I was pretty surprised to see the recent news that Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh got in a car accident a few days ago. It raised several questions in my mind. (1) Don't people in his position (members of the British royal family) have chauffeurs, such that he would not have to actually drive himself around? (2) In England, does not the royal family have something similar to the US's "Secret Service" protection for the US president? (3) Can a US President (or a member of the British royal family) "decline" Secret Service protection and chauffeurs? Or is he (they) "required" to utilize these services? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This may help. He is known to be stubborn, enjoys driving, and enjoys his independence. And did I mention his stubbornness? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You have Trump, we have Prince Philip.

He has recently 'retired' from public life and it's fairly recently that he gave up carriage driving for the simplicity (and heater) of a Rangie. Stubbornness would certainly be a factor. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you get to your 90s, you've earned the right to be stubborn. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm not privy to the internal workings of the Palace, but my guess would be that Prince Philip does more or less what he wishes, and ignores the advice of those assigned to protect him. He is known to enjoy driving at speed. Dbfirs 17:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding question (1) Do you understand that "he would not have to actually drive himself around..." is not a synonym for "he would not want to drive himself around..." That is, just because he doesn't have to, doesn't actually mean he doesn't want to. People (and I presume Prince Philip is a person; I have not seen evidence otherwise) have their own wants and desires, and are capable of making their own choices based on their own proclivities. Simply put: even though he has a chauffeur who he can choose to drive him around doesn't mean he cannot also choose to drive his own ass anywhere he damned well pleases, thank you very much. The existence of a chauffeur doesn't mean he's not physically capable of driving himself. I hope that makes sense. If you want further information, free will is a good starting point for your research. Regarding the question (2), the Royal Family is protected by the surprisingly named Protection Command, a branch of the Metropolitan Police Service. Regarding question (3) I can only find sources for the US part of the question: This overview article explains that, per 18 U.S. Code § 3056, the Secret Service is to provide security for the President, but the President has no corresponding power to refuse that protection. Basically, the Secret Service will protect the office of the President and that means the also protecting the meat of the person who is occupying that office. Whether or not the owner of that meat wants it protected doesn't matter. It's going to be protected at all times. --Jayron32 17:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was sort of my point. Trump cannot "refuse" Secret Service protection, even if he affirmatively wants to. I assumed that the same goes for the British Royal family. Thus, that Prince Philip "must" take the services of the chauffeur / protective services, whether or not he wants to. Hence, my confusion. And, hence my question here being posted. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See below for answers to both. 1) Philip can refuse that protection and 2) Stopping Philip from doing personally unhealthy (but still legal) things to himself is not their job. Their job is to stop other people from shooting Philip. That's it. --Jayron32 21:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And, in any case, I'm not sure how a personal protection officer would actually fend off a Kia Carens, containing two women and a baby, doing as much as 60 mph, on the A149 near Sandringham. Unless perhaps with a shotgun. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I read between the lines here, the OP's primary objection is that no one stopped him from driving. To which I paraphrase a key part of my original responses here: He's a grown-ass man, who's not doing anything illegal. That's why no one stopped him. --Jayron32 00:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, while it's true the president cannot refuse secret service protection [1], this only applies to "The President, the Vice President (or other officer next in the order of succession to the Office of President), the President-elect, and the Vice President-elect." "The protection authorized in paragraphs (2) through (8) may be declined" which includes "The immediate families of those individuals listed in paragraph (1)". So therefore even in the comparative example of the US, it's not like the spouse of the president e.g. Melania can't also decline protection if they so desire. See also [2] [3] [4] [5]. (It is actually an interesting point that AFAIK AFAWK, none of the younger but still adult children of presidents have ever declined secret service protection long term despite their sometimes contentious relationships with them [6]. It would potentially make for problems between the president and the secret service. Actually title 18 doesn't specify decline by who, not does it really say anything about age, but I presume it's accepted that 'declined' would be by the person being protected. And the fact that people under a certain age generally 18 are special is well established in law e.g. limitations on them entering legally binding contracts and parents or other legal guardians being able to require things without them consenting/agreeing.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting, of course, that his "protection" did a pretty poor job at protecting him, let alone the citizens of the country who pay for that protection. Personally, I'm struggling to imagine a reason his licence hasn't been rescinded. A 94-year-old driving a range-rover off the road...? Anyone...? Anyone...? 18:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)——SerialNumber54129

• First, he's 97.
• Second, he didn't "drive off the road". He was in a collision. I read several news reports about it and none of them said anything suggesting which driver would be found at fault, if it came to determining that.
• Third, as someone said in one of the articles I read, if permission to drive a car was to be limited by age, the ones it would be withdrawn from should be the youngest drivers. Elderly drivers are more likely to know their own limits.

