Prince Andrew will likely be ‘stripped of his round-the-clock police protection’

Prince Andrew leaves home after receiving the sack from the Queen

I am aware that things got crazy on our post about who would pick up the security costs for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Personally, I understand why Canadians would feel like they shouldn’t be responsible, just as I understand why British taxpayers would feel like they shouldn’t pay for security for royals living in another country. That being said, if you really start to scratch the surface of “who pays for security” and “why the royals need security,” the conversation kind of folds in on itself, you know? Like, I don’t think the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge need to fly everywhere by royal helicopter for “security reasons.” I don’t think Prince Andrew needed top-level security for the past decade, but he did. And now that Andrew has been downgraded to semi-retired pervert/oaf, his top-notch security will likely be pulled too:

Prince Andrew faces being stripped of his round-the-clock armed police protection in a fresh blow to the Queen’s second son, the Evening Standard can reveal. The Home Office is recommending a major downgrade of security for the Duke of York after his enforced “retirement” from public life, according to senior sources.

Scotland Yard has completed a thorough review, the Standard understands, and “conclusions have been reached and recommendations made”. A final decision is in the hands of Home Secretary Priti Patel and, ultimately, the Prime Minister.

It comes as the Queen and senior royals continue to grapple with the implications of Harry and Meghan’s decision to step away from frontline duties. A senior source said: “A review was ordered into the Met’s protection of HRH The Duke of York once it was announced he was stepping down from royal duties in November. Those in charge of royal security cannot write a blank cheque for anyone who does not have a public role for the foreseeable future. Round-the-clock armed protection is very expensive. The Met is obliged to review the position to ensure it is justified.”

Andrew was effectively forced to quit royal duties following his disastrous BBC interview over his links to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

[From The Evening Standard]

Yeah, Andrew should definitely have limited-to-no-security. He’s not a terrorist target, you know? But… that’s been true for a while, even before Andrew’s withdrawal from royal duties. Why was he getting round-the-clock protection when he was just a pervert at large, making shady business deals and getting foot rubs from children? Why is there not outrage at HIS years of unnecessary high-level security costs? Especially since – I would argue – Prince Harry and the Duchess of Sussex truly face danger and threats, domestically and internationally.

Also, speaking of unnecessary costs and who pays for what, Andrew’s former private secretary Amanda Thirsk “settled” a legal situation with the palace, in which she got a payout from the royal family worth “tens of thousands of pounds.” Um… for what? She must have had a lot of dirt on Andrew and they wanted her to sign an NDA. Who paid and how much?

Prince Andrew, Duke of York and Prime Minister, Boris Johnson attend the annual Royal British Legion Festival of Remembrance at the Royal Albert Hall on November 09, 2019 in London, England.

Prince Andrew interview

Photos courtesy of WENN, Avalon Red and Backgrid.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

64 Responses to “Prince Andrew will likely be ‘stripped of his round-the-clock police protection’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. kerwood says:

    Andrew doesn’t need police protection. He needs to be under police SURVEILLANCE to protect society FROM him.

    • Kelley says:

      THIS. And I also wonder which other minor royals who live in palaces get levels of state protection. And in America MARLA AND TIFFANY F**KING TRUMP get tax funded security. And Harry and Meghan are actually doing good, are super famous and are actual targets of all sorts of threats. So yeah, the conversation does collapse in on itself.

      • Mac says:

        Let’s not do the whataboutism with Marla and Tiffany. Trump’s grotesque foreign policy has put them at great risk of being kidnapped or killed. It’s not their fault Trump is a wannabe dictator.

      • Anon says:

        I would assume that all offspring of a sitting monarch would require round the clock protection, not necessarily for reasons directly related to the offspring but because of how their endangerment for ransom/political leverage/political retaliation etc. would affect the monarch’s ability to effectively lead and do what’s right for the country in all circumstances.

    • Eleonor says:

      Co-sigm.

    • Ok Kerwood. That’s a wrap for me. You got it in one.

    • Lucy De Blois says:

      Aha! That’s for sure, kerwood! But seriously, I don’t agree with Kaiser saying he’s not a terrorist target; yes he is. He’s and he always be the son of the Queen.

      But to be with little or no police protection serves him very well. Maybe it will be a good opportunity for him to meditate about human traffic, and that all of us are mortal.

  2. Becks1 says:

    I thought I read somewhere – this was a WHILE ago – that Sophie and Edward did not have round the clock protection. They only have protection when they do official engagements. The article specifically referenced how happy Sophie was being able to do the school run in her Jaguar with no RPOs along. But like I said, that was a while ago (maybe around the time of Will and Kate’s wedding?)

    Anyway, so I don’t think Andrew needs round the clock protection just for existing. I am hopeful that things reach a point where H&M don’t need round the clock protection either. But right now, I don’t think we are there, clearly.

