The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Stalkers and harassers of royalty: the role of mental illness and motivation
Abstract
Background: Public figures are at increased risk of attracting unwanted attention in the form of intrusions, stalking and, occasionally, attack. Whereas the potential threat to the British Royal Family from terrorists and organized groups is clearly defined, there is a dearth of knowledge about that from individual harassers and stalkers. This paper reports findings from the first systematic study of this group. Method: A retrospective study was conducted of a randomly selected stratified sample (n=275) of 8001 files compiled by the Metropolitan Police Service's Royalty Protection Unit over 15 years on inappropriate communications or approaches to members of the British Royal Family. Cases were split into behavioural types. Evidence of major mental illness was recorded from the files. Cases were classified according to a motivational typology. An analysis was undertaken of associations between motivation, type of behaviour and mental illness. Results: Of the study sample, 83.6% were suffering from serious mental illness. Different forms of behaviour were associated with different patterns of symptomatology. Cases could be separated into eight motivational groups, which also showed significant differences in mental state. Marked differences in the intrusiveness of behaviour were found between motivational groups. Conclusions: The high prevalence of mental illness indicates the relevance of psychiatric intervention. This would serve the health interests of psychotic individuals and alleviate protection concerns without the necessity of attempting large numbers of individual risk predictions. The finding that some motivations are more likely to drive intrusive behaviours than others may help focus both health and protection interventions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“While few studies examine breaching of security barriers, among those that do, the factors found more than once to distinguish between attempted, failed, and successful breaches are: delusions of royal identity; hostile, aggressive, or abusive language; previous hospital admission for mental health; delusions and grandiosity; feelings of persecution; querulant motivations; chaotic motivations; and”
From Unmet needs: analysing the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre’s fulfilment of the public health approach, and its value for violence prevention (2025) · cites this paper as James et al., 2009
In the citing paper
“For example, to pose a risk of violence, an individual would have to approach, breach security barriers, gain access to the public figure, and have a weapon and/or homicidal ideation, meaning these measures are fitting proxies or prerequisites for violence (James et al., 2009;James et al., 2011).”
From Unmet needs: analysing the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre’s fulfilment of the public health approach, and its value for violence prevention (2025) · cites this paper as James et al., 2009
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 20
- Siegel, 1988, Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences
- Scalora, 2002, Risk factors for approach behavior toward the U.S. Congress, Journal of Threat Assessment, 2, 35, 10.1300/J177v02n02_03 · DOI
- Lowney, 1995, Images of Issues: Typifying Contemporary Social Problems, 33
- 10.1520/JFS13486J · DOI
- 10.1093/med:psych/9780195326383.003.0003 · DOI
- Phillips, 2007, Stalking: Psychiatry Perspectives and Practical Approaches, 227
- James, 2008, Attacks on the British Royal Family: the role of psychotic illness, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 36, 59
- Fein, 1998, The Psychology of Stalking, 176
- 10.1093/med:psych/9780195326383.003.0002 · DOI
- Poole, 2000, The Politics of Regicide in England, 1760–1850: Troublesome Subjects
- Mullen, 2006, Assessing and managing the risks in the stalking situation, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 34, 439
- 1823, Sketches in Bedlam: or, Characteristic Traits of Insanity, as Displayed in the Cases of One Hundred and Forty Patients of Both Sexes, Now or Recently Confined in New Bethlem
- 10.1093/med:psych/9780195326383.001.0001 · DOI
- Phillips, 2006, Assessing presidential stalkers and assassins, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 34, 154
- 10.1520/JFS15575J · DOI
- 10.1520/JFS2004102 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2007.01077.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/med:psych/9780195326383.003.0007 · DOI
- 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 · DOI · Paper page
- Mullen, 2009, Stalkers and their Victims
Cited by
Seaward, A., Marchment, Z., Wilson, S., Elfituri, S., Farnham, F., Plumb, T., Rose, K., Taylor, A., Corner, E., & Gill, P. (2025) · Psychology, Crime & Law · doi:10.1080/1068316x.2025.2581795 · Cited by 1
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- James, D. V., Mullen, P. E., Pathé, M. T., Meloy, J. R., Preston, L. F., Darnley, B., & Farnham, F. R.
- Venue
- Psychological Medicine
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2009-04-01
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1479-1490
- ISSN
- 0033-2917
- 1469-8978
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Stalkers and harassers of royalty: the role of mental illness and motivation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0033291709005443
- The paper
- James, D. V., Mullen, P. E., Pathé, M. T., Meloy, J. R., Preston, L. F., Darnley, B., & Farnham, F. R. (2009). Stalkers and harassers of royalty: the role of mental illness and motivation. Psychological Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291709005443
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.