Prince Harry wants guard for Chelsy Davy
The Daily Star is picking up on one of Royal Anecdotes’ recent themes that Chelsy Davy needs close protection.
According to the Star, Harry has demanded protection from the Metropolitan Police’s elite SO14 Royal and Diplomatic Protection Department – normally reserved for Royals.
The paper comments, “The secrecy surrounding Harry’s frontline posting was so tight that Chelsy, 22 – who is studying for a postgraduate law degree – had to pretend to pals she had dumped him so they did not grill her about his whereabouts.”
We know that Chelsy has been living unguarded with fellow students in a modest terraced house in Leeds, which is fairly near to where three of the 7/7 London suicide bombers lived.
The paper quotes “a source close to the Prince” as saying, “Harry is not bothered about his own position because he can look after himself and enjoys the high standards of protection offered to senior Royal Family members. But the woman he loves is frankly nothing short of a security risk.
“Until now Chelsy has wanted to live like an ordinary student and has been able to do so. But in light of the sick threats against Harry, that situation will not be able to continue. He wants her to be offered the same level of protection as himself. Royal protocol officially forbids it, but we are looking at exceptional circumstances here.
“There have been threats of revenge – and if they can’t get to Harry, they could look at those closest to him who may be easier targets.â€
It will be interesting to see if this story is picked up by others in the press. In the past, some Star stories have lacked legs. This one, though, rings true, although whether Harry himself has called for the protection is open to question.
He may, of course, have been reading Royal Anecdotes — or maybe Chelsy has.
Thanks for the story, John. The journalists must be reading RA for their story ideas.
I do hope Chelsy moves to a more secure lodging. And I hope she receives security. I’m guessing this is why there have been plans for Kate to receive security; do we know if that has in fact happened?
By Evelyn on March 3rd, 2008 at 3:12 pm
It’s certainly a priority now, Evelyn, wherever in Leeds Chelsy lives. That part of the world has the highest Muslim population in Britain.
I’m not sure I can see her getting full official protection though. Harry may have to announce an engagement for that. So, too, William for Kate.
By John on March 3rd, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Whatever must occur for Kate and Chelsy to receive the highest level of protection, I feel it must be done, and immediately. I did not know that Leeds was the area where the 7/7 terrorists resided, nor that it was an area heavily populated with Muslims. That said, these ruthless and determined terrorists could get to Kate or Chelsy wherever they resided in Britain, unless they have security officers trained to protect them at all times. Surely the Queen and the Prime Minister can cut through the red tape and make sure this protection is provided at once. Now is the highest time before something dreadful happens.
By Gigi on March 3rd, 2008 at 3:47 pm
I agree. The cost is so small compared to what the government wastes every day.
By John on March 3rd, 2008 at 3:54 pm
The problem we have now for protection is that we live in a different time and age than when Charles was growing up. With new technology and communications everything is different. Royal protection rules should be changed to go with the times. I do agree that the princes girlfriends are easy targets. The comment about muslims might be “controversial” since many muslims are very nice people.
I have to admit that I got fooled by Chelsy and Harry. I didn’t read about Harry but I never would have guessed that he was in combat. It must have been very hard to pretend a breakup while being so worried about Harry and not having anyone to talk to.
By Marilyn on March 3rd, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Marilyn, I agree that many Muslims are very nice people, but it can’t be denied that that is where the threat comes from. Harry won’t be afraid of Cornish separatists.
By John on March 3rd, 2008 at 4:36 pm
while i agree that she probably does need protection – should the public flip the bill for this one? perhaps Harry could cover those cost…
By coni on March 3rd, 2008 at 5:16 pm
All that red tape could be conveniently cast aside if the princes were to announce their engagements to Kate and Chelsy. Given the situation at hand, they should want their loved ones to be as securely guarded as possible.
Surely Prince Charles could encourage his sons to do this, remembering as he must the fate of his great-uncle, and the effect that had on the Royal Family and the nation.
By Evelyn on March 3rd, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Coni, Chelsy’s father is a bit wealthy, so maybe he could contribute. Maybe Prince Charles and he could split the bill, which would not be less than £1.5m ($3m) a year.
Evelyn, I agree, it’s time the Princes brought their girlfriends in from the cold.
By John on March 3rd, 2008 at 5:36 pm
I am in perfect agreement. You can’t pass judgment on the majority of Muslims but there are those taking it to the extremes. Chelsy being in Leeds with a large muslim population and being exposed as the place those extremists involved in the 7/7 attacks makes it clear that her safety is an issue and security should be afforded her. If they can’t get Harry then Chelsy would be a nice prize for their propoganda. She is as close to Harry as they can get.
