/2023 09:33

There is a thread running at the mo, whereby a poster has been questioned by her Bank closely about payments to her daughter. Yet a Qatari 'businessman' can hand over bags of cash in carrier bags on three seperate occasions, no questions asked.

That’s not true - we know there were questions asked. The banks and the charity both confirmed that due diligence procedures (i.e. asking questions - just like the poster you refer to is being asked now) took place, and as that showed no issues the donations were accepted.. Hopefully the same will happen foe this poster too. In both cases, that means proper process has been followed.

Ahhh yes due process... not influence by the Monarchy with the Met. Course not.

OP posts:
Iwantcakeeveryday · 25/08/2023 09:36

YetMoreNewBeginnings · 25/08/2023 09:33

I thought Charles had been paying it to the tune of £3M a year, so he obviously has it or thinks he needs it.

I’d put a bet on that that was an agreement Charles made with his mother.

Andrew was furious in 2011 when his daughters lost their security. It was privately funded, most probably by his mother, since then. He was also fuming when his was downgraded, like Anne, Sophie and Edward’s, to when working only so a private element was added to his to make it 24 hours again from what I remember about reports at the time.

I think now we’re at the year mark things like “yes mother, I’ll continue paying for Andrew’s security” are being reviewed.

I also wouldn’t be remotely be surprised if Andrew’s camp is behind this leak. The more people that think he should have security the more pressure he can put on his brother to continue paying for it…

Again, the security his brother can pay for is not effective because they cannot carry weapons, nor do they have access to security intel.

I hate that we pay for it BUT I do think its a tough ask to expect them to be forced by birth into this, have enormous security risk, but not be able to effectively protect themselves with their own money either. Its a really difficult issue tbf

Original poster
Roussette · 25/08/2023 09:36

YetMoreNewBeginnings · 25/08/2023 09:33

I thought Charles had been paying it to the tune of £3M a year, so he obviously has it or thinks he needs it.

I’d put a bet on that that was an agreement Charles made with his mother.

Andrew was furious in 2011 when his daughters lost their security. It was privately funded, most probably by his mother, since then. He was also fuming when his was downgraded, like Anne, Sophie and Edward’s, to when working only so a private element was added to his to make it 24 hours again from what I remember about reports at the time.

I think now we’re at the year mark things like “yes mother, I’ll continue paying for Andrew’s security” are being reviewed.

I also wouldn’t be remotely be surprised if Andrew’s camp is behind this leak. The more people that think he should have security the more pressure he can put on his brother to continue paying for it…

So agree with this.

A bit of a standstill I would say.

Especially as Andrew is squatting in Royal Lodge and refusing to move. After Charles hinted that was happening.

OP posts:
Serenster · 25/08/2023 09:37

Ahhh yes due process... not influence by the Monarchy with the Met. Course not.

So again you are saying that there’s corruption here?

MrsFiddle · 25/08/2023 09:38

What is the line always touted on here from certain sectors? You must provide evidence to any negativity that you allude to?

Original poster
Roussette · 25/08/2023 09:39

Serenster · 25/08/2023 09:37

Ahhh yes due process... not influence by the Monarchy with the Met. Course not.

So again you are saying that there’s corruption here?

Who knows.

The Queen died. Charles made King. Not a good look for a Monarch to be investigated by the Met, so case dropped.
When it is quite obvious, that laws were broken as far as cash for honours.

The letter from Fawcett the Fence proves it. I linked it and talked about it on another thread.

OP posts:
Iwantcakeeveryday · 25/08/2023 09:40

The King cannot be arrested, the King cannot commit crimes. These are our laws. The moment he commits a crime, it is no longer a crime. Including anything he did in his past as heir, they cannot arrest him for it. I doubt any police department would dare to ask to question him. Just imagine it for a second. Of course they can't pursue this.

Serenster · 25/08/2023 09:40

When it is quite obvious, that laws were broken as far as cash for honours.

I know you want this to be true, but you don’t know this, do you? None of us do.

Original poster
Roussette · 25/08/2023 09:42

MrsFiddle · 25/08/2023 09:38

What is the line always touted on here from certain sectors? You must provide evidence to any negativity that you allude to?

Is that to me?

I can provide links to the Spider letters if you want. Lots on them. Ditto loads on laws bypassed or lobbied for change.
I just feel if I did, it would derail this thread, so would prefer not to on here. It's very googleable. 👍

OP posts:
Novella4 · 25/08/2023 09:43

Oh for gods sake @Serenster

look at what you are saying .

people can draw their own conclusions But whether they want to be berated into publicly stating what they think is going on is up to them
The fear of speaking out is now an issue isn’t it ?

Says a lot

Serenster · 25/08/2023 09:43

MrsFiddle · 25/08/2023 09:38

What is the line always touted on here from certain sectors? You must provide evidence to any negativity that you allude to?

It’s quite extraordinary on the thread - so far we have:

The High Court
The Met
RAVEC
Coutts Bank
An independent Charity Board

All apparently tamely ignoring their processes a their reputations and acting flat out illegally, just because a group of posters don’t like the outcomes that were reached by them. It’s quite ridiculous.