According to a royal, Queen Elizabeth II refused to honor an airport by opening its new terminal in 2000 because an airline – following British law – refused to transport his gun when he was flying up to see her at Balmoral Castle. And the story checks out.
Lord Ivar Mountbatten, a first cousin once removed of Prince Philip, the late Duke of Edinburgh, revealed he was prevented from taking his shotguns on a flight from Bristol to Aberdeen.
…[A] “sweet check-in lady” told him the hold was accessible from the cabin so they would not be secure, despite him telling a manager: “The Queen’s sending me a car and she’s expecting me for tea.”
In the end, his guns were left in the police armory at the airport and Lord Ivar took the flight to Scotland to join the Queen for the shooting weekend in the Highlands.
Credit: Bristol Airport
He relays that he told the Queen, she was irritated, and arranged to have the guns brought to him the next day. And she told him, “They want me to open their new terminal. I don’t think I will now.”
- The Bristol airport terminal opening would have been in 2000
- The terminal was opened by Princess Anne, not Queen Elizabeth
- The flight would have been from Bristol to Aberdeen, Scotland
- On aircraft where the baggage hold was accessible from the passenger cabin – so no guns permitted there under U.K. law.
Lord Ivar added: “So every time I go back to Bristol Airport now, it was opened by the Princess Royal, I have a quiet laugh to myself.”
Credit: Bristol Airport
The Bristol to Aberdeen, Scotland route is currently served by Loganair with an Embraer ERJ-145. However, in 2000 it would have been a British Airways regional flight operated by Brymon Airways (later CitiExpress) and flown with De Havilland Dash 8 turboprops.
The current ERJ‑145s have an externally loaded, pressurised baggage hold aft of the cabin, and carrying checked firearms on type is structurally fine. But the “hold accessible from the cabin” restriction applies to planes like DHC-8s and ATR 42/72 regional aircraft since the cargo bays sit on the main deck with cabin access. UK air law prohibits “sporting weapons” where passengers have access. As a result,
- Aer Lingus Regional policy: “Sports weapons/firearms/ammunition can’t be carried on Aer Lingus Regional flights.”
- Eastern Airways lists under Dangerous Goods/Weapons that sporting weapons, ammunition, and firearms are not permitted on ATR‑72 aircraft.
- Loganair says firearms carriage varies by aircraft type and route.
Here’s the Loganair policy and they’re the current operator of Bristol – Aberdeen service that would have been flown in this story,
On some of our services we do not carry firearms and ammunition. On services where we do carry firearms and ammunition we may charge a fee. Firearms are not carried as part of your baggage allowance.
It’s implausible that the specifics of this story would be true if the story itself were not. The royal telling the story, Lord Ivar Mountbatten (first cousin once removed to Elizabeth’s husband Prince Philip), admits knowing nothing of the restriction – but his experience matches the route, aircraft, timing and terminal opening.
So, indeed, Queen Elizabeth refused to inaugurate an airport terminal in the U.K. because an airline there followed British law.
(HT: Enilria)
Well, she *was* the literal monarch… and, there’s a reason we don’t prefer ‘kings’ or ‘queens’ in the ‘free’ world… even fought a few wars about this… clearly some have forgotten those lessons…
It doesn’t matter whether you are Queen of a country or not… what would she have done if some nefarious person managed to get access to those weapons in the hold, and gain control of the aircraft, or shoot people. Monarchs don’t get to change the rules just because they are monarchs. Certain rules are meant to protect the public, and oddly enough, that public includes those they presumably are meant to protect as well. Not impressed.
Touché’ Queen Lizzie, stupid gun laws never work….anywhere.
@Sue — I’m with you that passengers having access to firearms on flights is not a good idea…
Your comment: “Monarchs don’t get to change the rules just because they are monarchs.” Uh… no, that’s the thing, if they are ‘monarchs’ they typically DO get to change the rules on a whim. That’s why we don’t want kings or queens (or authoritarians, or dictators, etc.). Remember?
@Doc423 — Since you went there… (and, let’s be honest, that’s the unstated purpose of Gary posting this, a somewhat rage-bait post, inevitably to get a pro/anti-gun debate going on here)… gun restrictions appear to have worked better in the UK (1996, Dunblane massacre in Scotland) and Australia (also 1996, Port Arthur Massacre), where they actually learned from their horrific mass shootings. No, it’s never ‘perfect,’ but it’s at least trying to do better, rather than just dishing out ‘tots and pears.’ (If you know, you know.)
Meanwhile, in the USA, which I am assuming you are based (and probably an avid supporter of 2A), we are only as secure as our weakest link, so, yes, NYC gun laws don’t matter much, if Nevada says you can have weapons of war. Relatedly, when are you 2A folks gonna actually defend against tyranny? (Never understood that argument, because, you know, the military has tanks and F35s, etc.) Oh, now I see, if it’s ‘your team’ doing the tyranny, it’s all just fine (in fact, I bet, if #45/47 started doing ‘gun-control’ you’d cheer for it, which would be wild, kinda like how Governor Reagan and even the NRA supported gun restrictions, see, 1967, the Mulford Act, after the Black Panthers got rifles…hmm, maybe it wasn’t about guns, after all). And, I bet you must think those ‘woke’ lefties wouldn’t dare get guns for themselves, eh? Might be a surprise to some of y’all… After all, might as well while we still can. Great for those manufacturers! Think of the shareholders!
I have been aboard both the ATR72 and Dash 8, most recently the Dash 8 last year. I don’t recall any access of the baggage compartment. Photos?
The Queen punished the wrong people. Punish Boris Johnson or the airline
@ Sue @ 1990 – the monarch doesn’t change laws, that’s what the government is for. The monarch gives the Royal Assent to make whatever it is a law.
@ 1990 – “gun control” – there are over 22,000 good n control laws in the US, but if someone wants to get hold of a firearm legally or illegally s/he will know someone who knows someone. All the gun control laws in the world don’t make a difference if there are guns on the streets. And with 2A there will always be guns in the streets. By banning firearms (which would never happen) the vast majority of honest gun owners would be penalized because of the relatively few bad people out there.
Being born and raised in the UK but now living in the US I’ve seen and heard both sides of the gun control argument, and there’s no solution that will please everyone.
@Keith — Ah, Mr. Magna Carta… yes, the UK system has more ‘nuance’ to it than ‘our king/queen is a literal dictator.’
As to guns, no one is suggesting ‘ban’ all of them; they don’t do that in OZ or UK, either. It’s about the ‘weapons of war,’ the machine guns (I know, technically banned already), the ARs (which aren’t that different); these are clearly not for mere self-defense, or hunting; they’re for killing many people rapidly. Mere pistols or hunting rifles rarely result in mass-shootings, and anyone who shoots knows that, unless they are being disingenuous. Background checks, prevention against domestic violence, investment in mental healthcare are also good starts, but we just don’t do it. Too much money on the line. It’s a wedge issue, like immigration (and what used to be abortion). Purposely won’t solve it; gotta profit/motivate your respective base. All fine till it harms someone you care about.