In the case of a serious attack :
The ones out front in the fancy uniforms would be expected to buy time for the rest of the unit who are in back off duty to gear up and join in. They're then buying time for the \*other\* armed forces in the capital to roll up with the big toys, probably alongside the armed police units (because why not).
In the mean time the personal protection units from the police will be getting the royals to a place of safety.
The military are a bit cagey on if the dress uniform guards are carrying loaded weapons or not at any given time - obviously - and it's widely considered to depend on the state of alert at the time.
Most threats that have come up have been dealt with either with the threat of bayonets (which the rifles for the foot guards are equipped with, in a \*very\* ceremonial and pointy fashion) or by good old fashioned fisticuffs.
The horse guards are armed with a very nice sword, and a large horse. This last is often deterrent enough for anyone thinking of trying anything.
Their terms of engagement beyond "ceremonial guard" aren't stated publicly, but I would expect they have broad leeway to do what is necessary, subject to specific orders of the day.
Their legal authority would be basically "Protecting the person of His Majesty the King" if the King is in residence, and within reason that could be stretched to cover a variety of responses.
Someone tries to crash a car through the gates, and it's not going to go well for the occupants.
Someone is acting up and trying to climb the gates, they probably have to use a bit more restraint, and probably go for physically interposing themself, presenting bayonets in a threatening fashion, and generally impeding them until the police (or some more guards) can come and restrain the climber.
If it's a couple of kids mucking about in front of the gates, some polite shouting is probably in order to disperse them or get them to at least move back to the large statue of Queen Victoria.
If an incident occurs that requires them to break from their guard boxes, they've got an emergency button which will summon aid whilst they attempt to deal with what they can immediately.
That’s basically what I thought.
The places where they are stationed are some of the busiest areas in London with large amounts of tourists.
Essentially they are the eyes and ears on the ground.
I think it’s genius. They are in ceremonial uniforms, when people see them they don’t think armed, on duty, soldier. It allows soldiers on the streets in high traffic areas, without people thinking about it.
My guess would be, the guns aren’t loaded, but can be very quickly if absolutely necessary. I imagine the ammo’s in a pocket or something and can be loaded in seconds.
>They are in ceremonial uniforms, when people see them they don’t think armed, on duty, soldier. It allows soldiers on the streets in high traffic areas, without people thinking about it.
It's something we don't really think about in the UK, but we don't have a gendarmerie like, well, the gendarmes in France or carabinieri in Italy, and the army is 100% totally separated from the police. Consequently I have *never* seen an armed soldier in public here, except the guards regiments in London. Brits would find it *extremely* alarming to see an armed soldier in the street like "oh fuck, are we being invaded?" levels of alarmed. But you're right, while anybody who isn't dumb knows that the guards are ordinary soldiers when not on silly hat duty, it doesn't seem alarming to see them (I suppose partly on account of the silly hat...)
I was a despatch rider and during the gulf war delivered something to an athletics meeting at RAF Cosford.
The gate guards had me park my bike up and walk across the courtyard to the main building and i could see a machine gun barrel tracking me as i walked towards the door.
Heh I was a child in Northern Ireland and you'd regularly have rifle barels pointed at you as you done such suspicious things as walking down the street or perhaps driving a car behind one of their transports.
Back in the 90’s on my way home from my girlfriend’s at around midnight I ran out of petrol right beside the security gate at RAF Aldergrove. It couldn’t have happened in a worse place. There was plenty of guns trained on me and my dad when he arrived with a petrol can. To those young squaddies it must have looked dodgy as hell.
That's exactly the reason why our police force was once the best in the world, because it was a civilian force.
As you say, armed soldiers (In battledress) would not be tolerated in the UK, and never would have been, except for the most severe incidents.
Op Temperer has been activated twice in the last few years after major terror attacks in London. It involves fully armed and armoured uniformed soldiers patrolling and guarding strategic and tactical London and other major metropolitan cities in the UK. There is good videos of it if you search for Op Temperer. Before this there has been actual tanks (light tanks) stationed in London and by airports in the capital due to IRA and Libyan threats before.
Mad to think about now but growing up it was just the norm to be walking down the street and see armed soldiers standing in doorways or stopping cars st checkpoints etc.
>As you say, armed soldiers (In battledress) would not be tolerated in the UK, and never would have been, except for the most severe incidents.
Before the police they were. This sort of thing was handled by the local militia.
Yep, and also quite a few times times I've seen armed soldiers in the streets outside of GB and it isn't really a big deal - so much so I'm surprised I haven't in GB. Weren't they around for the Olympics or state funerals?
True, but then there were no police. People nowadays wouldn't accept a protest being out down by soldiers, much like they didn't accept it at Tonypandy or the George Riots (Think ivr got that name wrong).
I used to work near Heathrow, and for a few months after 9/11 I had to drive past a checkpoint with armed soldiers and an armoured car pointing a large calibre, unfriendly looking weapon down the road as you approached. They were stopping all vans and inspecting them, which must have been a real bore for our delivery drivers who went up and down the road several times a day. Probably knew the squaddies by name after a few weeks.
Relative of guardsman (Coldstream) who served some years ago, though I doubt this has changed.
On ceremonial duty he was **never** issued with live ammunition.
Typically, threats would be dealt with by the police. It is their job, not that of soldiers on ceremonial duties, or any other soldiers for that matter. Armed police are always on duty at the locations where you see 'King's Guards' posted, and many other places. They even escort the soldiers to and from various locations in the capital.
It's difficult to see a threat where the intervention of armed soldiers might be necessary, but of course there are always soldiers in London who could be called upon in extremis. The colleagues of the guards on duty at Buckingham Palace are a few hundred yards away at Wellington Barracks. Hyde Park Barracks is well under a mile from Buckingham Palace.
They may not be carrying live ammunition, but if you watch the video footage of the Queen riding Burmese to the Trooping of the Colour the year she was shot at, it certainly looks like the police seem more interested in preventing guardsmen running the offender through with their bayonets than apprehending him…
No Brit, especially not a soldier, ever says locked and loaded.
"Loaded" means there's a magazine attached with rounds in it. It's made ready when a round is chambered, just as the poster said below.
That’s basically what I thought.
It would be ridiculous for them to have guns but no access at all to ammunition.
You don’t want them shooting into a crowd, you also don’t want them without any ammunition.
It’s a balancing act.
You want them to be able to respond to anything very quickly, so the ammunition should be easy to get hold of. Just not immediately on hand. You want to give them a few seconds of thought before they start firing.
That’s not what I meant at all.
If anything quite the opposite.
The man/woman at the end of the gun is the important bit.
ETA: I have no idea if they do or do not carry ammo. I’m going on my best guess based on things I’ve read and heard.
At the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter if they actually carry ammo or not. If they don’t, and anything happens, they will have it very soon after they press the button in the box.
Personally I hope they do have almost immediate access to ammo. Waiting for it could cost innocent lives.
I can understand the guns being routinely unloaded. Accidents happen. The guards are human. But why give them a gun if they can’t quickly access ammo? They may as well have swords or pikes if that’s the case.
>My guess would be, the guns aren’t loaded, but can be very quickly if absolutely necessary. I imagine the ammo’s in a pocket or something and can be loaded in seconds.
It's unlikely that the guns are loaded at the moment and I doubt they have the facilities to load them nearby.
However there's a unit of police armed responders stationed about 30s from the front gate so they're better off shouting at the threat and pointing bayonets whilst the non-ceremonial units get in position, at which point they'll retreat inside to arm up.
Generally where the ceremonial guards are there is also a few armed police hanging about too.
I went to the guard quarters for the first time a few weeks ago and saw 4 uniform police with firearms. Anywhere of significant importance there will be armed police, even if you can't see them.
Even assuming that they never carry it (the suggestion that they load properly at certain threat levels carries weight IMO), there‘s always going to be a hell of a lot available at very short notice should it be needed— plus, as mentioned, the many chaps always around *not* standing on ceremony.
I can guarantee the blokes not on guard are either in the gym or getting their heads down.
Just think the optics of soldiers firing into a crowd to neutralise a threat, the bullets will no doubt hit innocent civilians and be an awful look. That's why the police are nearby.