--76.69.46.228 (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, regarding your third point, that was certainly true in 2015 when the Department for Transport said: "there is no evidence older drivers are more likely to cause an accident, and it has no plans to restrict licensing or mandate extra training on the basis of age." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If we're talking about details of the collision, he was (AIUI) pulling out of a small road onto a larger road, and was hit by a car travelling on that larger road. His Rangie (which is heavy) was rolled in the collision. It's also a road where there was prior discussion (now enacted) of lowering the speed limit on it.

So (sheer OR on my part), I'm suspicious that the speed of the other driver was going to be an issue here (it's hard to hit a Rangie hard enough to roll it). Even if HRH had pulled out carelessly, that wouldn't have rolled him. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. But as we know, the Kia driver has the advantage of a (seriously aggrieved) witness who can confirm the car was travelling at about 59.5 mph and that the Land Rover was driven carelessly. Whereas Philip has none. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't need a drivers license. His wife issues them anyways, which is why he doesn't need one. See here for example. There's no licence to rescind, because he doesn't need one. Regarding the protection, the Protection Command is only mandated to protect the Monarch and all immediate heirs to the throne. Spouses and other Royals are provided the protection at their discretion, but only the Queen and her immediate heirs (Presumably Charles, William, and George at this point) are required to have it. [7]. So, Philip is not required to have protection. Also, protection is only there to prevent other people from harming the protected. They can't, for example, knock a cigarette out of their ward's hand, or stop them from eating a bacon cheeseburger, or doing any of a number of other harmful acts to themselves. --Jayron32 19:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source you have linked, Royals in Colour Weekly actually says: "Her Majesty is the only person in the UK who can drive without a license." So presumably Philip does need one. And I'm not sure if newly-qualified drivers have to actually queue up at the tradesman's entrance to be handed their license personally by Brenda herself. Martinevans123 (taalk) 19:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC) p.s. my own cherished paper UK driving license, which I've had now for over 20 years, wasn't issued by The Queen or even by Her Government, but just by that place in Swansea.[reply]

