- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
FascistLibertarian said:One its leaked its leaked
???What do you mean?
FascistLibertarian said:One its leaked its leaked
FascistLibertarian said:One its leaked its leaked
the 48th regulator said:The Riothamus has arived!!!
Hail Hail Hail!!
...
Shortly after the news of the prince's deployment broke, several Islamist Web sites posted messages alerting their "brethren" in Afghanistan to be on the lookout for the royal soldier.
"O brothers of monotheism, if you find anyone with unusual security in his battalion, know that this could be the Prince Harry. We ask God that he gets caught on your hands," one such posting read.
Yrys said:Don't they know that the Anglican Church is also a monotheism faith ?
Yrys said:UK's Prince Harry sees combat in Afghanistan from CNN
Don't they know that the Anglican Church is also a monotheism faith ?
Well, if they're in Britain, I wonder if they could be tried for treason, as they're suggesting the kidnapping of the third-in-line of the throne ?
...The majority of the country's high-level media executives knew about the tour of duty since before it happened but made a deal to keep it quiet, said royalty expert
and author Ingrid Seward. "We had some rather 'James Bond-esque' meetings at the Ministry of Defence," Seward, who is the editor of Majesty Magazine, told CTV Newsnet
on Thursday. "It was mainly editors of magazines and newspapers... Maybe 30 or 40 representatives of news organizations."
The story was leaked by an Australian magazine a month ago, but the embargo on the U.K. media was only lifted Thursday morning when the whereabouts of the 23-year-old
were reported by the Drudge Report website in the United States.
U.K media given access to footage
According to U.K. newspaper The Guardian, all major British news broadcasters, publishers and agencies signed on for the deal, which stated they would keep the secret until
the April end date of Harry's six-month tour. In turn, they were given access to a series of pooled interviews, pictures and footage of the prince in the field. There was also a
rotation of embedded positions that allowed cameras to get unique footage of the prince doing his job.
At the end of his tour, Harry -- who was known among international forces only by his call sign, Widow Six Seven -- was to return to the U.K. on a Friday so that daily and
weekend newspapers would have equal ability to report on his return, The Guardian reported.
In the event the embargo was broken, the British media were urged to wait until it was confirmed the prince had been taken to safety before publishing anything.
...
tomahawk6 said:Harry has been pulled from Afghanistan.
ArmyVern said:Well, we know who we can thank for this Soldier no longer enjoying the ability to do his job. How ni-ice of them.
benny88 said:I imagine something is lost in translation to English, and the literal translation implies something more like "brothers of Islam"
At its simplest, journalism is about telling people things they don't know. So when the Ministry of Defence approached the BBC - along with other parts of the UK media -
to ask us not to tell our audiences about a possible deployment of Prince Harry to Afghanistan, it was something we thought long and hard about.
A news black-out is unusual, but not unique. An agreement exists between the police and the media over the reporting of kidnaps - the police have the right to
request that media organisations don't report an abduction while negotiations are under way, in case it makes the release of the hostage more difficult; in return, they accept
the responsibility to update the media regularly and reveal the full story, on camera, once the situation has been resolved. When lives are at risk, it's not always helpful to have
things played out in the glare of publicity.
Last summer - on the day my colleague Alan Johnston was released in Gaza - the Chief of the General Staff, Sir Richard Dannatt, met editors to make the case for a voluntary
agreement. He was very candid; Harry wanted a career in the Army and he needed to be able to be deployed to do what he'd been trained to do, even if it was just for a day.
After five months of discussions, using the kidnap agreement as our model, the MoD and the UK media reached an understanding; we wouldn't speculate or report on the
prince's deployments to minimise the danger to him and to others. In return, we'd get access to him before, during and after his time in Afghanistan. It was a voluntary
agreement - any of the organisations could have decided to leave at any time. We - and the other UK broadcasters and newspapers - were clear that we would not report his deployment.
tomahawk6 said:Yep,evidently an Australian source tipped Drudge.
"Australian magazine New Idea formed a key part of the media leak that has compromised Prince Harry's secret deployment in Afghanistan. New Idea was one of the first publications in the world to reveal the Prince's tour of duty, a move which has prompted UK military officials to consider pulling the royal out of Afghanistan for safety reasons. The leak broke a media embargo on Harry's deployment which was designed to protect the third-in-line to the British crown. New Idea said in a statement it had no idea any such media embargo existed and would never have knowingly broken it. .... The source behind New Idea's January 7 story is given as a "close friend" of Prince Harry who attended a farewell dinner for the royal...."
....The (UK) Ministry of Defence (MoD) had kept the young royal's deployment secret under a news blackout agreed by British media to prevent details reaching insurgents and endangering the prince and his comrades. But the arrangement broke down after news was leaked out on the US website, the Drudge Report, which said that the Australian magazine New Idea and the German tabloid Bild were the first to break a world embargo. The Drudge Report site later dropped mention to Bild and New Idea, claiming the exclusive as their own....
Just as children can take their surnames from their father, so sovereigns normally take the name of their 'House' from their father. For this reason, Queen Victoria's eldest son Edward VII belonged to the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (the family name of his father Prince Albert). Edward VII's son George V became the second king of that dynasty when he succeeded to the throne in 1910.
In 1917, there was a radical change, when George V specifically adopted Windsor, not only as the name of the 'House' or dynasty, but also as the surname of his family. The family name was changed as a result of anti-German feeling during the First World War, and the name Windsor was adopted after the Castle of the same name.
At a meeting of the Privy Council on 17 July 1917, George V declared that 'all descendants in the male line of Queen Victoria, who are subjects of these realms, other than female descendants who marry or who have married, shall bear the name of Windsor'.
the 48th regulator said:No worries, he will smite all of our enemies!
All behold the Riothamus! Long may he reign!
dileas
tess
recceguy said:Windsor. As in, The House of Windsor.
Yrys said:Yep. I seem to remember that they change from something like 'Saxe-Coburg-Gotha' during WWI .
I argue for the change in WWII with a friend, but lost.
Official web site of the prince of Wales and family