..Even though they're considered "low risk" by security experts. The Royal Protection Squad has made approaches to The Palace to remove their 24 hour security detail but Prince Andrew has insisted they retain it as they're Princesses. So why doesn't he or Fergie pay for it then, privately? Now I'm a Royalist but he can afford to pay for this himself. Anne's two offspring don't have Protection apparently.

 

From The Sun:

 

Princess Eugenie was mugged in Cambodia whilst on her gap year holiday, it emerged last night.

 

The Queen's granddaughter, who is sixth in line to the throne, was saved by two bodyguards when two robbers grabbed her friend's purse.

 

The two men from Scotland Yard's elite SO14 protection squad grappled with the robber and rugby tackled him.

 

Princess Eugenie and her friend were the target of robbers during their gap-year travels in Cambodia

 

But as they struggled with him another robber 'pelted them with rocks' to try and stop them.

 

Fearing for Eugenie's safety they let the thief go, grabbed the purse and whisked her and her friend away as quickly as possible.

 

The incident is the first time in 10 years that SO14 officers have stopped a direct threat to a royal.

 

But the fortunate escape is likely to vindicate the controversial use of round-the-clock protection for Eugenie and her older sister Beatrice. Providing a constant watch for each princess currently costs £250,000 a year.

 

Both have faced criticism for the enormous cost of their security entourage, made all the more questionable during the recession and because her cousins, Zara and Peter Phillips, don't have such publicly-funded security.

 

She has also been living an apparently unrestrained lifestyle, once being photographed at a pole-dancing club joining in with the antics on stage and another time seen sunbathing topless.

 

Since finishing her A-levels at £9,000-a-term Marlborough College in Wiltshire last summer, Eugenie, 19, has jetted to India, America and South Africa, and this week has been relaxing with pals in Phuket.

 

The bill for her protection on this trip alone is thought to be in the region of £100,000.

The mugging happened as Eugenie and two friends were walking along in Phnom Penh, the capital of Cambodia. It appears the thieves mistook the royal for a normal backpacker.

 

The Angkor Wat temple complex is one of Cambodia's biggest attractions. The mugging occurred in the country's capital, Phnom Penh

 

Speaking to The Sun, a source said the bodyguards 'feared the incident was escalating out of control and took the decision to focus on the safety of their principal'.

They were not thought to be physically harmed by the incident.

 

Protection officers have in the past made informal approaches to the royal household about downgrading the protection of Beatrice and Eugenie but their father the Duke of York apparently insisted on his daughters have round-the-clock security.

 

That is despite security professionals reckoning that both girls are low-risk targets.

 

 

Scotland Yard, whose royal protection bill topped £30million last year, certainly believes savings could be made and that Special Branch and security service assessments have shown the threat to lesser members of the Royal Family, including Beatrice and Eugenie, is minimal.

 

Last night a spokeswoman for Buckingham Palace said: 'We don't comment on security arrangements'.

 

The mugging happened at night and began when one of Eugenie's friends took her purse out. At that point the SO14 Special Branch officers were just a few feet away.

 

Although Eugenie, who is paying for her own travel, has booked economy airfares and is bunking down with friends in £15-a-night beachfront hostels, her security officers are travelling business class and staying in up-market hotels.

 

Expert sources have calculated that the cost of their flights, expenses, accommodation and overtime will amount to around £50,000 for the six-week trip.

 

That includes the cost of paying for two officers - at the rank of inspector or sergeant - to accompany her, both of whom claim more than £150 a day in subsistence allowances while they are abroad.

 

Each officer has to be relieved after two weeks, meaning there will be a regular change in staff during her marathon jaunt.

 

Her father Prince Andrew has also been criticised for his own frequent trips around the world on 'business' which have often incorporated opportunities to play golf and cavort with bikini-clad girls, earning him the nickname 'Air Miles Andy'.

