Ravec: Degenerate Prince Andrew is ‘still entitled’ to full police protection

Omid Scobie’s Yahoo UK column this week is all about Prince Harry’s security fight in the UK. Harry is currently suing the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police because he wants police security when he visits the UK, and he wants to be able to reimburse the police for the cost of that security. Harry is likely spending a small fortune on lawyers for this fight too, just to ensure that he and his family are safe if and when they visit. By comparison, Prince Andrew has been forced out of his royal position multiple times, and he had to settle out of court with Virginia Giuffre after she sued him for rape, and Andrew still has full royal protection, all on the taxpayer’s dime. RAVEC, the secretive committee which determines who gets royal protection, recently decided that Andrew’s royal protection will stay in place for the forseeable future. Once again, at taxpayer expense.

The Duke of York still receives taxpayer-funded police protection, despite no longer undertaking official duties, The Telegraph has learnt. Prince Andrew’s entitlement to police bodyguards was subjected to a full review after he was exiled as a working royal by the Queen earlier this year, shortly before agreeing a hefty financial settlement with his sex abuse accuser.

The Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (known as Ravec) assessed the security threat but concluded that he was still entitled to police bodyguards.

The decision is likely to prove contentious because of the High Court legal claim brought by the Duke of Sussex against the committee’s decision to deny him and his family automatic security when he is in the UK.

The extent of Prince Andrew’s day-to-day activities since being stripped of royal duties is unknown beyond horse riding and regular visits to the Queen. But he will continue to be entitled to a personal protection officer whenever he leaves his home. His property on the Windsor estate has permanent security arrangements.

The annual cost of his personal security is unknown but has been variously estimated at anything between £500,000 and £3 million.

Prince Andrew is only ninth in line to the throne and shares in common with his nephew a lack of official royal role. However, as one of the Queen’s four children and a permanent UK resident, his circumstances are markedly different. The recent high profile civil case in which Virginia Giuffre accused the Duke of raping and abusing her three times in 2001, when she was 17, may have been considered to heighten his security risk.

[From The Telegraph]

Wait, Andrew needs to keep his security because he had to settle out of court with his rape victim/rape accuser and because he was close friends with a known pedophile and human trafficker for decades? Like, those are factors in the security threats against him and Ravec was like “you guys, people are really mad at this degenerate pervert, he needs police protection!” Meanwhile, every violent white supremacist in the UK, Europe and America has the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in their crosshairs and Ravec is like ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

Also: the fact that Andrew lives practically rent-free in the giant Royal Lodge mansion within the Windsor Castle compound and that is why he “needs security” is not the argument they think it is.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

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

50 Responses to “Ravec: Degenerate Prince Andrew is ‘still entitled’ to full police protection”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Denise says:

    They are telling on themselves so much with all of this and I am here for it. History will remember who Royal family chose as priority for security.

    Meanwhile, Harry will stay away from that toxic family and he’ll enjoy his security in California

    • Chloe says:

      If anything this fight for security in the UK shows us that harry most definitely doesn’t want to stay away from the UK.

      • maliksmama says:

        I’d bet money that Harry knows this is a losing fight. Seems like his goal is to pull the curtain back so folk can see the emperor really has no clothes.

      • Maxine Branch says:

        @Chloe I agree with your statement. This is Harry’s home country. He should be able to come back and forth to visit friends and family as he chooses and bring his wife and kids with him as well. The shame here is on his family.

        Beyond being a bunch of grifters who feels entitled to take money from anyone they choose without consequences. They are a nasty bunch of folks who are trying to punish Harry for choosing his wife and kids over them. He did not reject his country, he prioritized his family safety and health. Many in this country are being led to believe he rejected his country when he left. The Windsor’s have created a toxic mess for themselves with this and they will all be exposed soon.

      • equality says:

        He has friends, Di’s sisters and other relatives there, and contacts for his charities. Why should he stay away?

  2. Alexandria says:

    “may have been considered to heighten his security risk.”

    Because…? Can’t they complete the above? Oh yeah, they can’t. Pathetic fools.

  3. The Hench says:

    So, total aside – because after reading the full Scobie column followed by the Trump stealing nuclear secrets article, I can’t take much more of this wealthy, white, a*seholes getting away with sh*t stuff today – I am surprised by how badly Andrew rides a horse. As a royal, he should have been riding all his life and he looks utterly out of place in the saddle.

    I’m sure *he* imagines himself as a Darcy-esque hero astride his steed but yeah, no. This is no bueno.