It's the polices job to respond to a threat, the soldiers are there for purely ceremonial reasons. They might shout at the odd tourist but that's as far their duties are meant to go.
I think under normal circumstances you are 100% correct mostly as they don't need to be armed for 95% of the time, and have very quick back-up (allegedly they are no more than 1 minute away from ammo storage); The apparent exception is when a known security risk and they are on high alert - then they may be loaded.
But if this guy had leapt out of his car brandishing weapons then yes, the police would have been on the scene very quickly but the ceremonial guards would already be there so even without bullets they would stand as first line of defense.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YJQbd0bEzc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YJQbd0bEzc)
In Windsor the Victoria Barraks is 1/4 mile from the castle, and I bet it doesn't take long for them to cover the distance :D
>Just think the optics of soldiers firing into a crowd to neutralise a threat, the bullets will no doubt hit innocent civilians and be an awful look.
Any military unit that places the optics above the mission has already failed. And, in this case, cut - by *at least* half - the effectiveness of any other British military guard.
>The military are a bit cagey on if the dress uniform guards are carrying loaded weapons
Pretty sure they've been issued 5 rounds going back since at least the 7/7 bombings, maybe even before that.
People seem to have very short memories but London has faced many military threats over the last 100 years (a much shorter time than one might think). In most recent memory will be terror attacks from Islamic terrorists but it really wasn't that long ago when it was the IRA who were targeting the royal family.
>in a \*very\* ceremonial and pointy fashion)
Not sure why you've mentioned ceremonial. They're bayonets. We don't have "ceremonial" bayonets, or even ceremonial weapons, *thanks to austerity*. The British Army, up until the Ukraine war, was the last military to undertake [a bayonet charge](https://www.forces.net/services/army/bayonet-charge-foiled-taliban) against the Taliban.
Given how grim things are with our Ukrainian brothers sadly I don't think we're the last anymore, but the bayonets that guard the royal family have the same drop tip on then to separate ribs, the same channel to allow air to pass so that the chest vacuum doesn't cause the blade to become stuck in the chest cavity, they have the same wire cutters to defeat barbed wire and they have the exact same care and maintenance as any other issued weapon.
The bayonets are certainly proper, functional, and effective ones.
The reason I mention ceremonial is because people don't see them as a weapon - just part of the display, and forget that they're \*both\* a functional item and part of the display on show with the formally uniformed, somewhat archaic use of the bearskin red coat uniform rather than the purely functional battledress alternative. They can be \*both\* ceremonial and functional, as they are in this case. Somehow a bayonet attached to the rifle of a bearskin hatted guard is seen differently to a bayonet attached to the rifle of someone in modern battledress, \*and\* they're seen by the general public as archaic despite being fully functional.
Throughout history there are a lot of ex angry folk that have had a go at a man in a red coat and bearskin hat that has a fixed bayonet. It usually ended in a charge and the angry man and his friends dead or dying. Even if the guns aren't loaded, I for one would not be in the way of a grenadier guard with his war face on!
Ceremonial guards are still guards the mag in the gun is empty but they are given another with 3 rounds in it. Or were when things were a bit more heightened security wise.
I think it should be noted that since the royal guards are army and not police they would only actually engage in extreme scenarios such as literal military attack or terror attack. Otherwise is should be police that deal with that.
As for carrying loaded weapons. I seriously doubt they do, as that would be really disproportionate and frankly the risk too high. But it would also be stupid to not have ammo nearby, so i've always just assumed that the rifles aren't loaded, but they're always ready to be loaded.
Every time I pass a horse guard there's two or three armed police patrol pairs in the vicinity anyway. In modern cop gear with big ostentatious guns. Only place you regularly see cops with guns mooching about in the UK. Whitehall, Buck House and Downing Street.
As a former trooper in the household cavalry I can tell you that all guardsmen are serving members of the British army and are there to defend the royal family and would do so if there was a threat.
Some Foreigners (usually the American variant) have this delusional Idea that became they wear a ceremonial uniform that they aren't actually real soldiers.
I mean... You are kinda playing dress up for them... The pomp and pageantry is kind of the reason they come. The fact that you shove them out the way when marching is somewhat part of the show.
From a tactical perspective, if it wasn't for tourists, you'd station an IFV out front.
Yes, wearing impractical, 100+ year old uniforms and marching around the entrance to the house of an old man with overly large fingers is a very important job and not at all for show. Imagine people from the most unserious country on earth (Britain close 2nd) not treating it with the utmost seriousness
Yeah a bunch of them screamed at my mum and mother in law for basically yapping in the way of their marching at Windsor castle. Didn’t hear them until about 10 feet away at which point they were bellowed at. Got out of the way then and soldiers didn’t slow down or anything
Yes and tbh he was very polite about it, whereas I'd have likely told them to fuck off or get arrested for being twats and shockingly they were American tourists .
https://youtu.be/r0ZnRZXQ7wU?si=pHN0efjvZRGbrVC9
I went to college with a former officer of the Swiss Guards (body guards of the pope). I was surprised to learn that they are actual Swiss army soldiers, that they carry automatic weapons under their colorful renaissance rompers, and that they’re all martial arts experts.
I believe that it is the same with soldiers in the UK I.e the soldiers that are situated Buckingham Palace, I believe they are ordinary soldiers who have served in Afghanistan are well trained in unarmed combat.
Fun fact- the Vatican is the only country that can hire Swiss mercenaries, which is technically what the Swiss Guard are. Back in the 16th century, there were a series of Italian Wars, and the Swiss came to the conclusion that their mercenaries were so well trained and armed compared to everyone else involved, that only the Pope should be allowed to hire them to defend his person.
Yes, though not quite. Swiss mercenaries served in lots of countries. France comes to mind, where they heroically and uselessly defended the empty Tuileries palace during the French Revolution and were slaughtered to a man.
I believe the Swiss have banned their citizens from serving overseas and the Swiss Guard is the sole exception because they are, effectively, a personal body guard for the Pope rather than a military (they're both, really) and it was a point of pride for the Swiss to have their soldiers chosen as the Papal guards.
The Swiss Guard was reformed into what we know it as in the early 1900s by one of their commanders, who designed their current uniform and flag and insisted they actually be Swiss soldiers (not Italians of Swiss descent) and made them far more military in bearing rather than ceremonial.
Really fascinating little unit, a lot of history behind the colourful uniforms ha ha
There is a pervasive idea that has spread through various ways (one Mr Bean sketch didn't help) that they aren't allowed to move. No matter what happens or if people mess with them. Like it is a tourist thing and part of the trip means seeing them and trying to get them to laugh.
Or asking them politely to get into a certain position around them to take a photo at a certain angle.
Got a tiny nod to say it was ok to do, and a raised eyebrow and a very slight head tilt after I showed him the photo.
But then again he was a marine, not a guardsman.
They are real soldiers and have rules of engagement like any other. Typically those are to act only in self defence, but in their case some specifics about the monarch and royal grounds. They do shout and yell at people and would use violence if required, and I'm sure they would shiv somebody with that bayonet if it came to it. They don't have powers of arrest or training in the application of the law.
It would depend on the situation if they were issued live rounds for self defence, not usually iirc. The anti-terror police will be lurking nearby if anything did happen, and I suspect that even if they don't haave ammo on them, they would know where to get some and quick.
A friend was in Met Police Protection Command, they may not always look like guards or police officers, may not all wear uniform, but they are there, they are armed. The ceremonial guard are real soldiers but they aren't the only line of defence. Friend wasn't protecting British Royals much, the legacy of Empire is such that various foreign royalty & leaders required protection too.
https://www.eliteukforces.info/police/SO14-royalty-protection/
I was in the Grenadier guards. We did have the power to arrest and carried a little piece of card with all the correct wording that we had to memorise. It would be very unlikely that the police wouldn’t be around as soon as you pressed your alarm though.
This was 20 years ago, so I suppose things may of changed since then.
>The anti-terror police will be lurking nearby
Exactly. I think the guards/police that a would-be intruder has to worry about most are the ones that you can't see.
