| Royal Bodyguards For William's Girlfriend Kate? |
|
|
|
| Written by Joanne Leyland | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Wednesday, 25 January 2006 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
 Had it been reported twenty-five years ago this week that Lady Diana Spencer — then at the centre of a maelstrom of speculation about her royal romance — was to be assigned police protection, the Press would have perceived this as confirmation that the engagement ring was on the finger and St. Paul's had been booked. Today, in a world facing the constant threat of terrorist attack from a faceless enemy, the idea that it is acceptable for the future King's longtime girlfriend to have no police protection would perhaps raise a few eyebrows. The situation has been in keeping with the rules applied to previous royal girlfriends, even those who went on to marry their Prince. Only once an official engagement is announced is a bodyguard (paid for by the taxpayer) assigned, as was the case with Diana Spencer in 1981 and Sarah Ferguson in 1986. However, it looks as though this is finally about to change. As her relationship with William deepens, so too does the interest Kate Middleton provokes, especially from foreign media, the paparazzi in particular. Before she drove to Sandringham to spend part of the festive season with William on the Queen's Norfolk estate, a German magazine irresponsibly published photographs, complete with red arrows, pinpointing the London flat in which Kate and William enjoyed a cosy domesticity. Now, in a move which is bound to precipitate more questions about her future role in Prince William's life and, indeed, that of the House of Windsor, it's reported that Kate is soon to receive the high level of protection accorded to all senior members of the Royal Family. A source tells tonight's London Evening Standard: "Her {Kate's} security is being discussed at a high level. It is a serious consideration that royalty protection officers are assigned to her. This is not a question of retired or freelance officers being assigned to Miss Middleton and paid for by the royal family."  The latter comment refers to the relatively low-level security given to Camilla when she was still plain Mrs Parker Bowles. In June 1997, the Prince of Wales' mistress was involved in a car crash in the winding country lanes of Gloucestershire. The media roundly condemned Camilla when the driver of the other car claimed the she left the scene without first checking to make sure she was unhurt. Within hours, the media were privately informed that Camilla left the scene in a hurry because she feared she may have been the target of kidnap. Just weeks later, the stark reality of what can happen when a hugely famous and popular public figure is left with no experienced bodyguard was felt around the world when Diana was killed in the Paris car crash. Debate continues to rage as to whether the Princess was a victim of the paparazzi chase, a drunken driver (or even a conspiracy to murder)? It was inevitable that, ever since the events of August 31st 1997, questions would be asked as to whether Diana would have been with us today had she had a Ken Wharfe or Alan Peters by her side, these being the bodyguards with whom her safety was entrusted for many years. Although the men and women who guard royalty often become an extension of the family, bodyguards have often been an unwelcome presence at William's side. As he grew older, the shy Prince began to resent the figures paid to shadow his every move, primarily because, in his eyes, the 24-hour presence of Royalty Protection Officers (RPOs) made him stand out from the crowd, especially amongst his school peers. The situation came to a head when William became a boarder at Ludgrove Preparatory School in Berkshire. More than once, the increasingly stubborn Prince defied those around him by removing the tracking device he was expected to wear on his wrist. Only the intervention of Prince Charles made William acquiesce and finally accept just how important it was that he obey his bodyguards and be watched over at all times. The current Royal family have suffered many security scares, the most serious of which occured within less than a decade of each other. In 1974, a crazed gunman held-up a Royal limousine on The Mall and duly attempted to kidnap Princess Anne as she and husband Mark Phillips were driven back to Buckingham Palace following a film premiere. Then in 1982 came the event which, although it was rejected, saw a Home Secretary tender his resignation: the Buckingham Palace break-in which resulted in Michael Fagan having a conversation with the Queen whilst sitting on her bed. Each scare results in another layer of security around the Royal family which, in turn, means further isolation and loss of privacy for the Queen's family.  Following her attempt in December 1993 to withdraw from public life to enjoy "the time and space so lacking in recent years", Diana chose freedom over security. The Princess ditched her bodyguards in the futile hope that she could once more enjoy a semblance of normality and, with it, anonymity. It was a decision which, it could be argued, ultimately cost the Princess her life. Only time will tell whether Kate Middleton is willing to pay the harsh price that is a loss of freedom and privacy for the man she loves? Please feel welcome to offer your opinions on this and any other royal story by visiting our Royal Forum or via our Comments section below. Comment on this article
Leave your comments (Show/Hide Form)
Other Visitors Comments
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