By Trudie on March 3rd, 2008 at 5:44 pm
It’s a tough situation for the princes and their significant others – they want to date normally and not be rushed into a hasty marriage, but the ones they date are at risk during a time of war simply for the fact of being connected to them in the media. It does seem that some type of protection should be mandatory under such circumstances….
By Amity on March 3rd, 2008 at 5:54 pm
The days of royal girlfriends not being given protection are long over in this post 9/11 world any girl dating a prince should be given some sort of protection whether casual or serious.
By Trudie on March 3rd, 2008 at 6:06 pm
I don’t know what a highly trained body guard costs per annum, but if someone in the government in Britain does not step to the plate quickly, I think Chelsy’s very wealthy father would do well to hire such a body guard for his daughter.
Regarding Leeds, the material point is that apparently when the 7/7 terrorists were planning their bombing, they felt safe residing in Leeds, no doubt due to the high population of Muslims living there. The aim of the terrorist is to blend in, disappear into the area, go unnoticed until the time is right to strike, and that can be better accomplished in an area where there are a large number of Muslims residing. Of course most Muslims are very good people, but the material point is that Muslim terrorists hide where Muslims congregate, thus making Leeds a more dangerous place, potentially, for Chelsy.
By Gigi on March 3rd, 2008 at 6:14 pm
A keener question may be whether or not Harry and Chelsy (together or separately) stay in England, which apparently neither of them much likes. Would Harry’s protection remain the same if he decamps (with or without his girlfriend/wife) to the African bush long-term? His much-desired army career seems doomed to desk duty and there is not much need for another second son making the rounds at hospital ward openings and movie premieres. Harry may simply make a “normal” life for himself elsewhere, as his mother hoped to do, and as she may have hoped for him as well.
No matter what, it wouldn’t surprise me if he ultimately turns down the traditional dukedom upon marriage. He doesn’t seem to want any part of it, like Princess Anne’s wishes for her children. I have no doubt he’d be King if such an event unfolded, but I don’t see him condemning himself to the life of a second-string Royal. He’s all but said so. Although he surely loves his family, has fully demonstrated his sense of duty, and no doubt will continue in charitable causes, he seems to have no interest in being a Royal at all. To paraphrase the Earl Spencer, “he needs no Royal title…”
By Dan on March 3rd, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Despite his critics, Harry is a rare and unique talent. He needs space and challenge at this stage of his life. The system should be able to provide that for him.
Alas, our clunking and stodgy government can’t see beyond its own self-interest and occupancy of power.
The Times is reporting that the Army has told Harry he won’t be going back to the front line for 18 month, if at all. He is seeing his Colonel in a couple of weeks. I suspect we may hear a lot more of Harry Wales’s plans shortly.
By John on March 3rd, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Sorry for not knowing so much about English history, but who are the Cornish separatists?
Also, now that I think about it I think Harry won’t rule out moving to Africa with Chelsy. It all makes sense. He loves it there, so does Chelsy. He could live a more normal life. In the interview he gave in NBC he said if he wasn’t a prince he would probably live in Africa. ANd Chelsy’s dad has plenty of connections. I’m pretty sure he at least will give it a try at some point in his life.
By Marilyn on March 3rd, 2008 at 6:45 pm
What does this say about the future Royal Family? First Anne’s children received no titles (not unusual for the children of a Princess), now Edward has refused HRH Prince/Princess titles for his. Andrew’s daughters are HRH Princesses but that will end with them. As for Charles’ children, if Harry recoils from his own title, what likelihood has he of making his kids take one up? That leaves William. Of course, it is typically the heir’s offspring that keeps the party going, but does he really want to go to the party? I can imagine the advice Harry would give him.
It was interesting to hear Harry allude to William’s possible front-line action. Are they conspiring to force the military to legitimize both their “active” ranks (as opposed to the sham the military might have intended, merely providing them the right to wear uniforms at memorial events)? Will William share Harry’s disillusion once his own military career is revealed as nothing more than dress-up play for the future head of the armed forces?
It would sure be a shock if the monarchy came to an end not by popular uprising, but because the family opted out. So the Republic of Great Britain may dawn by attrition. That is, assuming the Union doesn’t splinter apart on its own first.