    • Lilly (with the double-L) says:

      @Becks1, agreed Pedo doesn’t need it and at the moment H&M need round the clock. When I saw a post about who pays for security the other day, I made a big circle around that one. I know it’s one of the few remaining dog whistles ppl feel can be pounced on and hide behind. Understandably, that’s not true for all, but even if I agreed I wouldn’t comment on this atm.

    • Mary says:

      @becks1, yes, quite awhile ago Anne, the Wessexes and all minor royals were slated to lose their protection, including the York girls. They might have continued protection at engagements but not full-time; and, I remember it being reported that the Queen would pick up the expenses. So, the British taxpayers have been paying for Randy Andy’s protection all along?!

    • As far as has been reported, Harry is still a hard target because he served two active duty tours in Afghanistan. One of them at front lines. Mideast terrorist groups have said they are going to get him if possible.

    • Lucy De Blois says:

      I don’t believe they don’t have police protection or only have it for official events. All the RF is a possible target for terrorists or crazy people.
      Maybe they can’t spot they are being protected; the security ring isn’t ostensive. But it’s there.

  3. Tourmaline says:

    Also not only did Amanda Thirsk get a six figure legal settlement–it was announced she is now the CEO of Pitch, or what used to be Pitch at the Palace. Nice.

    • Rapunzel says:

      The fact we have yet to hear that the BRF is “incandescent with rage”, “spitting blood”, “disappointed” “devastated” “saddened” and “betrayed” over Randy Andy, but have heard they are all those things regarding Harry and Meg tells us all we need to know.

      ETA: this was not meant to be a reply to Tourmaline. But I’ll say Amanda Thrisk must have some tea to spill because she got a sweet deal.

      • Tourmaline says:

        I was wondering if she threatened action over the stories after the Newsnight interview “Amanda Thirsk advised Andrew to do this!” which were alternated with the stories “no, Bea and Fergie advised Andrew to do this!”

      • Mac says:

        I think Charles has been incandescent with rage over Andrew’s behavior for decades. I think it was sweet blessed relief when he got to fire him.

    • Yeah, considering all the reports at the time say she was a major advocate of that sit down interview where Andrew self-imploded, and she’s getting this payout and staying with Andrew’s PITCH — she definitely has some dirt. I think this was definitely about an NDA, but then you’d think the first order of business would have been an iron clad NDA when she was hired originally. Someone on FORBES the other day said, they did not think retaining her at PITCH was a smart business move as her bad decision to encourage the nuclear interview could not be seen as her having good business sense.

  4. Zapp Brannigan says:

    I disagree about stripping him of his security detail. I think he should have increased security and nowhere is safer than a prison cell, he could stay there at Her Majesty’s Pleasure like so many others with his proclivities.

  5. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    Police protection? Wow. That’s some majorly frakked up shiz right there. He needs to be strong-armed into a prison cell and fed rats for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

  6. vertes says:

    Didn’t Andy fuss about his daughters needing 24/7 security?
    Secure him in a nothing-job far, far away in the most distant (and poorest) commonwealth country, with penalties for leaving his post. Maybe Fergie would join him there? Gets rid of 2 losers.

    • MrsBanjo says:

      Why does any country other than England have to suffer from his presence? It’s serious bullshit that because a country is poor (and distant) they should have to deal with Paedo Andrew.

      • Shirleygailgal says:

        not this, @VERTES, he would do harm to their children then say what’s everyone on about they are only poor (likely brown) children??? The most distant and poorest commonwealth country does not deserve to have him land on their shores. I’m MUCH more supportive of @Zapp’s idea…that sounded like an excellent solution :)

      • Mac says:

        They should place him under house arrest. Then he won’t need any security.

    • Elizabeth says:

      Maybe you’re joking but why, why would you inflict him on a vulnerable population in some exploited country? Why would you joke about it? Do you realize that’s basically what the Catholic Church did with their child-raping priests? That is such a vile attitude. Like it doesn’t matter if he hurts women or children there?

      He should be facing charges in America! Not shipped off to wreak havoc someplace else.

      Frankly a lot of people should be who aren’t, don’t want to thread jack but wow this has really showed us how rich powerful men think they can do anything and are usually correct.

  7. Birdix says:

    Omg—his teeth! That header photo is something else.

  8. Lorelei says:

    It just seems like they’re doing this so they can point to it to justify doing it to Harry & Meghan next. IMO

    • dawnchild says:

      @Lorelai
      This is what I think too! Remove protection for Andrew, citing that it’s only for full timers…and next up, the naughty Sussexes!
      Clever, clever… We see you, Lizzie!

      “…Those in charge of royal security cannot write a blank cheque for anyone who does not have a public role for the foreseeable future. Round-the-clock armed protection is very expensive. The Met is obliged to review the position to ensure it is justified.”