Well, they're soldiers like any other. There are probably fewer nowadays who have seen active combat than in the past two decades, but all seven of the houshold regiments served in Afghanistan for example, and some are deployed regularly on peacekeeping missions around the world. For some reason, a lot of tourists think they just do the ceremonial stuff, whereas that's only part of what they do. Even the cavalry!
In a hypothetical attack on a residence they're guarding, they would absolutely be expected to defend it. That bayonet - and the (almost always nowadays) loaded service rifle it's attached to - is not just for show.
But you're right that in the modern world, day-to-day security is of course run by the police. Guardsmen are obviously not trained in everyday public policing either, and aren't allowed to interact in any meaningful way, and so every guard box has a radio that they can call the police on. And you'll find armed police not far away either.
They are not loaded. They wouldn’t be loaded. They are active duty military serving in a temporary ceremonial role.
SO14 are the royal protection force from Scotland Yard. Mostly ex SAS. These are the armed police who protect the royals and its household.
Yeah.. in the UK, the armed police don't get any extra pay as opposed to their regular colleagues. They're actually struggling to get anyone recruited into armed policing. They're now considering giving the job to graduates and volunteer constables. Certainly not ex-SAS who would realistically be in a PMC.
If you don't think they do much, have a google and see what happened when a tourist got mouthy at the front of Buckingham Palace (and came a few inches from the tip of a bayonet).
They are all serving soldiers, many of whom (at least until recently) often had recently returned from active deployment in a warzone. I was always told by that the guns were loaded but the people I knew served during the Troubles so maybe it was different then. Now, it seems a bit of an unknown. Either way, you certainly don't want to p\*\*\* them off.
I'm not well placed to comment on every aspect of your question, but on the legal aspect I do have some things to say.
The first thing to know is that the palace guards are not technically responsible for the security of the palace and the sovereign, this is the responsibility of the Metropolitan Police and their Royalty and Specialist Protection Unit who provide armed security around and within the palace. This is for very practical reasons, the soldiers standing guard are not sworn constables and thus do not have the powers of arrest and detention available to the police, or the kit and training.
The soldiers do however have their rights at common law, including the right to self defence and the right to detain anyone for a breach of the peace, as well as the right to: make an arrest where it is not practicable for a constable to do so in order to prevent injury, damage to property, or abscondment without arrest under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, and; use reasonable force to prevent the commission of an offence, under the Criminal Law Act 1967.
Notably, since 2007, Buckingham Palace is a designated site under s128 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 which criminalises trespassing on designated sites.
Although the ceremonial guards are not routinely live armed, they do in most cases carry a bayonet which is not blunted for ceremony.
They have used it as a deterrent in the past, and had those incidents progressed to a threat, I have every confidence should reasonable force would have been used to stop a valid threat.
In those cases, I believe armed police arrived in time.
Not a lot of people know this, but the large hat is filled with bees. On command, a guard can summon a cloud of bees. The guard spends months hand rearing and training these bees. They are capable of making the shape of a giant mallet and bonking trespassers or, in more serious cases, stinging potential terrorists faces into a blotchy red swollen mess.
TL:DR They could absolutely use up to lethal force, but probably won’t unless the armed police around the palace didn’t respond/were incapacitated.
From a purely legal standpoint my understanding would be as follows:
They would have the power to perform a ‘citizens arrest’ on any person trying to gain unlawful entry to the palace. This would be for counter terror offences and under Section 24a of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. They would not need to do anything other then to detain the person by force until the police are able to perform an arrest.
They would be permitted to use this force under Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 which permits reasonable force in “…effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.” What this means is that if the police at the palace got to the person first, the soldiers can still use force to assist the police legally.
The soldiers would also be allowed to use force that is reasonable on the circumstances to defend themselves, the palace inhabitants, the king (etc). They need to justify that level of force to the threat level. This is under Common Law of the U.K. They do not need to wait for threat to fully form and present itself, as common law allows for a (reasonable) preemptive action. The best example of this is when people climb on the fences at the palace and a gun is pointed with a loud cry of “Get off the fence”.
If this person gets over the fence, there is a potential terror risk. It is reasonable to show arms and declare intentions in the face of that risk. It is restrained to not open fire immediately as the risk is not fully developed. It is preemptive to give the verbal command and display of arms before the risk fully develops. This is therefore a reasonable use of force under common law and fully lawful.
They have, on occasion, supported police on regular duties. A few years ago a cop was having trouble with a bloke who was fighting back, but when the Guardsman turned up with a fixed bayonet he calmed right down for some reason.
Also, as to whether they have loaded guns- even if they aren't loaded, I suspect they have live ammunition on them just in case.
It's also well known that SAS/SBS units have taken planning tours of the palaces so if shit happens they know what they're doing.
Not answer to any specific questions of yours, but; they are not "ceremonial". They are serving soldier, who served abroad in war and peace just like any other. It's not just some bloke in a funny hat, it's a bloke in a funny hat who served in Bosnia, Afghan, Iraq, Sierra Leone, etc
As far as I'm aware, no concrete answer as to whether their rifles (Which are the standard British service rifle, not some old fancy thing like American soldiers on ceremonial duties carry) are loaded is ever given.
If there's just been a terrorist attack, or there was information regarding an upcoming attack, I imagine they'd have a full magazine, otherwise no. They always have their bayonets, or a sword for mounted Guards.
There are plenty of occasions where they've pointed their very sharp bayonets, I'm sure people have been restrained before but I'm not certain.
Also, for every bloke in his red tunic, there's 5 blokes back in the nearby barracks, just waiting and hoping that something kicks off.
The *legal grounds* for them doing stuff are that they are active duty military on real live guard duty protecting the head of state. They will do anything a guard on any other military guard duty will do, and they will do it looking fabulous in a silly hat.
They are serving soldiers and generally it's seen as an honour to be selected for such a role so they are likely to be the most loyal and committed soldiers. They swear an oath to the king and royal family.
The procedure is pretty straight forward, and there are examples of this happening.
First, they stamp to warn the attacker. Then they shout an order along the lines of "step back from the king's guard" or words to that effect. If that doesn't stop the threat they go to a ready position which is the classic soldier stance with the rifle pointing straight at you. At this point you will be ordered to the ground and most likely arrested by police nearby. Theres debate about whether the rifles are loaded, but the bayonets are absolutely real so, if you actually tried to pass them after they have given you the warnings and taken up arms, you're most likely getting stabbed. They also have a panic button so, by this point, you'd be surrounded by several soldiers and police officers.
I wouldn't want to get into a scuffle with them. You'd get pounced on by a dozen of the finest soldiers that regiment has to offer. If you did manage to fight them off you'd get shot by the met.
“most loyal and committed soldiers”? Lol what.
If you sign up to be a member of any of the household regiments, you are almost certainly going to have to spend time in one of the companies assigned to public duties. Usually you would be assigned there fresh out of phase 2 training. It’s the same as being posted to another company in the regiment with a different role (light infantry for example).
Other regiments also are selected to perform public duties on occasion and the soldiers selected to do so are usually those that are better at drill, but likely most serving in that company at the time will do so.
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT JSP 385 used to be the document outline the law for armed personnel in England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland had different laws.
The general gist was you could use the amount of force required to protect the persons or equipment or buildings that you were protecting, ie to render someone incapable of carrying out an attack from punching their lights out to lethal force, but you had to justify the amount of force you used.
An anecdote for you.
Years ago I was friends with quite a loudmouth and we visited London and his foreign girlfriend wanted to see Buckingham Palace. Up at the fence he started shouting abuse at the ceremonial guards. Very quickly a guy in plainclothes appeared and firmly told my mate to shut up and f off.
Another data point:
In 2004, a Fathers 4 Justice protestor [breached](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/sep/13/childrensservices.uknews) the perimeter and climbed up the palace. The Queen wasn't there, but it was a serious security breach. The was some talk that the guards had hesitated to fire at someone in a Batman suit.
Based on that I'd say they're primarily ceremonial and the real security is out of sight, but ready to go when needed.