By Dan on March 3rd, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Shrouded in the mists of time are the years during what was known as the Dark Ages, when Cornwall was a kingdom with it’s own ruler. There are some Cornish citizens who have never fully accepted the honor of being a part of Great Britain and work, through the auspices of a militant group known as the CNLA, Cornish separatists, to rid Cornwall of all British influences. They can be quite strident, even threatening those who display the Union Jack, but it is doubtful that the good folks in Cornwall would pose a threat to the Royal Family.
As for Prince Harry wanting to spend his life in Africa, I believe that this wish has more to do with his love for Chelsy Davy, the more temperate African climate and the freedom from press intrusion Prince Harry enjoys there than it involves any true wish to leave England. Prince Harry and Prince William are Princes of the Blood Royal, and they well know the role into which they were born. Like any other young men, they have wishes and dreams, but they are also grandsons of the magnificent Queen Elizabeth II, and they have learned about duty from watching their Grandmother and learning from her exemplary behavior. It is my belief that Prince Harry will support the Crown, support his Grandmother, his father and his brother, and assist with Royal duties, especially when Prince William becomes King. I could be wrong, but I do not think I am. These words of Prince Harry’s must be seen in the light of his frustration and disappointment about being permitted to serve, and the immense intrusion of the media. He will learn to cope with the media, as all the Royals must do. Time and patience are the best friends the two young Princes have.
By Gigi on March 3rd, 2008 at 7:46 pm
If Harry’s heart does rest with England, one would think he would have felt that most deeply while living cold and frugally in an army tent through an Afghan winter. Yet that is precisely where he said, on camera, ” I don’t like England much.” So much for homesickness!
We live in different times than when Elizabeth began her reign. William and Harry both understand duty, but at the same time they are discovering that their duty cannot be an active duty. Then what purpose has it? William cannot serve in the manner he desires (or so we assume), yet other men and women will be sent to die in his name? As Harry said in his interview, no doubt William agrees he would feel “indirectly guilty.”
If theirs is a duty only to tradition and the past, and only for show, I can’t imagine these active men wanting any part of it. True, both would take the “reign” (sorry for the pun), but how long can a half-hearted, or dishearted King go on?
By Dan on March 3rd, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Dan, you’re talking tosh. All young Princes have attitude. They soon get on board. The British Monarchy will survive despite the uninformed opinions of their enemies.
By John on March 3rd, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Rather condescending to say of a veteran of active combat that “All young Princes have attitude. They soon get on board.” Harry at least has had the opportunity to prove he’s more than a trick pony, and doesn’t relish being dismissed as one.
For debate’s sake, an opinion contrary to yours is not necessarily “uninformed,” however differently formed. And differing opinions need not lead to the casting of opposing sides as “enemies.” Such a mindset is what causes these wars from the start.
We’ll see what this new generation brings. Even the Queen has gone on record saying, “we’ll go quietly.” Then again, if Scotland veers off, Wales goes next, and who knows for England, there may be a vital role for the monarch yet in holding the union together, as Albert in Belgium has found.
By Dan on March 3rd, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Thanks Gigi for the Cornish info. I guess like Barcelona in Spain and Quebec in Canada.
By Marilyn on March 3rd, 2008 at 9:25 pm
john..
you’re totally right – forgot Chelsy’s family was loaded. in this day and age anything is bound to happen to either Chelsy or Kate – some nut could easily take a shot at them just to get at Willam and/or Harry
By coni on March 3rd, 2008 at 10:32 pm
The scary thing is, in today’s world, having a bodyguard, or four or twenty bodyguards, doesn’t stop a terrorist determined to blow him or herself up for a cause.
Which returns me to my original question: if Harry chooses to move to Africa (and let’s face it, it may be twenty years or more before he’s needed in country to support King William V), what kind of security detail does he take with him if he moves for the long term? Obviously, for shorter trips, he gets the full treatment. But what if he essentially becomes an expatriate until his father and then his brother takes the throne?
Do they basically cut him loose in the wilds of Africa?
By Dan on March 3rd, 2008 at 10:52 pm
They just reported on NBC evening news here in America that William will be headed overseas soon with the navy….anyone over there heard this?
By dally on March 3rd, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Yes, that’s been reported by online British news sources, though I’m not sure if it’s absolutely confirmed.
William has to finish his RAF commitment first, sometime in April. He won’t be going far until after Peter Phillips’ wedding (mid-May). So the earliest would be June.