    • Pineapple says:

      I agree with this statement Lorelei!! They are only removing Andrew’s security to then set the stage for Meghan and Harry having the same done to them. Ridiculous. This family. And honestly, how much does security cost us all? Two dollars per person? If you ask me it is all a ploy to keep adult humans from looking at the bigger picture. Our taxes are all so misspent it is sad. Just sad.

  9. Mrs. Peel says:

    Bring back tarring and feathering for the disgraced Andrew.

  10. Rachel says:

    Too right he should be stripped off this privilege. It’s just a shame and disgusting that it is not headline news on the Daily Mail, but then again their selective outrage (and demonic hatred towards Meghan) doesn’t allow them to keep going in 10s of different articles on about Prince Andrew’s vile actions, with the main one being keeping the company of a convicted paedophile.

  11. KellyRyan says:

    I’m wondering how the US investigation is proceeding. Epstein’s notes, computer’s, phone were confiscated in NY. I don’t believe he can be subpoenaed unless he’s in the US. Lucky us, barred from entry.

    • Shirleygailgal says:

      I’m afraid there are just too many white, powerful men on the lists to ever become public, which is a total sham and shame. Women unite, take back our rights…..and one of them is to not allow other women and our children to be abused

      • KellyRyan says:

        I agree with you on women’s rights. Do you recall Roman Polanski? If not check RP Switzerland. The Swiss refused to extradite RP to the US. Andrew and Fergie own a Swiss Chalet.

      • Mac says:

        I agree. His records will never see the light of day.

  12. ZanB says:

    My understanding is that the relevant question is whether the person is doing work on behalf of the Queen. If the person is a full-time royal, then that person is entitled to full-time security. When that person is doing work on behalf of the Queen, that person is entitled to security. If that person is not a a full-time working royal, then their security gets downgraded.

    When on a royal tour, the U.K. government usually covers the cost of the international flights that the royal party and their team require in getting to and from the country they’re visiting, but the host nation covers the majority of costs. The theory goes that they have invited the royal party to visit, and the resulting publicity will showcase their country as a tourist destination and draw positive attention to causes and initiatives. Thus, the host country covers the cost of security, among other things.

    However, if that person is travelling/living as a private citizen, then neither the host country nor the U.K. is obligated to provide security. Recall the streamed-down security involved on Harry’s trips to Canada when he was dating Meghan; on these trips, he was travelling as a private citizen and not on behalf of the Queen.

    Thus, this all depends on how the “transition” pans out. As it appears that the Sussexes wish to become “part-time” royals, while still supporting the Queen, then the U.K. is obligated to provied part-time security primarily covering the periods when the Sussexes are “working royals”. The Sussexes, the Queen or Charles will be on the hook for the remainder of their security.

    Personally, I think it’s a bit intrusive to discuss the security of public figures as they transition into private figures, but since the Royal Rota wants to discuss it, I’m sharing what I know.

    • kerwood says:

      This makes a lot of sense. Thanks for outlining it so clearly.

    • Prairiegirl says:

      Finally! A common sense reply to a Royals post!

    • ZanB says:

      Perhaps I’ve figured out why the Royal Rota is pushing so hard to discuss security costs. Under the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 (UK), the Royal Trustees are required to produce a report detailing on how the public money was spent. However, it is the Royal Trustee’s practice not to discuss security costs. The Guide reads:

      10. Security costs
      No breakdown of security costs is available as disclosure of such information could compromise the integrity of these arrangements and affect the security of the individuals protected. It is long established policy not to comment upon the protective security arrangements and their related costs for members of the Royal Family or their residences.
      https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sovereign-grant-act-2011-guidance/sovereign-grant-act-2011-guidance#security-costs

      It appears that UK reporters are trying to circumvent this practice. In any event, I reiterate, it is inappropriate to discuss and disclose the measures taken to provide for anyone’s security.

  13. Pity10 says:

    The monarchy is too big and expensive and this is just another, albeit worse, example. Still doesn’t justify the British or Canadian taxpayer paying for the Sussexes security. If they decide to move to US we won’t be paying for it unless they do a diplomatic meeting or something. We only pay for the idiots we elect and their spouses for life. That expense always comes up for discussion every now and then too. I still have issues with the really wealthy doing this though. Jackie Kennedy gave up her protection and the kids a few years after Pres. Kennedy died not for money but cause she didn’t think the secret service could protect them understandably. She hired her own security. It can be done and not sure why Andrew or the Sussexes and all the others can’t do that. I get royal events but come on. Still we don’t know the specifics with the Sussexes just all the gossip security might not be a deal with them at all and they may think they were going to pay. We just have to see how it plays out. Not sure that it is news that Andrew is scrounging off the monarchy either.

