After stories in a British tabloid about the reported 500,000 pounds annual cost of security for the two York princesses, an MP reportedly raised the issue on the floor of the Commons. He suggested that the Duke of York should personally meet security costs for his daughters. The MP was reminded that the topic of security was not to be debated on the floor of the House "for obvious reasons", and as expected, Buckingham Palace declined to comment.
The accompanying story said that the taxpayer should not have to pay to protect the princessess while they hop from one party and club to another, and that the entire royal security bill was in the range of 30 million pounds a year. Finally, it said that the Duke of York vetoed a 2005 Scotland Yard suggestion of lowering the princesses' security efforts, while the children of the Princess Royal receive no protection.
This raised a few questions in my mind. What are the rules for royal security? If Anne could decide that her children should not have protection, could any other royal do the same? I recall that Diana gave up her own personal security after the divorce - but that security was present whenever William and Harry were with her. Do minor royals - such as the Kents and Gloucheters - receive security? Is it just those holding the HRH status, or do non HRHs receive protection as well?
Another question is that who amongst the Government gets protection? Clearly the Prime Minister and his family do - but which members of the Government, Commons and Lords? Do their families likewise get protection?
In any event, 30 million pounds a year (which would be something like $70 million US) for security for the Head of State is a pittance when compared to what we in the US spend to guard the Bush and Cheyne families, the Clintons and Bush Seniors, Mrs. Ford, Mrs. Reagan, etc.
As one singular example, when former Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton recently spent a few hours at the commencement ceremony for the University of New Hampshire, it was reported that more than a dozen law enforcement and security agencies were involved in weeks of prior planning, and that during their appearance there were 170 security officers on the ground to protect them.
In another example, in September 1985, when then-President Ronald Reagan spoke from the New Hampshire State House steps about tax reform (and announced the release of a U.S. hostage in Lebanon), security was high and planning was detailed. Attendees passed through metal detectors. More than 60 state police secured the State House, rooftops and intersections along the path of the presidential motorcade, according to Monitor reports from the time. The Concord Police Department put all of its 65 officers on duty. In the city, school was cancelled for the day. "It took a week of planning by White House staff and state and city officials to bring President Ronald Reagan to Concord yesterday for a 15-minute speech," a Monitor reporter wrote after the visit.
The British are lucky they even have the ability to raise such questions in a public forum. Our Congress doesn't ever debate such things - we simply pay the ever increasing bills.
