Humanities desk
< August 27	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 29 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 28

Security of the Queen

What measures do Elizabeth II's security staff take to protect her in situations where she appears exposed. For instance, when participating in walkabout tours of parts of the country there is no obvious security presence there, but there could easily be a madman in the crowd - as was the case at the trooping the colour ceremony. I know that there are ordinary police for large occasions, and there were rumours that when she visited Exeter University there were police armed with snipers across the campus. Just wondering if there is any official information about this. --Andrew 14:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There will be no official information about this - because it is about security, and the last thing anyone wants to do is tell any potential attackers just what security is in place. Wymspen (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the organisation tasked with protection of the Royal family, see Specialist Operations. Rojomoke (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All female members of the Royal Family are accompanied by a detective wherever they go. 79.73.247.7 (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bram Stoker's book Famous Impostors tells of a lookalike boy acting as a decoy substitute for Queen Elizabeth. AllBestFaith (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That Elizabeth also had a powerful wizard (and perhaps his summoned guardian angels) watching her back. That would seem ridiculous today, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One obvious security feature: having an heir who is less popular than the current monarch is. Blueboar (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I doubt that royal security has forgotten Anne, Princess Royal#Kidnapping attempt and puts in place proportionate resources to preclude a repeat. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading this right, during a visit to Ulster in 1977, she was guarded by 32,000 armed men. To put it in perspective, that used to be roughly enough to save 32,000 princesses from 32,000 dragons and gain 480 million loyal subjects. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert in VIP protection, but for heads of state and the like there are generally sizable numbers of plainclothes officers in addition to uniformed protection. Not everyone part of security is part of an "obvious security presence". I recall someone (can't remember who) saying that obvious security personnel, such as uniformed Secret Service protection, are in part there to draw attention, so any ne'er-do-well plotting something will focus on them and not notice plainclothes officers. Also in situations where there are large crowds greeting the VIP, the crowds are pre-screened. Following the U.S. presidential race, where the major-party candidates have Secret Service protection, I have heard news media discuss how at appearances the whole venue is cleared and swept, and then everyone being admitted is searched, before the candidate shows up. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 03:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This report - Queen's last minute walkabout decision, about Queen Elizabeth II's state visit to the Republic of Ireland in May 2011, suggests that the crowd is not pre-vetted, as there were 30,000 people there and the Queen decided to stop and talk to some of them on a whim. Note that a group of demonstrators had been corralled by the police, but were still able to make their point. The year before last, I went to watch the procession for the State Opening of Parliament and was a few feet away from the Queen as she passed by in an unarmoured wooden coach, without being searched or asked for id.

As for User:InedibleHulk's quote about "32,000 armed men", it seems to be journalistic hyperbole and probably represents the total number of security forces in Northern Ireland (police, army and reservists) at the time, which was at the height of a shooting war. Our Operation Banner (the military deployment to NI) article says: "At the peak of the operation in the 1970s, the British Army was deploying around 21,000 soldiers. By 1980, the figure had dropped to 11,000". Alansplodge (talk) 09:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That does make more sense than getting 32,000 together for a single trip. Even for a VIP. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lookalike for the present Queen Elizabeth: somebody wearing an outfit identical to the Queen's parachuted into the Olympic Stadium from a helicopter just before she appeared to conduct the opening ceremony. I never got to the bottom of that. 92.23.52.229 (talk) 10:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that really WAS the Queen ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See 2012 Summer Olympics opening ceremony. Her Majesty did indeed appear in propria persona in the scenes shot at Buckingham Palace, but she was played by Julia McKenzie in the helicopter, and Gary Connery did the actual parachuting (in costume). Tevildo (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the Queen didn't really parachute out of a helicopter? She must be getting old ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 08:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I remember some shaggy dog story about a British royal of some sort visiting Caltech back in the 60s or 70s and one of the students there tried to do something funny from an air duct and a whole bunch of plainsclothes operatives sprouted guns and freaked the place out. But I have NO idea where to find this, if it's even real. Still, my feeling is that apart from ostentatious patriotism this queen is in little danger, because she doesn't have any real power, she has clear succession, anybody getting her property is already rich, she scarcely ever says anything... why the heck would somebody bother shooting her? A pie in the face would provide nearly as much fame and glory as is to be had here. Wnt (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Royal Family seem to be most at risk from the lunatic fringe. Besides the attempted kidnapping mentioned above, the Queen was shot at (blanks, but could have been badly injured as she was riding a horse at the time) at the Trooping of the Colour in 1981 by Marcus Sarjeant, the Queen woke up to find a very strange man sitting on her bed, the Michael Fagan incident in 1982, and Prince Charles was shot at (also blanks) in Australia in 1994 by David Kang. However, you can never tell what more sinister groups are going to do in their search for the oxygen of publicity. Flying two hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center never seemed very likely, until somebody did it. Alansplodge (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say 9/11 was never contemplated at all. Unless I can see a pre-9/11 source that shows someone hypothesising someone actually doing that and dismissing it as extremely unlikely. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL @Alansplodge: It does seem like logical induction from all those incidents is that she really isn't secure (or at least wasn't) but nobody really ever wanted to kill her. Which puts her in the same boat as just about everybody else, apart from some weird stories and a few hundred hours of community service ordered here and there. Wnt (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, but my point is that we, as a country, need to be prepared for the day when somebody DOES want to do real harm, and there are plenty of those people out there. In the meantime, the Royals and their minders seem willing to tolerate a certain amount of risk, eschewing Popemobile-type bullet-proof boxes et al. Alansplodge (talk) 08:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Killer Queen"

Having recently listened to the song on an interstate run, it occurred to me that "Killer Queen" might just be self-referential, if not autobiographical (for which it is far too abstract). I've read our rticle, and it says nothing of the source, but it does mention that it is one of the few songs Mercury wrote the lyrics for before composing the melody. That seems significant.

Are there any short, on-line RS's or good OR'S by notable sources that address this, or any excellent books that I should have to request from the library in their absence? I can't say I rank Queen above my top 10 bands (although certainly maybe my top 20). But my respect for their virtuosity and uniquicity forces me to ask about this specific song, to which I had never much paid attention. "Dynamite with a laser beam" simply makes me think "Stage Peformer!" μηδείς (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not the best RS but [1] does includes claims on what Freddie Mercury said about the song. It does cite where this was said, so if you think the reporting may be inaccurate or is missing something you could try and hunt it down. And even worse RS but [2] does have a poster saying that there was a documentary where someone claimed the song was about them. Most other stuff I came across seems to be speculation from randoms but it's perhaps worth including [3] where two people suggest it may have been about a C K (full name hidden for BLP reasons but it's in the source albeit mispelled and we have an article). While this is from randoms, since it's a specific individual you can look into whether there is better speculation if you wish. (Frankly this speculation seems a little out there especially since as far as I can tell, C K looks to have been somewhat out of the public concious by then, and a quick search didn't find any thing sounding reliable. But felt it would be okay to mention it. My only concern is that for BLP reasons it should also be mentioned none of this is meant to imply it's accurate to call C K a callgirl. I'm not even sure if that's specifically what the commentators were saying, considering at least one of them couldn't spell her name or Mercury's correctly.) Nil Einne (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the effort, it seems they for a just mirror what our article says. μηδείς (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

uniquicity ?? AllBestFaith (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now you've gone a spoilt it, it will be a trending meme next week. μηδείς (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]