    • Silas says:

      JFK Jr. definitely kept his security at least until he left for Andover.

      • sami-pup says:

        When I was going to school in Concord, MA., I would see Caroline in Brigham’s Ice-cream with at least two “men in black”. They were so out of place looking, they were super easy to spot.

    • Leigh says:

      Jackie K. hired her own security after she married Onassis (a billionaire) and moved overseas. She was financially struggling in the years between JFK’s death and getting remarried to Onassis. She lost her secret service protection as a result of getting remarried.

  14. Stefanie says:

    As a Canadian – I only care about the Harry and Meghan situation because it would be us on the hook to pay. I don’t think Britain should pay for this parasite either – or even royalty in general, really – but I guess I figure that’s their problem. I primarily don’t want funding ongoing costs for any royalty to become mine. I also don’t want the precedent set for any of them to just decide on their own to move here and think that somehow obligates us to pay for their security (or any other maintenance costs).

  15. Emily says:

    Andrew may go the same way as Epstein.

  16. Well-Wisher says:

    The elected government of Canada does not want a repeat of the Paris tunnel incident. So the untransparent Taxpayers of Canada does not have a say. The individuals need to take a course in civics.
    The Sussexes will be protected by the RCMP as of now, until further arrangements are decided.
    The rabid UK press want to continue to harass the Sussexes, an impossible feat if the RCMP does it’s due diligence so the unnecessary chatter has begun.
    They want access and the ability to commodity the royals at will using blackmail as a tool against their humane need for respectability .
    To stop the necessary whataboutry about the Sussexes, Prince Andrew is being offered up on a platter.
    He will also keep his security.

  17. Real Housewife says:

    I have a feeling that this is only coming about as a result of the scrutiny over Sussex security. Otherwise, that pervert would continue to enjoy the many trappings of being mommy’s favorite.

  18. Other Renee says:

    Where was the security when Andrew was doing his pervy crap? So basically the UK footed the bill while Prince Perv was allowed to do his raping. Disgusting.

    • He had to have had security officers with him at that time. As retired FBI and other security officers have said, they are not there to determine or decide the moral values or actions of the person they protect. They are there to protect their physical life.

  19. Mignionette says:

    Sounds like Charles is about to do a Diana on his brother. Zero security costs. No scandalous trial. Two birds, one stone.

    This really is ‘The Firm’.

  20. aquarius64 says:

    I bet Andy’s security costs will go to Harry and Meghan. If House York was behind the smears on Meghan the karma bus just him with a vengeance.

  21. minx says:

    What a useless human being.

  22. Faye G says:

    Finally! It makes me so mad that while Pedo Prince has been enjoying full-time security while basically raping underage girls, the Sussexes, who by all accounts want to do good in the world, are getting so much hatred. If people are going to criticize them, they need to take a hard look at ALL the Royals who are getting protection.

  23. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    Does anyone know how NDAs work? I mean, they can’t override a subpoena from a court, can they? I’m just curious because it seems inconceivable that a private party can “agree” to not comply with a court order. At most, the NDA just prevents a voluntary disclosure (like writing a book or making a public statement)?

    • Mignionette says:

      Not sure that it’s even legal to get someone underage to sign an NDA where illegal acts are involved. It;s not NDA’s stopping these girls talking, it’s fear for themselves and families. Also a lot of them are now married and don’t want their worlds disrupted.

  24. Jaded says:

    More stuff is coming out about the sheer number of young girls, 12 to 18 yrs old, who were held captive on Epstein’s 2 islands, Little and Great St. James. He trafficked them there, held them like prisoners and often used fake visas to smuggle them in. Several tried to escape by SWIMMING away in open ocean, hoping to get to St. Thomas, but had tracking devices on them and were hauled back. I wonder, with all this fresh evidence, if Andrew’s name is noted in any of the documentation? If so, yes, take away every last bit of security and then sit back to watch the retribution happen.

  25. Tessa says:

    He’d be plenty secure doing porridge- which is where he belongs

  26. A says:

    Andrew’s former private secretary Amanda Thirsk “settled” a legal situation with the palace, in which she got a payout from the royal family worth “tens of thousands of pounds.”

    Why aren’t people more outraged about this? It’s pretty obvious here that tax payer funding was used as hush money so that Amanda Thirsk wouldn’t spill the beans after she leaves her position. What if she has crucial evidence that can be used against Andrew, or Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell? Tax payer funding could very well have been used to place another road block on an investigation against a member of the royal family who has committed crimes against underage girls, and not a peep from any of the usual bleaters in the press and elsewhere. Qwhite interesting.

  27. Bread and Circuses says:

    Could someone try to off Andrew for knowing too much? He’s pretty high-profile, but so was Epstein (although that might honestly have been a suicide).

    That’s literally the only argument for him continuing to have free protection, though.