What I’ve heard is that William may be on a destroyer in “the Gulf”– considered safe enough, but still active service. We shall see if that is indeed the plan. For security’s sake, I’m guessing there are multiple plans being looked at, and perhaps no final decision made on William’s location until the week before his deployment. I doubt it will be announced.
By Evelyn on March 4th, 2008 at 1:16 am
There is talk of William being “on the front line” during his Royal Navy stint of around four months. That can only mean oil protection duties in the Gulf.
They should not understimate the threat from the Iranians, however. Last year they “captured” 15 Royal Navy personnel — although that was mainly because of the inadequacy of the politically-set rules of engagement.
By John on March 4th, 2008 at 8:57 am
I think alot of people have taken Harry’s words out of context. His I don’t like England was because of the media intrusion into his life that part was broken up to sensationalize the headline. Diana herself felt the same way. I can’t imagine waking up every morning and having your picture splashed across the front page with less then flattering pictures and horrible headlines just for doing mundane things. Harry is entitled to as much a private life as the next citizen and within his private life lies the military which he is passionate about. Can’t anyone give this poor guy a break?.
By Trudie on March 4th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Agreed, Trudie.
Also, a lot of people here, including me, don’t like the England created under New Labour — 24-hour drinking, endless political correctness, red tape from Brussels, dependency culture, dumbed down way of life, nothing working, filthy streets … you name it, we’ve got it.
Harry probably feels just the same.
By John on March 4th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
I agree, Trudie and John. I will never believe that Prince Harry does not love the land of his birth. His Mother’s sacred remains and his memory of her are in England, for one thing, but even Princess Diana grew weary with the constant media pressure. If I had to put my finger on what is wrong with society today, I would definitely include an over-indulgence in alcohol/drugs as one factor. I would identify a low work ethic and skewered moral compass as two others. It is happening in civilized countries all over the world, and the very problems that John describes as being injurious to England nearly sank New York City before Rudy Guiliani took office and literally cleaned house. Someone in authority needs to recollect, say “this isn’t who we are, this will never do” and then change things for the better.
By Gigi on March 4th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
John could I ask a question. Why does Royal protocol dictate at the moment that Royal girlfirends/boyfreinds (Lets not forget Zara Phillips’s boyfriend) can’t receieve protection? Is it soely to do with cost? Is there another reason and what is the likelyhood that it will be over turned given the recent threats which Harry has received.
Do you think on the ski trip that there will be a photocall with the girlfriends much like Harry and William have taken part in, in recent years with their father?
By Jackie Mccoy on March 5th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Jackie, I think that dictate was put in place when Charles and Prince Andrew came of age, because both of them were dating a number of young girls, apparently without serious future intentions. The only terrorists who were active then were the IRA and they only targeted actual Royals, not girlfriends, so that rule was made for the sake of economy, principally. John, am I right about this?
By Gigi on March 6th, 2008 at 3:26 am
Well who do you protect? It’s a tough one because once you allow one group, others can claim they are not really different from them. And so it goes on. You have to draw the line somewhere.
I think, though, that long term girlfriends/boyfriends are a different matter, especially when there’s a clear chance of marriage, as there is with Kate. I would have thought that a word with the Royal concerned about future intentions should be enough to make a judgement.
In Harry’s case, there are specific threats against him because he served his country in combat. They should make an exception in Chelsy’s case. We protected Salmond Rushdie for 5 years or so at a cost of £5m ($10m) all because he is an author who spoke his mind.
But it is taxpayers’ money, and the authorities must be careful not to squander it.
By John on March 6th, 2008 at 9:47 am
That is a very good point, John, about Chelsy, and a pertinent precedent regarding Slamond Rushdie. As for squandering the taxpayers’ money, I think monies that safeguard lives are monies well spent. Who would make the decision regarding providing security for Chelsy and Kate, John? Does the Queen make that decision, or the government?
By Gigi on March 6th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Gigi, I think the decision rests with the chief of the Royal and Diplomatic Protection squad. They are open to suggestions from the Royal Family — the Duke of York is a very recent example. If the Queen requested protection for someone, I think that would be that.
They will have their rules, of course, but rules can be broken in exceptional circumstances and for specific threats.
By John on March 6th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
I really think that there should be security for both Chelsy and Kate, Mike Tindall is kind of under the radar and doesn’t get the press coverage/intrusion as the other two so I don’t think he is serious target. (Though I am not against him getting protection.)
The girls are and should be protected. Much has been made through the years that Diana wasn’t adequately protected by Al Fayd and would have been safer within the Royal circle, well these two young girls are within the circle and should be looked after.