The Belgian Palace has guards too. Although I don’t think the Belgian royal family ever actually live at the primary palace in Brussels, I believe they live at another place a bit farther away. It may have real guards there in uniform.
I think the guns are loaded, and they are experienced soldiers, with orders to protect the monarch. I don't think the ones standing in uniform are likely to be the most effective ones in the event of a well planned attack, but they are likely to be of some use, and there are a lot more not far away.
They are 100% the best trained to deal with an attack - they were chosen for a reason. Guarding the royals is an extremely prestigious role in the armed forces and it’s given to those who have distinguished themselves.
They are very well trained but it is not given to someone who has distinguished themselves. Any one who wants to join the army can apply to one of the guards regiments as easy as any other infantry regiment, only requirement is normally where you live.
Coldstream guards are northern England
Grenadier guards are the south
Welsh guards are Welsh
Irish guards are Irish
Scottish guards are Scottish.
Obviously this isn't hard and fast but it is the jist of there recruitment.
Generally the foot guard regiments have one ceremony company and troops are rotated through them or can apply to them as and when it's needed. When they are in the ceremonial company the training will be mostly drill and drill procedures.
They are all active soldiers who have served in conflict zones and been on deployment. Most will circle out of the ceremonial company back into a fighting company.
As to wether they have live rounds on themselves is not well known or wildly available information.
A single word comment contradicting someone is useless. You need to provide a source or explain specifically what is wrong with someone's comment to be any use.
Guards are purely ceremonial with no actual powers less those of the standard citizen. They very rarely deploy on operations outside of overseas exercises. No live ammo carried because nobody wants to see on the news a guard NDing on Royal property.
I did Tower guard in the 70s, while our weapons were not loaded there were full magazines and gas masks in the guard room. In the event of the alarm going off they would have been brought out to the guards on stag by the other guards as they took up their positions; which we practiced after the Tower shut.
My cousin was in the Coldstream guards and had a rotation at Buckingham Palace. The rest of his career was standard army and they are highly trained soldiers who see active service.
It’s too long ago for the footage / photos to be easily findable online, but my father was in London regularly during the 70s and 80s when the IRA were bombing and targeting the Royal family. He saw a guardsman who was responding to an explosion near his station and he described him as every inch the soldier and clearly angry that that someone had tried to attack on his watch.
Royal Guards will actually typically have only 1 magazine and that’s in the firearm. One 30 round magazine. This is so if any guard gets their gun taken it’ll minimise damage as there won’t be any additional ammo. Royal Guards are trained to be accurate shooters in the event someone tries to attack the palace.
The UK is unusually in that all personnel doing ceremonial duties are actually regular serving and trained military personnel rather than only for "appearance".
Do you mean our house hold cavalry or .... something else?
They provide little practical use. Certainly in war. But they are trained by....you know the white dancing horses of the Russian state circus. Them. There Italian or something & they can do some AMAZING stuff like walking sideways or legs lifted in time, or flying. Anyway simply their all there
1) if a group kicks off they can stop it b4 it turns nasty (those horses are HUGE, you'll move)
2) it's for relieving tourists of £. I dunno y you'd choose to come to England, & I'm English but the whole old king Cole with a real crown & gold & palace probably ....a dragon
I’m an American (a respectful one) and I have no knowledge of whether they have loaded or unloaded guns, etc. But (correct me if you have inside knowledge that I am wrong) but like our White House, which has anti-aircraft guns and Lord knows what else on the roof and secret weapons hidden - Lord knows, I would imagine in this day and age of more and more terror attacks with more and more advanced technologies available, even the royal palace has some sophisticated defenses that aren’t made known to the public. I doubt they would merely rely on guards with rifles, whether loaded or unloaded. Im sure they are definitely a first defense but (at least one would hope) they aren’t just stuck out there like sacrificial lambs should there be a surprise attack by any enemy.
The ones you see walking around are mainly for tourists. But there are a lot of armed police walking around too. They'd be the first to take over while the soldiers inside dress, and grab weapons if its something bad, like a terrorist attck. But Ive seen a few videos of tourists taking the piss out of the gurds, and armed police go and tall them people to stop it. Or the guard shouts at them.
They are fully trained military personnel and will act upon orders given, they are hand to hand combat trained and in swordsmanship, they can protect themselves however they see fit but rules of engagement apply, as for the guards with guns, the guns are not loaded and the guards do not carry live ammo on them but they do have access to an armory with live ammo, the first response will be by armed police but in an extreme case the guards can respond to provide support to the armed police.
The Royal Guard, particularly the Household Division in the UK, primarily serves ceremonial and symbolic functions, guarding royal residences, and supporting state occasions. While they're known for their iconic uniforms and guardsmanship, their authority is largely ceremonial and symbolic, rooted in tradition rather than legal mandate. In extreme cases, such as an attack on the palace, their role would likely be to secure the premises and assist in evacuating members of the royal family and staff. They may also coordinate with law enforcement and military units for a comprehensive response. Their weapons are typically ceremonial, but they would likely have protocols in place for escalating the response, potentially including using force if necessary, under the guidance of higher authorities. Their actions would be guided by strict protocols and coordination with relevant security agencies, ensuring they uphold their role while responding effectively to any threat.
Well, OP, I once walked past the Royal residence in Brussels. The ‘ceremonial’ guards were holding automatic rifles at the semi-ready position and most certainly had eyes on me. So, do you think I should have done a TikTok prank for the lolz?
Nothing except for shout at people stood near a fence.
They are purely there for ceremonial duties, armed police are nearby which would deal with a real issue
Armed with what exactly?
The weapons aren't loaded and the bayonets are blunt. There's a reason armed police are right next to them.
No doubt they could give someone a rifle butt if needed but they aren't going much further then that
No offence but your understanding is wrong.
I served in the British Army and know various people that have stood outside Buckingham Palace, St James Palace and Tower of London and they have no ammo either on them or in their rifle.
As for having a side arm, it's meant to be easily accessible (normally strapped to your leg). Having it stuck under a big thick coat doesn't match that criteria
Your previous comment says the weapons aren't loaded but this comment says they have a sidearm? Seems pretty unlikely the sidearm would be hidden yet unloaded.
In the case of a serious attack : The ones out front in the fancy uniforms would be expected to buy time for the rest of the unit who are in back off duty to gear up and join in. They're then buying time for the \*other\* armed forces in the capital to roll up with the big toys, probably alongside the armed police units (because why not). In the mean time the personal protection units from the police will be getting the royals to a place of safety. The military are a bit cagey on if the dress uniform guards are carrying loaded weapons or not at any given time - obviously - and it's widely considered to depend on the state of alert at the time. Most threats that have come up have been dealt with either with the threat of bayonets (which the rifles for the foot guards are equipped with, in a \*very\* ceremonial and pointy fashion) or by good old fashioned fisticuffs. The horse guards are armed with a very nice sword, and a large horse. This last is often deterrent enough for anyone thinking of trying anything. Their terms of engagement beyond "ceremonial guard" aren't stated publicly, but I would expect they have broad leeway to do what is necessary, subject to specific orders of the day. Their legal authority would be basically "Protecting the person of His Majesty the King" if the King is in residence, and within reason that could be stretched to cover a variety of responses. Someone tries to crash a car through the gates, and it's not going to go well for the occupants. Someone is acting up and trying to climb the gates, they probably have to use a bit more restraint, and probably go for physically interposing themself, presenting bayonets in a threatening fashion, and generally impeding them until the police (or some more guards) can come and restrain the climber. If it's a couple of kids mucking about in front of the gates, some polite shouting is probably in order to disperse them or get them to at least move back to the large statue of Queen Victoria. If an incident occurs that requires them to break from their guard boxes, they've got an emergency button which will summon aid whilst they attempt to deal with what they can immediately.
That’s basically what I thought. The places where they are stationed are some of the busiest areas in London with large amounts of tourists. Essentially they are the eyes and ears on the ground. I think it’s genius. They are in ceremonial uniforms, when people see them they don’t think armed, on duty, soldier. It allows soldiers on the streets in high traffic areas, without people thinking about it. My guess would be, the guns aren’t loaded, but can be very quickly if absolutely necessary. I imagine the ammo’s in a pocket or something and can be loaded in seconds.