    • Maddie says:

      Yes, I’ve noticed that. He looks terrible on a horse. And has anyone else noticed that a lot of the times that he is spotted on a horse or driving his car he’s wearing a polo shirt with a royal insignia on it? What a narcissist

      • As someone who grew up riding and parents who did dressage and actually fox hunted, I have to tell you I’m living for this tea, lolol. I don’t think he looks well, and I’m SO FAR from being an expert- but I know a true horse person can tell IMMEDIATELY. Given how much the queen loves horses it must be hilarious that he has a terrible seat on a horse. Can one of y’all start a blog with pics and rating of each of the royals on horses and critique them? I’d freaking pay for that. I bet edward sits like a lump of potatoes too, as my dad would say. LOLOLOL

      • Christine says:

        I love this idea so much, laurelcanyoner!

  4. Tessa says:

    This is a total disgrace and it is horrifying that Andrew gets taxpayer funded security while harry and Meghan and two little children are deprived of full security even when harry is willing to paid for their security

    • swaz says:

      The Royal Family is hiding behind all of this. They do not want Harry and his family to be safe. They are pulling the same strategy they used on Diana and are hoping for the same results🤢

      • Maxine Branch says:

        @Swaz. Agree with you. Since they cannot use and conteol him and his family, they would prefer he and them be dead.

      • SomeChick says:

        they are absolutely pulling the same strategy they used on Diana.

        fortunately it is not working this time.

        but it was and is 100% on purpose. they knew exactly what they were doing. it worked last time but it’s not working this time. God Bless Tyler Perry!

    • Both Sides Nowt says:

      @ Tessa, I think that it’s a total disgrace that they are trying to justify PA security based upon the supposed “threats” from his lawsuit with Virginia Giuffre……..? There were threats of VG fans threatening Pedrews “life”? Oh, FFS, this is comical!!

      My gawd…….what complete idiots that they are making of themselves with regards to this determination for Pedrews taxpayer funded security. I would like to add that putting the amount of 500k-3M is probably closer to 3M+!!!

  5. S808 says:

    So that pervert is entitled to protection but Prince Harry isn’t? Oh.

    • Chloe says:

      With andrew they followed the right procedures which is to determine whether or not someone needs security based on threat level. With harry they want to determine based on what event he’s coming to the UK for, which is ridiculous. Threat level doesn’t diminish when you come for a private visit.

  6. Snuffles says:

    Will there ever be a tipping point with the UK public? I think there will be soon enough with Scotland, maybe Wales and Northern Ireland. But England seems to be in a stupefying daze.

    • Slippers4life says:

      Yes!!!! All of this. I even have British friends who are all “they left the tax payer funded job so they don’t get tax payer funded security and because wr pay taxes to the met police, we get to decide they are NOT for hire so Harry can’t pay for it!” I’m like, “do you hear yourself? You are literally brainwashed!” Any member of the British public who is like “well, that’s only some people, the rest of us don’t care about the BRF. It isn’t what England is all about”, etc. Etc. Are tiring me. If you are British and you don’t care that the people you pay taxes to, planned to NOT provide security to a biracial member of the BRF WHILE his mother was pregnant with him and STILL expected his mother and father to continue with Sr roles and take that risk, than you are turning a blind eye to a potential murder! To the rest of the world, it looks like you don’t care that a baby was being left to the slaughter and the reason that you dont care is because the baby is biracial and that you are falling into the smokescreen the Grey men are blowing in front of you. If you are British and this does NOT describe you, then let your home office know that you are not okay with your tax dollars funding security for a pedophile, that you either ARE ok with your tax dollars funding brief security for a born Prince who did two tours of Afghanistan and his biracial wife and children OR you at least are going to allow him to pay for it all by himself and not touch your tax dollars. Just because your tax dollars fund the met police, you don’t have carte Blanche rule over whether Harry gets to pay for the security he and his family need. Wake up! Stop being fooled before the Daily Fail headline that something terrible had happened to H and M and their children on British soil does it for you!

      • Christine says:


        The British public is complicit. I’ll believe otherwise when the tone of the “articles” about Meghan and Harry in the British media changes significantly from absolute character assasination.

        You are literally getting what you pay for.

    • The Hench says:

      I fear not until the media start telling the truth.