It is madness to say that they can’t get protection until they are engaged. That kind of rule applied when there were short courtships and no one knew the girls name until the announcement, that is not the case now – their names and faces are instantly recognisable and a duty of care is owed to them.
If anything happened to either of them the blame would be laid squarely with the establishment.
I just don’t accept that it has to mean that the romances are inevitably going to end up at the alter.
These are dangerous times and with Harry serving on the frontline unfortunately it has opened up the two girls to a more dangerous adversary than photographers and stalkers.
I really feel it is incumbant on the Royals to protect them, they got them into this mess they should get them out of it.
By Eliza on March 6th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
John you said that there should be protection in a clear chance of marriage such as Kate however I think down the line there is a clearer chance of Chelsy marrying Harry. I don’t believe they ever broke up and the breakup story was out there so Harry’s deployment would not be leaked. They supposedely broke up in October and I’m sure they knew Harry was going then. Both Girls have given every indication of being in it for the long haul as have the Princes these are serious relationships compared to Charles and Andrew in the 70′s and 80′s. I’m just surprised no one has tried to harm Kate since that magazine a few years ago published her address and pointed directly to her apartment. Both girls need protection more so now.
By Trudie on March 6th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Trudie, I’ve consistently argued that both girls need protection. It was RA that brought up the whole Chelsy/protection business. So far only the Daily Star has followed suit. But I think it has to come soon.
By John on March 6th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
John I think you misunderstood me. It was the where do you draw the line. In this case you have argued consistently for the girls to be given protection. I am only saying that as both girls seem to be in their relationships for the long haul this should be addressed asap. As I said I’m surprised some lunatic hasn’t tried to harm Kate given that the media not only gave her address but exactly which apartment was hers. And given those unhinged Kate bashers as well a extremists What is the government waiting for? Chelsy by the very means of her relationship with Harry having served in Afghanistan is even more of a target. Since there is clear indication from the Princes that these are not some fly by night relationships but relationships that have been several years they should be afforded protection. May be you can lobby for this and show comments on this site to bolster your argument as you are part of the media. I would also include all the negative comments to be apart of it as those shown the door have made it clear how totally unhinged they are .
By Trudie on March 6th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
It may just be, Trudie, that one or both of the Royal girlfriends has refused protection. After all, that’s what Diana did. Given that example, I think they should both accept it.
We know that Kate has a bodyguard already set up. Quite how active it is right now, we don’t know. It may just be in place until an engagement is announced.
On the other hand, I think it likely that it’s giving very discreet protection, especially as Kate remains entirely hidden from public view — which make me suspect more than ever that she’s found a hideaway somewhere near Cranwell in Lincolnshire where William is training.
By John on March 6th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
I’m all in favor of discreet protection. Diana while seperated from the POW and refusing protection was in fact under discreet protection and I believe this was also unknown to her. I think they called her Pink Panther. Even one did refuse protection I still think discreet surveilliance should be in place. Kate having a bodyguard set up is wise and I certainly hope it is active for her safety.
By Trudie on March 6th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
I know you are a site watching the Royals and so you have their standards to follow, however I find almost unrespectful to readers who lead more normal life with more normal finances, not to mention the poor all over Britain and the world, that you describe Clarence as overcrowded. It’s a palace, I’m sure Charles, Camilla, Will & Harry can live there comfortably with their girlfriends when they visit.
By Martin Pilon on March 11th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Well, the world is so dangerous now that sometimes I feel like we all need some protection these days. Just today I was approched by a guy who wanted to where I lived and who may family was. I don’t know the guy but I do know that he just moved in my neighborhood. Of course I can protect myself but I would feel more safer if I had some professional protection. I agree with you John, I think Kate laying low is for the best until an engagement is announced. Kate & Chelsy need protection and I think William & Harry now have this under control.
By Claudius on March 12th, 2008 at 4:46 am
If we were all protected by guards, Claudius, who would protect the protectors?
By John on March 12th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Martin, Clarence House isn’t a palace. It was built for the Duke of Clarence and is really quite modest. With servants and staff around it’s probably like living in a supermarket.
Also, you can’t have a Royal website that constantly goes on about the poor. There are hundreds of thousands of sites that specialize in that. We cover British Royalty.
By John on March 12th, 2008 at 9:52 am
LOL, good point John.
By Claudius on March 12th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
LOL, I didn’t think of that John.
By Claudius on March 12th, 2008 at 5:00 pm