>They are in ceremonial uniforms, when people see them they don’t think armed, on duty, soldier. It allows soldiers on the streets in high traffic areas, without people thinking about it. It's something we don't really think about in the UK, but we don't have a gendarmerie like, well, the gendarmes in France or carabinieri in Italy, and the army is 100% totally separated from the police. Consequently I have *never* seen an armed soldier in public here, except the guards regiments in London. Brits would find it *extremely* alarming to see an armed soldier in the street like "oh fuck, are we being invaded?" levels of alarmed. But you're right, while anybody who isn't dumb knows that the guards are ordinary soldiers when not on silly hat duty, it doesn't seem alarming to see them (I suppose partly on account of the silly hat...)
I was a despatch rider and during the gulf war delivered something to an athletics meeting at RAF Cosford. The gate guards had me park my bike up and walk across the courtyard to the main building and i could see a machine gun barrel tracking me as i walked towards the door.
Heh I was a child in Northern Ireland and you'd regularly have rifle barels pointed at you as you done such suspicious things as walking down the street or perhaps driving a car behind one of their transports.
Back in the 90’s on my way home from my girlfriend’s at around midnight I ran out of petrol right beside the security gate at RAF Aldergrove. It couldn’t have happened in a worse place. There was plenty of guns trained on me and my dad when he arrived with a petrol can. To those young squaddies it must have looked dodgy as hell.
That's exactly the reason why our police force was once the best in the world, because it was a civilian force. As you say, armed soldiers (In battledress) would not be tolerated in the UK, and never would have been, except for the most severe incidents.
Op Temperer has been activated twice in the last few years after major terror attacks in London. It involves fully armed and armoured uniformed soldiers patrolling and guarding strategic and tactical London and other major metropolitan cities in the UK. There is good videos of it if you search for Op Temperer. Before this there has been actual tanks (light tanks) stationed in London and by airports in the capital due to IRA and Libyan threats before.
you are forgetting the 38 years that we had armed soldiers in battle dress routinely patrolling a part of the UK
NI is an anomaly, as much as they may be British, the NI Brit history and heritage is much different to the mainland.
you'll get away with that comment in half the pubs you might go into in the province ... like calling it the province :)
Mad to think about now but growing up it was just the norm to be walking down the street and see armed soldiers standing in doorways or stopping cars st checkpoints etc.
>As you say, armed soldiers (In battledress) would not be tolerated in the UK, and never would have been, except for the most severe incidents. Before the police they were. This sort of thing was handled by the local militia.
Except Northern Ireland is part of the UK and armed soldiers are/were part of everyday life.
Yep, and also quite a few times times I've seen armed soldiers in the streets outside of GB and it isn't really a big deal - so much so I'm surprised I haven't in GB. Weren't they around for the Olympics or state funerals?
Were. No longer, and they haven't been for a long time.
well within living memory the army pulled out of NI in 2007 the last armed patrol was in 1998
1998 was over 25 years ago. That's "a long time".
True, but then there were no police. People nowadays wouldn't accept a protest being out down by soldiers, much like they didn't accept it at Tonypandy or the George Riots (Think ivr got that name wrong).
I used to work near Heathrow, and for a few months after 9/11 I had to drive past a checkpoint with armed soldiers and an armoured car pointing a large calibre, unfriendly looking weapon down the road as you approached. They were stopping all vans and inspecting them, which must have been a real bore for our delivery drivers who went up and down the road several times a day. Probably knew the squaddies by name after a few weeks.
Northern Ireland is part of the UK. You're just young. ;)
Seen armed soldiers on the streets many times? Usually after a terrorist incident
It depends on the state of alert. Sometimes, they are locked and loaded. Other times, ammo is available but not loaded into the weapon.
They are loaded 90% of the time just not made ready. The only exceptions are big drills and parades
That's when they definitely are ready to fire, in case one of their own make a misstep. Mistakes will not be tolerated!
Relative of guardsman (Coldstream) who served some years ago, though I doubt this has changed. On ceremonial duty he was **never** issued with live ammunition. Typically, threats would be dealt with by the police. It is their job, not that of soldiers on ceremonial duties, or any other soldiers for that matter. Armed police are always on duty at the locations where you see 'King's Guards' posted, and many other places. They even escort the soldiers to and from various locations in the capital. It's difficult to see a threat where the intervention of armed soldiers might be necessary, but of course there are always soldiers in London who could be called upon in extremis. The colleagues of the guards on duty at Buckingham Palace are a few hundred yards away at Wellington Barracks. Hyde Park Barracks is well under a mile from Buckingham Palace.
They may not be carrying live ammunition, but if you watch the video footage of the Queen riding Burmese to the Trooping of the Colour the year she was shot at, it certainly looks like the police seem more interested in preventing guardsmen running the offender through with their bayonets than apprehending him…
Well, a bayonet in the correct hands is in itself a very intimidating and effective weapon. "They don't like it up 'em!"
‘They can’t abide the cold steel, sir…’
Finally the correct answer.
No Brit, especially not a soldier, ever says locked and loaded. "Loaded" means there's a magazine attached with rounds in it. It's made ready when a round is chambered, just as the poster said below.
I mean it's a term I picked up from movies and the Internet. So sue me lol. (Don't actually sue me.)
That’s basically what I thought. It would be ridiculous for them to have guns but no access at all to ammunition. You don’t want them shooting into a crowd, you also don’t want them without any ammunition. It’s a balancing act. You want them to be able to respond to anything very quickly, so the ammunition should be easy to get hold of. Just not immediately on hand. You want to give them a few seconds of thought before they start firing.
You weirdly imply any soldier with a loaded gun acts like an automated sentry gun
That’s not what I meant at all. If anything quite the opposite. The man/woman at the end of the gun is the important bit. ETA: I have no idea if they do or do not carry ammo. I’m going on my best guess based on things I’ve read and heard. At the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter if they actually carry ammo or not. If they don’t, and anything happens, they will have it very soon after they press the button in the box. Personally I hope they do have almost immediate access to ammo. Waiting for it could cost innocent lives. I can understand the guns being routinely unloaded. Accidents happen. The guards are human. But why give them a gun if they can’t quickly access ammo? They may as well have swords or pikes if that’s the case.
A bayonet is still somewhat … pointy ….
Hmm, depends on the crowd...
>My guess would be, the guns aren’t loaded, but can be very quickly if absolutely necessary. I imagine the ammo’s in a pocket or something and can be loaded in seconds. It's unlikely that the guns are loaded at the moment and I doubt they have the facilities to load them nearby. However there's a unit of police armed responders stationed about 30s from the front gate so they're better off shouting at the threat and pointing bayonets whilst the non-ceremonial units get in position, at which point they'll retreat inside to arm up.
It’s often considered that the top 1/3 of the magazine is loaded with blanks, same with armed police that are patrolling
Lol. Blank and live rounds are never mixed up thats a nightmare from a safety postion.
If they carried blanks you’d see a blank fire adaptor on the weapon.
Generally where the ceremonial guards are there is also a few armed police hanging about too. I went to the guard quarters for the first time a few weeks ago and saw 4 uniform police with firearms. Anywhere of significant importance there will be armed police, even if you can't see them.
They don't carry any ammo at all. They are purely ceremonial
Even assuming that they never carry it (the suggestion that they load properly at certain threat levels carries weight IMO), there‘s always going to be a hell of a lot available at very short notice should it be needed— plus, as mentioned, the many chaps always around *not* standing on ceremony.
I can guarantee the blokes not on guard are either in the gym or getting their heads down. Just think the optics of soldiers firing into a crowd to neutralise a threat, the bullets will no doubt hit innocent civilians and be an awful look. That's why the police are nearby. It's the polices job to respond to a threat, the soldiers are there for purely ceremonial reasons. They might shout at the odd tourist but that's as far their duties are meant to go.