      • Snuffles says:

        I got into a debate with a British acquaintance last year. She claims to not care about or follow the royal family or read the British tabloids but kept parroting their talking points. I kept telling her even if she doesn’t directly read those tabloids, what they say to trickles into “legitimate” news every day. Especially in the UK. The BBC has these tabloid hacks on all the time. Their on your morning news shows, talk shows, radio programming, etc. Even if their not get the full strength from the source, their sipping on the watered down version and that adds up over time. I also told her that I’m sick of UK tabloid BS seeping it’s way into my US news.

        I don’t know if I really got through to her.

      • The Hench says:

        @Snuffles you are completely right. We are surrounded by the drip drip of relentlessly positive propaganda on behalf of the Royal Family in every aspect of our media. And it is propaganda because, more than any member of the public, the hacks writing these stories know the dirty secrets.

  7. Colby says:

    Great! So they think that royals should have security no matter what they’ve done in the past. I expect Harry’s security issues to be resolved any moment, then.

    Oh wait…….

    • Jenny says:

      I have no problem paying for Andrew to get security if it means that Harry gets security also. And the security escorts Andrew to jail.Bye

  8. Eurydice says:

    Do I detect shade in this article? Andrew’s day-to-day activities are horse riding and visits to the Queen? Security costs are 500K to 3M a year? Andrew’s circumstances are “markedly different” – followed by “accused of raping and abusing.” Yeah, I’d say that’s markedly different from Harry’s situation. Even the part about “may have been considered a security risk” – like they’re really stretching to find an excuse for this.

    • equality says:

      Even if you put aside Andrew’s past, the criteria should be exactly the same. If not a “working” royal equals no protection then PA’s should be gone.

  9. Nic919 says:

    The telegraph is just making up things by calling Andrew a permanent Uk resident. That is irrelevant because he is a UK citizen the same as Harry. Calling someone a permanent resident only matters if the person isn’t a citizen of that country.
    Harry also happens to be domiciled in the UK since he leases Frogmore. So there is no legal distinction between Harry and Andrew in terms of their status in the UK.

    There is no defence to providing Andrew full RPO security at taxpayer expense and not even letting Harry get it when he visits the UK.

    • Concern+Fae says:

      My understanding from UK friends living in the US, is that you can lose certain certain UK rights if you live abroad long enough. Some of this is because of the history of people emigrating to the empire and commonwealth. You have the right to move back to the UK, but voting and other rights may be restricted. Of course, it’s only been two years, so I can’t imagine any of this would apply to Harry yet.

      • Nic919 says:

        That does not apply to UK citizens, which Harry is. He would never lose his right to live in the UK as long as he is a citizen because that would violate every human rights law out there.

        The only thing I have heard of is you aren’t allowed to vote in certain UK elections if you have been out of the country for decades. That’s not the same as the right to return to the UK.

    • swaz says:

      This is the narrative they want on twitter. The truth has nothing to do with it, their dumb keyboard warriors will eat that up. The British Media has observed how well false information works for Trump.

  10. Noor says:

    Could it be that the security is denied to prevent or discourage Prince Harry and Meghan from carrying out charity work in UK. The optics do not look good for the Royal Family if Harry and Meghan do charity work at their own expenses in UK without being tax payer funded like the rest of the senior royals.

    • Snuffles says:

      1000%. They we’re making everyone look bad, but especially the Cambridges. They refuse to let that continue. It’s also why they stripped them of their patronages.

    • Jais says:

      Yes, that’s definitely part of it. They do not want the Sussexes doing better charity than them in England. But also just anything really. Imagine, Meghan did ever one day just go to luminary bakery with a friend on a day Kate was doing an event. There’s no question which would draw more attention and the RF also doesn’t want that. So basically, they are using this security to exile the Sussexes and prevent that from ever happening.

      • Christine says:

        Yeah, and it’s particularly myopic, because one needs only to turn on the tv or look at any online news to see Harry and Meghan happily doing good deeds on their own dime. Those deeds regularly eclipse all other members of the royal welfare family, in every other media market in the world, and even their own market, though those articles are PR nonsense and lies.

        The fact that they aren’t in England is irrelevant, it’s 2022. Our eyeballs can see that Harry and Meghan are the only truly charitable members of that farce of a “family”. They know we have eyeballs and ears, right?

    • swaz says:

      Yep, they’re trying to force them into exile. What a family, but all that anger and revenge might be their undoing. The UK is in a downward spiral.

    • Denise says:

      I was coming to say this very thing! It’s one thing to see their good works from afar if they’re accurately reported on at all, but another to see them up close and personal and compared with the other royals. I think this tactic is not just about controlling Harry’s movements but controlling The Sussex brand from being unleashed without palace interference on England.