Martinevans123, who is Brenda? Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend See List of people and organisations frequently parodied by Private Eye#The Royal Family. --ColinFine (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, never heard of that before. I note that Life of Brian parodies someone whom well over a billion people consider to be God; is that related to their choice of "Brian" as the name of someone whom a smaller group consider to be God? Nyttend (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you know only too well, those particular cult members don't call him Brian Cohen but rather oldfella Pili-Pili him bilong Misis Kwin. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move 'em all to Milton Keynes! ——Bert Baxter 13:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: & @Martinevans123: This latest update seems to confirm he had a driving licence, and I presume the general interpretation is he need's one at least on public roads [8]. No idea on whether this includes the queen's various estates. Nil Einne (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, in the UK a driving licence is not required to drive on privately-owned land. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small point, but dear to me. In the UK we have driving licences, not driver's (or drivers') licenses. DuncanHill (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think its also worth noting that the US President has a very important governmental role. The husband of the British Monarch does not. If the President died in a car crash, that would cause all sorts of problems and complications for the functioning of the government. If Prince Philip was killed, that would be very sad for all his friends, but wouldn't have any effect on the business of government. Therefore there is much less need to ensure he never endangers himself. Iapetus (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly. The President of the United States has limited powers, as defined by the Constitution of the United States of America, and those powers are assumed by his successor, as defined by United States presidential line of succession. If a President dies for any reason, his hand-picked successor (known as the Vice President of the United States of America) will just step into the job and do it. It has happened every few decades or so. The normal function of the entire government, including the Presidency, continued on each time. The thing about the Separation of powers under the United States Constitution is that it was specifically designed to minimize the problems you describe. Countries whose presidents are granted unchecked power, and where the office is based mostly on the cult of personality around the specific person holding it, generally aren't as successful in just moving on once a President dies. The U.S. does fine with it. Other than the expected mourning, there's no real functional problem. --Jayron32 12:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's still the fact that said successor would have to be located and sworn in. It might even be necessary to determine who in the line of succession is alive, if a massive disaster or attack occurred. The point is, if the US President dies someone has to ascend to the office. If the spouse of the British monarch dies, the "vacancy" is of no official importance and the monarch is not forced to remarry. --Khajidha (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] "does fine with it" True, there's an orderly process for replacing the president, which (except for the first instance, 180 years ago) has never been the subject of significant difficulty; should Donald Trump die tomorrow, nobody would question the idea of Mike Pence taking his place. But still, it would entail a great deal of difficulty, as the president has significant power, and there's a reason that the election of a new president is succeeded by 2½ months of hard work by a transition team. As you can see from that article, major-party candidates have a transition team before the election; in 2012, unsuccessful candidate Mitt Romney's team spent nearly $3 million, even though he didn't win the election. If it's important to have that much planning and work before an ordinary scheduled transition, when you're not reacting to anything more surprising than an upset victory by an underdog, imagine the difficulty involved in a transition following the sudden death of a president. Very different from the death of an individual with no on-paper power whose only governmental significance is being married to a person who has absolute power on paper but basically no power in reality. His death would be as significant as the death of Mrs. Trump, with the exception that he's more likely to die "in office" than she is, given their ages and the fact that the Queen has tenure, and she couldn't be sacked, while Trump holds office at pleasure, and if he ceases to please then he can be removed by the electorate in two years, and at maximum he'll be out of office in 2025. Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. That's because the VEEP is hand-chosen by the president to align with his own (and his party's) platform and as such, basically they are already on the President's "team" and as such, there isn't a big difference or change in policy or philosophy, or any of that. There is little problem with transitions when the VEEP takes over for the President following an untimely death. The "transition teams" you speak of occur after an election, when a new party is now in charge of the White House, and there's bound to be massive changes in the administration. Look historically. The last death-in-office was JFK-->LBJ. See Presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson#Administration, to wit, "he asked the existing cabinet to remain in office." Among Kennedy appointees, 4 of the 12 cabinet level offices stayed for the entirety of Johnson's term and a half, two more made it almost all of the way (until 1968) and other than Robert Kennedy (whom Johnson personally disliked), no one left before the next election. Before Johnson was Truman, see Presidency of Harry S. Truman#Administration, to wit "When he first took office, Truman asked all the members of Roosevelt's cabinet to remain in place for the time being" Truman did eventually replace much of Roosevelt's cabinet, but that's largely because Roosevelt had built a wartime cabinet, and most of those stayed on until WWII was over, once the war was over, Truman started reshaping the administration to better deal with a peacetime administration. Before Truman was Theodore Roosevelt. See Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt#Administration, to wit "Roosevelt convinced the members of McKinley's cabinet...to remain in office after McKinley's death." There is no transition when the VP takes over. --Jayron32 04:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am the original poster of the question. This above discussion is a great example of how a (seemingly simple) question -- through discussion -- takes a lot of twists and turns, with related and/or peripheral topics. It's very enlightening and intellectually stimulating, as well as entertaining. It would be a shame if these Ref Desks get closed. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What point are Andy (who suggests the Kia was travelling too fast) and Martinevans (who puts its speed at 59.5 mph) trying to make? The Kia was being driven normally for the conditions as this comment noted:

This was a collision between a driver coming out of a small side road into a fast trunk road and through traffic which may reach speeds of up to 60 m.p.h. The passenger in the other car gave a graphic description:

We saw this car coming out of a side road. We expected it to stop, but as we approached it began to move. I saw this unfolding in slow motion. My cousin braked under control.

The point I'm trying to make is that no one can prove the speed of the car. Of either car, in fact. All we have is a witness statement from the passenger, which proves nothing. The fact that she broke her wrist in the accident, and reportedly has a grievance against both the police and Prince Philip, makes it seem unlikely that her statement will be entirely neutral and objective. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed part of Martinevans' post which was a presumption of untruthfulness and WP:BLP violation. Akld guy (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore it and ask me to strike it out if you prefer. I am keen to protect Wikipedia from legal action and had assumed, obviously mistakenly, that my dispassionate skepticism would be very apparent. Alternatively, of course, if you think it constitutes such a serious breach of WP:BLP, you might wish to request that it be WP:REVDELed. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]

I am not going to restore it because BLP violations must be removed and striking through is not a removal. I see no need to REVDEL it. Akld guy (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you had asked me to remove it, I would have done. But I stand by my suggestion that the passenger may have been unaware of the true speed of the vehicle. Witness statements are notoriously unreliable, even when they are entirely genuine. I'm not sure why a passenger, who had been in a road traffic accident, would deliberately want to incriminate the driver, especially if they were a friend. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]

A late update on the facts. According to this news item posted 10 days after the accident, the prince has apologized to the injured passenger of the other car, and said "I can only imagine that I failed to see the car coming". According to the article, he was dazzled by the sun. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]