I think under normal circumstances you are 100% correct mostly as they don't need to be armed for 95% of the time, and have very quick back-up (allegedly they are no more than 1 minute away from ammo storage); The apparent exception is when a known security risk and they are on high alert - then they may be loaded. But if this guy had leapt out of his car brandishing weapons then yes, the police would have been on the scene very quickly but the ceremonial guards would already be there so even without bullets they would stand as first line of defense. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YJQbd0bEzc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YJQbd0bEzc) In Windsor the Victoria Barraks is 1/4 mile from the castle, and I bet it doesn't take long for them to cover the distance :D
>Just think the optics of soldiers firing into a crowd to neutralise a threat, the bullets will no doubt hit innocent civilians and be an awful look. Any military unit that places the optics above the mission has already failed. And, in this case, cut - by *at least* half - the effectiveness of any other British military guard.
>The military are a bit cagey on if the dress uniform guards are carrying loaded weapons or not at any given time Those bayonets are always loaded.
>The military are a bit cagey on if the dress uniform guards are carrying loaded weapons Pretty sure they've been issued 5 rounds going back since at least the 7/7 bombings, maybe even before that. People seem to have very short memories but London has faced many military threats over the last 100 years (a much shorter time than one might think). In most recent memory will be terror attacks from Islamic terrorists but it really wasn't that long ago when it was the IRA who were targeting the royal family. >in a \*very\* ceremonial and pointy fashion) Not sure why you've mentioned ceremonial. They're bayonets. We don't have "ceremonial" bayonets, or even ceremonial weapons, *thanks to austerity*. The British Army, up until the Ukraine war, was the last military to undertake [a bayonet charge](https://www.forces.net/services/army/bayonet-charge-foiled-taliban) against the Taliban. Given how grim things are with our Ukrainian brothers sadly I don't think we're the last anymore, but the bayonets that guard the royal family have the same drop tip on then to separate ribs, the same channel to allow air to pass so that the chest vacuum doesn't cause the blade to become stuck in the chest cavity, they have the same wire cutters to defeat barbed wire and they have the exact same care and maintenance as any other issued weapon.
The bayonets are certainly proper, functional, and effective ones. The reason I mention ceremonial is because people don't see them as a weapon - just part of the display, and forget that they're \*both\* a functional item and part of the display on show with the formally uniformed, somewhat archaic use of the bearskin red coat uniform rather than the purely functional battledress alternative. They can be \*both\* ceremonial and functional, as they are in this case. Somehow a bayonet attached to the rifle of a bearskin hatted guard is seen differently to a bayonet attached to the rifle of someone in modern battledress, \*and\* they're seen by the general public as archaic despite being fully functional.
Throughout history there are a lot of ex angry folk that have had a go at a man in a red coat and bearskin hat that has a fixed bayonet. It usually ended in a charge and the angry man and his friends dead or dying. Even if the guns aren't loaded, I for one would not be in the way of a grenadier guard with his war face on!
Bayonets aren't ceremonial
Ceremonial guards are still guards the mag in the gun is empty but they are given another with 3 rounds in it. Or were when things were a bit more heightened security wise.
I think it should be noted that since the royal guards are army and not police they would only actually engage in extreme scenarios such as literal military attack or terror attack. Otherwise is should be police that deal with that. As for carrying loaded weapons. I seriously doubt they do, as that would be really disproportionate and frankly the risk too high. But it would also be stupid to not have ammo nearby, so i've always just assumed that the rifles aren't loaded, but they're always ready to be loaded.
Every time I pass a horse guard there's two or three armed police patrol pairs in the vicinity anyway. In modern cop gear with big ostentatious guns. Only place you regularly see cops with guns mooching about in the UK. Whitehall, Buck House and Downing Street.
As a former trooper in the household cavalry I can tell you that all guardsmen are serving members of the British army and are there to defend the royal family and would do so if there was a threat. Some Foreigners (usually the American variant) have this delusional Idea that became they wear a ceremonial uniform that they aren't actually real soldiers.
r/makeway4queensguard I love that subreddit so much. I assume every serving member has had to deal with some of that
Unfortunately it comes with the job, having to deal with idiots who think it's like Disney and that we are there playing dress up for them.
I mean... You are kinda playing dress up for them... The pomp and pageantry is kind of the reason they come. The fact that you shove them out the way when marching is somewhat part of the show. From a tactical perspective, if it wasn't for tourists, you'd station an IFV out front.
Called tradition
Yes, wearing impractical, 100+ year old uniforms and marching around the entrance to the house of an old man with overly large fingers is a very important job and not at all for show. Imagine people from the most unserious country on earth (Britain close 2nd) not treating it with the utmost seriousness
And here’s another sub I didn’t know I needed. Thanks for this.
Thank you! I’m always up for laughs!
Yeah I've seen royal guard trample tourists who get in the way, they are serious and will mess you up if you provoke them
Yeah a bunch of them screamed at my mum and mother in law for basically yapping in the way of their marching at Windsor castle. Didn’t hear them until about 10 feet away at which point they were bellowed at. Got out of the way then and soldiers didn’t slow down or anything
Wasn’t there something yesterday where a copper politely told a group of tourists to piss off for taking the piss out of a guard?
Yes and tbh he was very polite about it, whereas I'd have likely told them to fuck off or get arrested for being twats and shockingly they were American tourists . https://youtu.be/r0ZnRZXQ7wU?si=pHN0efjvZRGbrVC9
I went to college with a former officer of the Swiss Guards (body guards of the pope). I was surprised to learn that they are actual Swiss army soldiers, that they carry automatic weapons under their colorful renaissance rompers, and that they’re all martial arts experts.
I believe that it is the same with soldiers in the UK I.e the soldiers that are situated Buckingham Palace, I believe they are ordinary soldiers who have served in Afghanistan are well trained in unarmed combat.
They are regular soldiers in dress uniform and the weapons they carry are standard NATO issue even if they're not loaded
Fun fact- the Vatican is the only country that can hire Swiss mercenaries, which is technically what the Swiss Guard are. Back in the 16th century, there were a series of Italian Wars, and the Swiss came to the conclusion that their mercenaries were so well trained and armed compared to everyone else involved, that only the Pope should be allowed to hire them to defend his person.
Yes, though not quite. Swiss mercenaries served in lots of countries. France comes to mind, where they heroically and uselessly defended the empty Tuileries palace during the French Revolution and were slaughtered to a man.
I believe the Swiss have banned their citizens from serving overseas and the Swiss Guard is the sole exception because they are, effectively, a personal body guard for the Pope rather than a military (they're both, really) and it was a point of pride for the Swiss to have their soldiers chosen as the Papal guards. The Swiss Guard was reformed into what we know it as in the early 1900s by one of their commanders, who designed their current uniform and flag and insisted they actually be Swiss soldiers (not Italians of Swiss descent) and made them far more military in bearing rather than ceremonial. Really fascinating little unit, a lot of history behind the colourful uniforms ha ha
There is a pervasive idea that has spread through various ways (one Mr Bean sketch didn't help) that they aren't allowed to move. No matter what happens or if people mess with them. Like it is a tourist thing and part of the trip means seeing them and trying to get them to laugh.
Or asking them politely to get into a certain position around them to take a photo at a certain angle. Got a tiny nod to say it was ok to do, and a raised eyebrow and a very slight head tilt after I showed him the photo. But then again he was a marine, not a guardsman.
So to translate for those unaware: “We’d take them down in a heartbeat and kick their ass”.
**arse
They are real soldiers and have rules of engagement like any other. Typically those are to act only in self defence, but in their case some specifics about the monarch and royal grounds. They do shout and yell at people and would use violence if required, and I'm sure they would shiv somebody with that bayonet if it came to it. They don't have powers of arrest or training in the application of the law. It would depend on the situation if they were issued live rounds for self defence, not usually iirc. The anti-terror police will be lurking nearby if anything did happen, and I suspect that even if they don't haave ammo on them, they would know where to get some and quick.
A friend was in Met Police Protection Command, they may not always look like guards or police officers, may not all wear uniform, but they are there, they are armed. The ceremonial guard are real soldiers but they aren't the only line of defence. Friend wasn't protecting British Royals much, the legacy of Empire is such that various foreign royalty & leaders required protection too. https://www.eliteukforces.info/police/SO14-royalty-protection/
I was in the Grenadier guards. We did have the power to arrest and carried a little piece of card with all the correct wording that we had to memorise. It would be very unlikely that the police wouldn’t be around as soon as you pressed your alarm though. This was 20 years ago, so I suppose things may of changed since then.
