Daily Mail "reporting"

I came to the conclusion some time ago that Daily Mail "reporters" do not know how to report the news. They prefer to sensationalize a story, rather than provide actual facts. Daily Mail "reporters" also have an unerring ability to ignore facts and eschew research. This is enforced by many of the comments that follow such stories. Take a look at a story in today's Mail regarding a possible review of security measures for some of the younger royals. (Photo editors at the Mail make sure they find the most deleterious photos to accompany their stories.)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1181575/Eugenie-face-bodyguard-cutback-Yard-reviews-50m-cost-protecting-party-going-junior-Royals.html#

While it is most certainly true that the several of the younger members of the Royal Family have largely not lived up to their responsibility as a member of the royal family, it is also irresponsible of the Daily Mail to get facts wrong.

This is not the first time that the Mail has gotten it wrong concerning security and the younger royals. This current article does not name the reporter. A week or so ago, Rebecca English was the byline for a story oozing with misstatements.

The Daily Mail reporter is wrong when he or she states that Zara and Peter Phillps do not have protection because their mother, Princess Anne, "considers it a waste of public money."
Bzzzz. Wrong.
Peter and Zara Phillips do not get protection because ... drum roll, please ... they are not ROYAL. They are grandchildren of the Queen, but that does not make them royal. Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah Chatto are grandchildren of a sovereign (George VI), and they do not receive protection.
Peter and Zara are the children of a princess. Ditto Lord Linley and Lady Sarah, whose mother was the late Princess Margaret. When these four were children, they were protected by their mothers' Personal Protection Officers, but only when the children were in the company of their mothers.
Beatrice and Eugenie are in a different situation. They are princesses of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In time, they will become fully fledged members of the Royal Family, and undertake official engagements.
Each working member of the Royal Family has his or her own PPO. This includes the Queen and Prince Philip, all four of their children and their children's spouses. The four royal grandchildren (William, Henry, Beatrice and Eugenie) have PPOs as well. The Phillips children and Lady Louise Windsor and Lord Severn do not.) The other members of the royal family who have PPOs are the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, the Duke and Duchess of Kent and Princess Alexandra. None of their children have personal protection officers, and live largely private lives. Prince and Princess Michael might also have one PPO.
The Duke and Duchess of Kent and Princess Alexandra are all in their 70s now, and carry out far fewer engagements, which means their security coverage is limited and less costly than for the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, who carry out a full range of engagements. The Duchess of Kent's list of official engagements would fit on one small piece of paper. It would be a lot easier to make the cuts with the Kent branch of the family, and not take away the security for the two York princesses.
The real issue is not the cost of security, but the behavior of the two princesses. Someone -- their father -- should remind Beatrice and Eugenie of the responsibilities of their position. Rather than gallivant around the world during their gap year, the two princesses should have spent the time donating that year to help others. Oh, there will be calls - oh, they are young, let them have some fun.
Bzzz. Wrong answer. Backpacking across the world is perfectly fine for the ordinary person. But Eugenie and Beatrice are far from ordinary. They are princesses of the United Kingdom, and not princesses of the demi-monde. They need to realize that their lives are different, and they need to show, by example, that young people can be responsible. That means not leaving bars in at 4 in the morning, with your cleavage in tatters and looking rather pie-eyed, and the cameras flashing in your face, recording the tatty image for posterity.

It is not all about fun. It is about showing respect for who you are, for your country, and respect for grandma, who happens to be a much loved sovereign.