  11. Concern+Fae says:

    Conservatism consists of the belief that there are people who the law protects but does not bind, and others who the law binds but does not protect.

  12. FeatherDuk says:

    He looks like a hog on a horse. I hope he didn’t break that horse’s back

  13. Athena says:

    I’m waiting for them to make the argument that Andrew gets security because he’s the son of the monarch, so we can have a precedent when Charles is king.

  14. Amy Bee says:

    The Royal Family won’t like it but I think Harry’s lawyers will bring up the point that there are inconsistencies in Ravec’s decisions.

  15. Cath says:

    Just as an aside, Vanity Fair has an excellent article about this jerk and how he was caught with Jeffrey Epstein, the photos and the money borrowing.

  16. SuzieQ says:

    Andrew is a loathsome creature.

    And I hate the Telegraph’s wording: his “sex abuse accuser,” which puts the onus on his victim. Should read: … shortly before agreeing to a hefty financial settlement with a sex trafficking victim he is alleged to have raped. (The alleged is necessary, because it was a settlement, but at least spell out his conduct.)

    • 2cents says:

      The royal family has ALWAYS given the Sussexes the necessary security when they invited them over for royal engagements, even since they’ve stepped back almost 3 years ago! So they acknowledge the Sussexes always need it.

      Therefore it is unjust to withhold security from the Sussexes when they make private visits to the UK. Especially when compared to the way a non working royal like Andrew is treated (double standards).

      Their is no logic in the schizophrenic way the royal firm handles this issue.

  17. Robin Samuels says:

    “Yadda, yadda, yadda. ” Each day, the British monarchy becomes more extinct. One day I suspect we’ll wake up and find they’ve all returned to the Stone age.
    I agree 100% with the comments that the Queen and her honchos don’t want the Sussexes in the UK to show taxpayers what charity work or work period looks like. Harry and Meghan don’t need to come to the UK to do charity work – virtual communication is here to stay. Their presence alone will put Charles, Camilla, Wiliam, and Kate in the dark. They can’t endure the competition. Please don’t tell me the Queen doesn’t know what’s happening. Had she been a true matriarch and decisive leader, this nonsense would have ceased years ago.

  18. LondonLook says:

    Very nervous to comment but I live in the UK and this is my humble view.
    Andrew is despicable and in no land or law is it ok to have done what he has done nor get away with it – however much he has paid to make it go away. He’s very lucky not to live in medieval times, just saying.
    But he has always been reported to be the Queen’s favourite son. Well, now we know he is. Only the Queen could do such a cover job. I think this accounts for his absurd sense of entitlement and any protection he receives.
    Harry is a different story. He and his family are utterly entitled to live their lives, I for one was thrilled when Meghan came on the scene, we needed her and her fervour in this country and in the royal family, I really liked her.
    What is hard to accept is any shade throwing, however tiny. Shouldn’t you wash your dirty linen in private? I do not claim to know any of the royal family, but I can only assume it’s a stuffy, old fashioned, archaic institution. What I’m trying to say is maybe Harry and Meghan just broke so many “royal rules” (rightly or wrongly) to be forgiven, at least in the immediate future?

    • Azblue says:

      Wow @LondonLook. If that’s the actual British view…

      Paraphrasing here but it sounds like “they brought up that they were abused by the royal family, so they should be treated worse than a pedophile and child trafficker.”

    • Noor says:

      Isn’t all that unprecedented negative leaking to the press on Meghan and Harry from 2018 and until now also broke royal rules.

    • joanne says:

      @LondonLook What “royal rules” did they break? Just curious, because I still don’t understand the Harry hatred.

    • equality says:

      Did PC break those rules when he told his biographer about his difficult childhood? Did PA when he did a highly embarrassing interview? Did PC when he did an interview about his affairs while married to Di? Did KP break rules by allowing an employee to turn over proprietary company info to a court voluntarily? Did Sophie break rules by attempting to sell access and bad-mouthing royals and officials? Did PC break rules (and possibly laws) by accepting bags of cash from shady sources? Does the Queen break rules by accepting valuable gifts from shady sources? Did Kate break rules by threatening lawsuits if media reported something she didn’t like? Did Kate break rules by continually mooning people instead of learning and using hem weights? Do all the palaces break rules by continually leaking about family issues? Did PA break rules by bringing traffickers into the palace to sit on the Queen’s throne? Amazing what the “rules” will allow but defending yourself against bad press is breaking a rule.