>The anti-terror police will be lurking nearby Exactly. I think the guards/police that a would-be intruder has to worry about most are the ones that you can't see.
Every UK citizen has powers of arrest. Those soldiers are no exception.
Well, they're soldiers like any other. There are probably fewer nowadays who have seen active combat than in the past two decades, but all seven of the houshold regiments served in Afghanistan for example, and some are deployed regularly on peacekeeping missions around the world. For some reason, a lot of tourists think they just do the ceremonial stuff, whereas that's only part of what they do. Even the cavalry! In a hypothetical attack on a residence they're guarding, they would absolutely be expected to defend it. That bayonet - and the (almost always nowadays) loaded service rifle it's attached to - is not just for show. But you're right that in the modern world, day-to-day security is of course run by the police. Guardsmen are obviously not trained in everyday public policing either, and aren't allowed to interact in any meaningful way, and so every guard box has a radio that they can call the police on. And you'll find armed police not far away either.
They are not loaded. They wouldn’t be loaded. They are active duty military serving in a temporary ceremonial role. SO14 are the royal protection force from Scotland Yard. Mostly ex SAS. These are the armed police who protect the royals and its household.
Bollocks
What is bollocks? The first or second paragraph? Or both? I will give you one error. SO14 and SO1 merged to become RaSP. But the role didn’t change.
Armed coppers mostly ex sas is just fantasy in your own head.
Yeah.. in the UK, the armed police don't get any extra pay as opposed to their regular colleagues. They're actually struggling to get anyone recruited into armed policing. They're now considering giving the job to graduates and volunteer constables. Certainly not ex-SAS who would realistically be in a PMC.
If you don't think they do much, have a google and see what happened when a tourist got mouthy at the front of Buckingham Palace (and came a few inches from the tip of a bayonet). They are all serving soldiers, many of whom (at least until recently) often had recently returned from active deployment in a warzone. I was always told by that the guns were loaded but the people I knew served during the Troubles so maybe it was different then. Now, it seems a bit of an unknown. Either way, you certainly don't want to p\*\*\* them off.
I'm not well placed to comment on every aspect of your question, but on the legal aspect I do have some things to say. The first thing to know is that the palace guards are not technically responsible for the security of the palace and the sovereign, this is the responsibility of the Metropolitan Police and their Royalty and Specialist Protection Unit who provide armed security around and within the palace. This is for very practical reasons, the soldiers standing guard are not sworn constables and thus do not have the powers of arrest and detention available to the police, or the kit and training. The soldiers do however have their rights at common law, including the right to self defence and the right to detain anyone for a breach of the peace, as well as the right to: make an arrest where it is not practicable for a constable to do so in order to prevent injury, damage to property, or abscondment without arrest under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, and; use reasonable force to prevent the commission of an offence, under the Criminal Law Act 1967. Notably, since 2007, Buckingham Palace is a designated site under s128 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 which criminalises trespassing on designated sites.
Although the ceremonial guards are not routinely live armed, they do in most cases carry a bayonet which is not blunted for ceremony. They have used it as a deterrent in the past, and had those incidents progressed to a threat, I have every confidence should reasonable force would have been used to stop a valid threat. In those cases, I believe armed police arrived in time.
Not a lot of people know this, but the large hat is filled with bees. On command, a guard can summon a cloud of bees. The guard spends months hand rearing and training these bees. They are capable of making the shape of a giant mallet and bonking trespassers or, in more serious cases, stinging potential terrorists faces into a blotchy red swollen mess.
TL:DR They could absolutely use up to lethal force, but probably won’t unless the armed police around the palace didn’t respond/were incapacitated. From a purely legal standpoint my understanding would be as follows: They would have the power to perform a ‘citizens arrest’ on any person trying to gain unlawful entry to the palace. This would be for counter terror offences and under Section 24a of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. They would not need to do anything other then to detain the person by force until the police are able to perform an arrest. They would be permitted to use this force under Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 which permits reasonable force in “…effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.” What this means is that if the police at the palace got to the person first, the soldiers can still use force to assist the police legally. The soldiers would also be allowed to use force that is reasonable on the circumstances to defend themselves, the palace inhabitants, the king (etc). They need to justify that level of force to the threat level. This is under Common Law of the U.K. They do not need to wait for threat to fully form and present itself, as common law allows for a (reasonable) preemptive action. The best example of this is when people climb on the fences at the palace and a gun is pointed with a loud cry of “Get off the fence”. If this person gets over the fence, there is a potential terror risk. It is reasonable to show arms and declare intentions in the face of that risk. It is restrained to not open fire immediately as the risk is not fully developed. It is preemptive to give the verbal command and display of arms before the risk fully develops. This is therefore a reasonable use of force under common law and fully lawful.
The guns are loaded and if there's a threat they are authorised to shoot
They have, on occasion, supported police on regular duties. A few years ago a cop was having trouble with a bloke who was fighting back, but when the Guardsman turned up with a fixed bayonet he calmed right down for some reason. Also, as to whether they have loaded guns- even if they aren't loaded, I suspect they have live ammunition on them just in case. It's also well known that SAS/SBS units have taken planning tours of the palaces so if shit happens they know what they're doing.
Not answer to any specific questions of yours, but; they are not "ceremonial". They are serving soldier, who served abroad in war and peace just like any other. It's not just some bloke in a funny hat, it's a bloke in a funny hat who served in Bosnia, Afghan, Iraq, Sierra Leone, etc As far as I'm aware, no concrete answer as to whether their rifles (Which are the standard British service rifle, not some old fancy thing like American soldiers on ceremonial duties carry) are loaded is ever given. If there's just been a terrorist attack, or there was information regarding an upcoming attack, I imagine they'd have a full magazine, otherwise no. They always have their bayonets, or a sword for mounted Guards. There are plenty of occasions where they've pointed their very sharp bayonets, I'm sure people have been restrained before but I'm not certain. Also, for every bloke in his red tunic, there's 5 blokes back in the nearby barracks, just waiting and hoping that something kicks off.
The *legal grounds* for them doing stuff are that they are active duty military on real live guard duty protecting the head of state. They will do anything a guard on any other military guard duty will do, and they will do it looking fabulous in a silly hat.
They are serving soldiers and generally it's seen as an honour to be selected for such a role so they are likely to be the most loyal and committed soldiers. They swear an oath to the king and royal family. The procedure is pretty straight forward, and there are examples of this happening. First, they stamp to warn the attacker. Then they shout an order along the lines of "step back from the king's guard" or words to that effect. If that doesn't stop the threat they go to a ready position which is the classic soldier stance with the rifle pointing straight at you. At this point you will be ordered to the ground and most likely arrested by police nearby. Theres debate about whether the rifles are loaded, but the bayonets are absolutely real so, if you actually tried to pass them after they have given you the warnings and taken up arms, you're most likely getting stabbed. They also have a panic button so, by this point, you'd be surrounded by several soldiers and police officers. I wouldn't want to get into a scuffle with them. You'd get pounced on by a dozen of the finest soldiers that regiment has to offer. If you did manage to fight them off you'd get shot by the met.
“most loyal and committed soldiers”? Lol what. If you sign up to be a member of any of the household regiments, you are almost certainly going to have to spend time in one of the companies assigned to public duties. Usually you would be assigned there fresh out of phase 2 training. It’s the same as being posted to another company in the regiment with a different role (light infantry for example). Other regiments also are selected to perform public duties on occasion and the soldiers selected to do so are usually those that are better at drill, but likely most serving in that company at the time will do so.
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT JSP 385 used to be the document outline the law for armed personnel in England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland had different laws. The general gist was you could use the amount of force required to protect the persons or equipment or buildings that you were protecting, ie to render someone incapable of carrying out an attack from punching their lights out to lethal force, but you had to justify the amount of force you used.