 

In one episode he hired a private 10-seater jet to take him from London to Aberdeen for a golfing break whilst in another he was reported to have diverted an RAF jet to a ski resort after a business assignment.

Edited May 4, 200916 yr by Crazy Chris

Time to get rid of the bloody royal family they serve no purpose whatsoever

 

 

OUTRAGEOUS.

Someone clearly needs to rein Prince Andrew in. He needs to be reminded it's not HIS money he's spending. If Zara Philips doesn't need taxpayer-funded protection, I don't see why Beatrice or Eugene do.

 

Just yet ANOTHER reason to make him ardently wish for the ABOLITION of the monarchy.

Well I do think that the top Royals do need armed Protection. That's The Queen, Philip, Charles and his two sons. The others should pay for their own like stars and other rich people do. It shouldn't be up to Andrew. :angry: If they're considered not to need it then it should be removed.

Edited May 4, 200916 yr by Crazy Chris

Well I do think that the top Royals do need armed Protection. That's The Queen, Philip, Charles and his two sons. The others should pay for their own like stars and other rich people do. It shouldn't be up to Andrew. :angry: If they're considered not to need it then it should be removed.

 

I would personally shoot the whole fukkin lot of them they are parasites who lord it over us through a quirk of fate with birth and at the same time use our money to have their lifestyle

 

The Queen is a billionaire, she owns one of the worlds biggest art collections, she has been personally given rare artefacts from heads of state that have visited, Prince Charles makes millions as the duchy of Cornwall, not to mention all the money that comes in from royal estates and tourism to royal buildings

 

They can afford their own security and their own flights

 

Well I do think that the top Royals do need armed Protection. That's The Queen, Philip, Charles and his two sons. The others should pay for their own like stars and other rich people do. It shouldn't be up to Andrew. :angry: If they're considered not to need it then it should be removed.

 

What do the royal family do ?

 

The Queen has no executive powers, all she does is open a few buildings like new airport terminals, trade shows, railway stations and entertains a few dodgy arms dealers on the royal yacht and that is about it

 

And before you say the royal family brings in tourism its bollocks, France brings in more through tourism than we do and they have no monarchy

 

The royals serve no purpose

Edited May 4, 200916 yr by B.A Baracus

I can agree with protection for her on this kinda trip, there are some unstable areas in the world and all it takes it one desperate person to seize and opportunity and then they have a Royal to ransom back to the rich western nation.

 

Normally i reckon they'd be fine, it's not as if anyone really cares about any form of royality apart from the Queen, and Harry/William.

 

If you want too much security, just look at Williams uni stint up in St Andrews. It 15mins drive from my hometown and i avoided it like the plague until he f***ed off back home taking MI6 and his little fan girls/paparazzi with him.

 

I would personally shoot the whole fukkin lot of them they are parasites who lord it over us through a quirk of fate with birth and at the same time use our money to have their lifestyle

 

The Queen is a billionaire, she owns one of the worlds biggest art collections, she has been personally given rare artefacts from heads of state that have visited, Prince Charles makes millions as the duchy of Cornwall, not to mention all the money that comes in from royal estates and tourism to royal buildings

 

They can afford their own security and their own flights

 

BLIMEY, I could've written that post myself....

 

FULL TRUTH, by the way.......

 

O well theres not a lot us folks on the ground can do. :huh:

 

 

lynda. :heart:

Isn't there? Most other nations have managed to get rid of their hereditary systems, and now have democratically elected Heads of State. Why not us?

If a big enough noise is made by the public, then I'm sure they'd have to take notice.

 

Unfortunately I think it's unlikely in current times; there's too many vacant-minded people in the public who still think the Royal Family are wonderful because it's TRADITION.

Unfortunately I think it's unlikely in current times; there's too many vacant-minded people in the public who still think the Royal Family are wonderful because it's TRADITION.

 

but arnt traditions what define a nation?... traditions are our heritage.

 

i wouldnt like to see the core royal family removed, but i would like to see them supporting themselves more. the assets they hold they are holding for the country, id like to see more of these assets (land, art, etc) being made available for public use.

I would like to see the royal family replaced with a ceremonial non executive president, someone who can represent Britain and gets given a house in central London and entertains heads of state, helps promote the country, carries out ceremonial duties and so on, maybe a respected diplomat or a respected business leader, the royal family for me is an outdated concept and serves no real purpose in the 21st century other than to drain money off the taxpayer. The class system for me sucks and the royals represent the worst element of the class system

 

Scrap the royal family they are an outdated relic of the class system, open all the royal residences and art collections and so on to the public and have a non executive president represent the country

The Royal Family is great and still very very popular. Look how many people line the streets of London for a big Royal event. This proves that the majority of people still want a Monarchy. Wait untl the Queen's funeral or Charles' Coronation and see the crowds that turn out. Doubt they'd bother for a President.

The Royal Family is great and still very very popular. Look how many people line the streets of London for a big Royal event. This proves that the majority of people still want a Monarchy. Wait untl the Queen's funeral or Charles' Coronation and see the crowds that turn out. Doubt they'd bother for a President.

 

Again being a scrounger you don't pay anything to keep them in the luxury that they have, I do, Scott does, Rob does etc etc

 

The fact you pay no tax means you haven't got a leg to stand on mate when it comes to discussions about the use of taxpayers money

 

Its fine for you to say throw more and more money at the royals its not your money that is doing it

Edited May 8, 200916 yr by B.A Baracus

You evaded my point about them still being very popular there with a personal insult. :rolleyes: Before my break in this section I was told I didn't argue my point. So my point is we should keep the Monarchy as that's what the majority of the people still want.

Edited May 8, 200916 yr by Crazy Chris

You evaded my point about them still being very popular there with a personal insult. :rolleyes: Before my break in this section I was told I didn't argue my point. So my point is we should keep the Monarchy as that's what the majority of the people still want.

 

90% of people in the UK are sheep lead by the noses by the tabloids such as The Sun and Daily Nazi (Mail), they swallow everything that the papers throw at them as they can't think for themselves so the fact that the tabloids have a royal love in means that the sheep will automatically like the royals

 

The tabloids start hating the royal watch public popularity of them plummet

 

 

I don't think it's just because of the tabloids though. I think people genuinely love The Queen if not the lesser Royals. Having a Royal Family puts the Great in to Great Britain imho.

Edited May 8, 200916 yr by Crazy Chris

I don't think it's just because of the tabloids though. I think people genuinely love The Queen if not the lesser Royals. Having a Royal Family puts the Great in to Great Britain imho.

I agree darlin I :wub: Queen Liz.

 

lynda :heart:

but arnt traditions what define a nation?... traditions are our heritage.

 

Tradition doesn't automatically equal GOOD.

We used to dunk witches. Centuries ago human sacrifice was a common tradition.

Obviously the Royal Family isn't quite as barbaric an idea as human sacrifice, but you get my point. As mankind evolves, it also tends to learn from the past and drop outdated and flawed concepts.

 

 

The class system for me sucks and the royals represent the worst element of the class system

 

Agreed. I despise the idea that one family is automatically HIGHER and BETTER than others. Awful.

 

 

The Royal Family is great and still very very popular. Look how many people line the streets of London for a big Royal event. This proves that the majority of people still want a Monarchy. Wait untl the Queen's funeral or Charles' Coronation and see the crowds that turn out. Doubt they'd bother for a President.

 

Why not? Look how wild America went over Obama.

The Royal Family is great and still very very popular. Look how many people line the streets of London for a big Royal event. This proves that the majority of people still want a Monarchy. Wait untl the Queen's funeral or Charles' Coronation and see the crowds that turn out. Doubt they'd bother for a President.

 

no it doesnt 'prove the MAJORITY ' of people still want a monarchy, it proves they are popular amongst some sections.