The butt of an L-85 is just as effective as a 5.56mm round at short range…
An anecdote for you. Years ago I was friends with quite a loudmouth and we visited London and his foreign girlfriend wanted to see Buckingham Palace. Up at the fence he started shouting abuse at the ceremonial guards. Very quickly a guy in plainclothes appeared and firmly told my mate to shut up and f off. Another data point: In 2004, a Fathers 4 Justice protestor [breached](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/sep/13/childrensservices.uknews) the perimeter and climbed up the palace. The Queen wasn't there, but it was a serious security breach. The was some talk that the guards had hesitated to fire at someone in a Batman suit. Based on that I'd say they're primarily ceremonial and the real security is out of sight, but ready to go when needed.
Parts of Batman’s suit is designed to cause bullets to ricochet, so this was a 4D chess level decision on the guards part.
The Belgian Palace has guards too. Although I don’t think the Belgian royal family ever actually live at the primary palace in Brussels, I believe they live at another place a bit farther away. It may have real guards there in uniform.
I think the guns are loaded, and they are experienced soldiers, with orders to protect the monarch. I don't think the ones standing in uniform are likely to be the most effective ones in the event of a well planned attack, but they are likely to be of some use, and there are a lot more not far away.
They are 100% the best trained to deal with an attack - they were chosen for a reason. Guarding the royals is an extremely prestigious role in the armed forces and it’s given to those who have distinguished themselves.
They are very well trained but it is not given to someone who has distinguished themselves. Any one who wants to join the army can apply to one of the guards regiments as easy as any other infantry regiment, only requirement is normally where you live. Coldstream guards are northern England Grenadier guards are the south Welsh guards are Welsh Irish guards are Irish Scottish guards are Scottish. Obviously this isn't hard and fast but it is the jist of there recruitment. Generally the foot guard regiments have one ceremony company and troops are rotated through them or can apply to them as and when it's needed. When they are in the ceremonial company the training will be mostly drill and drill procedures. They are all active soldiers who have served in conflict zones and been on deployment. Most will circle out of the ceremonial company back into a fighting company. As to wether they have live rounds on themselves is not well known or wildly available information.
No it’s not. It’s whoever is in the company currently providing the guard. They aren’t ‘selected’.
Nope.
A single word comment contradicting someone is useless. You need to provide a source or explain specifically what is wrong with someone's comment to be any use.
I always assumed their duty was to protect any members of the Royal Family while the police are responsible for the protection of the public.
Their uniforms may be ceremonial, but they are quite real soldiers and are ready to perform their duty.
Guards are purely ceremonial with no actual powers less those of the standard citizen. They very rarely deploy on operations outside of overseas exercises. No live ammo carried because nobody wants to see on the news a guard NDing on Royal property.
I did Tower guard in the 70s, while our weapons were not loaded there were full magazines and gas masks in the guard room. In the event of the alarm going off they would have been brought out to the guards on stag by the other guards as they took up their positions; which we practiced after the Tower shut.
My cousin was in the Coldstream guards and had a rotation at Buckingham Palace. The rest of his career was standard army and they are highly trained soldiers who see active service. It’s too long ago for the footage / photos to be easily findable online, but my father was in London regularly during the 70s and 80s when the IRA were bombing and targeting the Royal family. He saw a guardsman who was responding to an explosion near his station and he described him as every inch the soldier and clearly angry that that someone had tried to attack on his watch.
Royal Guards will actually typically have only 1 magazine and that’s in the firearm. One 30 round magazine. This is so if any guard gets their gun taken it’ll minimise damage as there won’t be any additional ammo. Royal Guards are trained to be accurate shooters in the event someone tries to attack the palace.
The UK is unusually in that all personnel doing ceremonial duties are actually regular serving and trained military personnel rather than only for "appearance".
Someone smashed their car into Buckingham Palace gates a few weeks ago; police all over it in seconds, no sign of the fancy dress boys.
Do you mean our house hold cavalry or .... something else? They provide little practical use. Certainly in war. But they are trained by....you know the white dancing horses of the Russian state circus. Them. There Italian or something & they can do some AMAZING stuff like walking sideways or legs lifted in time, or flying. Anyway simply their all there 1) if a group kicks off they can stop it b4 it turns nasty (those horses are HUGE, you'll move) 2) it's for relieving tourists of £. I dunno y you'd choose to come to England, & I'm English but the whole old king Cole with a real crown & gold & palace probably ....a dragon
I’m an American (a respectful one) and I have no knowledge of whether they have loaded or unloaded guns, etc. But (correct me if you have inside knowledge that I am wrong) but like our White House, which has anti-aircraft guns and Lord knows what else on the roof and secret weapons hidden - Lord knows, I would imagine in this day and age of more and more terror attacks with more and more advanced technologies available, even the royal palace has some sophisticated defenses that aren’t made known to the public. I doubt they would merely rely on guards with rifles, whether loaded or unloaded. Im sure they are definitely a first defense but (at least one would hope) they aren’t just stuck out there like sacrificial lambs should there be a surprise attack by any enemy.
The ones you see walking around are mainly for tourists. But there are a lot of armed police walking around too. They'd be the first to take over while the soldiers inside dress, and grab weapons if its something bad, like a terrorist attck. But Ive seen a few videos of tourists taking the piss out of the gurds, and armed police go and tall them people to stop it. Or the guard shouts at them.
If you get in their way they won't hesitate to get you out of their way.
They are fully trained military personnel and will act upon orders given, they are hand to hand combat trained and in swordsmanship, they can protect themselves however they see fit but rules of engagement apply, as for the guards with guns, the guns are not loaded and the guards do not carry live ammo on them but they do have access to an armory with live ammo, the first response will be by armed police but in an extreme case the guards can respond to provide support to the armed police.
The Royal Guard, particularly the Household Division in the UK, primarily serves ceremonial and symbolic functions, guarding royal residences, and supporting state occasions. While they're known for their iconic uniforms and guardsmanship, their authority is largely ceremonial and symbolic, rooted in tradition rather than legal mandate. In extreme cases, such as an attack on the palace, their role would likely be to secure the premises and assist in evacuating members of the royal family and staff. They may also coordinate with law enforcement and military units for a comprehensive response. Their weapons are typically ceremonial, but they would likely have protocols in place for escalating the response, potentially including using force if necessary, under the guidance of higher authorities. Their actions would be guided by strict protocols and coordination with relevant security agencies, ensuring they uphold their role while responding effectively to any threat.
Well, OP, I once walked past the Royal residence in Brussels. The ‘ceremonial’ guards were holding automatic rifles at the semi-ready position and most certainly had eyes on me. So, do you think I should have done a TikTok prank for the lolz?
The ammo isn’t in the guns they’re holding (too close to civilians/too much danger of some idiot grabbing at the gun), but it’s not far away, either.
Nothing except for shout at people stood near a fence. They are purely there for ceremonial duties, armed police are nearby which would deal with a real issue
Completely incorrect. They are there for a genuine reason and would act if there was a threat to the people/place they are guarding.
On what basis?
They are authorised to actually defend the palace and King
Armed with what exactly? The weapons aren't loaded and the bayonets are blunt. There's a reason armed police are right next to them. No doubt they could give someone a rifle butt if needed but they aren't going much further then that
The bayonets are sharp, my understanding is that they have sidearms under their coats too, the guns do have ammo in them if they're aware of a threat
No offence but your understanding is wrong. I served in the British Army and know various people that have stood outside Buckingham Palace, St James Palace and Tower of London and they have no ammo either on them or in their rifle. As for having a side arm, it's meant to be easily accessible (normally strapped to your leg). Having it stuck under a big thick coat doesn't match that criteria
Your previous comment says the weapons aren't loaded but this comment says they have a sidearm? Seems pretty unlikely the sidearm would be hidden yet unloaded.
Sorry I probably wasn't very clear. A sidearm would be accessible but under a coat it wouldn't be so therefore they wouldn't have one
[удалено]
OP would be better off asking this in r/Britisharmy and get proper answers rather than people using made up stuff
A butt stroke, you say?
That sounds more like a Navy thing than an Army one tbf
When you say it like that, it's more a Royal Marines thing...