Prince Harry Military Service (merged thread)

[Kirkhill]

Reminds of the Scarlet Pimpernel:

"They seek him here,
They seek him there,
Those froggies seek him everywhere.

Is he in heaven?
Is he in hell?
The Scarlet That demmed elusive Pimpernel."

Cornet Wales is going to Iraq. Cornet Wales is not going to Iraq. Cornet Wales is going to Afghanistan. Cornet Wales will be standing ceremonials at Buckingham. Cornet Wales is training at Suffield. Cornet Wales is being reassigned to another unit.

Anybody seen a photo of HRH recently?

 

[tomahawk6]

If it is too "dangerous" for Harry to do his job then they should have made him serve in the Navy. Otherwise it would say alot to the public that a Royal is sharing the same dangers as the common folk. Frankly I would use Wales as bait and any militia that came after his patrol would die.

 

[tree hugger]

So instead he could be a floating target as opposed to a target in a tank.  Great idea.

 

[InfantryGrrl]

Anybody seen a photo of HRH recently?

Call me a Royal nerd....

He was last photographed at the end of April on leave in the Caribbean with his girlfriend.  As far as I know he hasnt been seen around since.  So perhaps he is here training.       

HAHA The fact that I know the last time he was photographed indicates I need to get a life and perhaps a new hobby   

Otherwise it would say alot to the public that a Royal is sharing the same dangers as the common folk.

The fact is he IS NOT common folk.  Read my previous post about why he's a risk to have there.  Also, there has been no public backlash about him being forced not to go.  The reception to the news has been understanding.  The public knows its not his choice.  

 

[Kirkhill]

Call me a Royal nerd....

He was last photographed at the end of April on leave in the Caribbean with his girlfriend.  As far as I know he hasnt been seen around since.  So perhaps he is here training.       

HAHA The fact that I know the last time he was photographed indicates I need to get a life and perhaps a new hobby   

The fact is he IS NOT common folk.  Read my previous post about why he's a risk to have there.  Also, there has been no public backlash about him being forced not to go.  The reception to the news has been understanding.  The public knows its not his choice.  

Sounds likes somebody needs a posting to Suffield.

 

[tomahawk6]

Prince Andrew not only served but saw action in the Falklands war. While we dont have royalty in the US we have our share of kidnap targets serving in the military.Tillman was a pro-athlete who wanted to see action. The mayor of Chicago's son is serving in the Army.Senator McCain's son is serving in the Marines. Senator Webb's son is a Marine officer in Iraq.

 

[InfantryGrrl]

Sounds likes somebody needs a posting to Suffield.

YES!!!  Though I might have a hard time concentrating on WORK...  Hehe    
 

Prince Andrew not only served but saw action in the Falklands war. While we don't have royalty in the US we have our share of kidnap targets serving in the military.Tillman was a pro-athlete who wanted to see action. The mayor of Chicago's son is serving in the Army.Senator McCain's son is serving in the Marines. Senator Webb's son is a Marine officer in Iraq.

America has NOTHING comparable to the cultural or historical significance of the Royal family.   

 

[muskrat89]

America has NOTHING comparable to the cultural or historical significance of the Royal family.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion...

 

[Kirkhill]

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion...

Judging from the amount of time Larry King devotes to them I thought the Royals WERE an American icon.  >

 

[midget-boyd91]

Prince Andrew not only served but saw action in the Falklands war. While we dont have royalty in the US we have our share of kidnap targets serving in the military

Prince Andrew was in the skies when he saw action in the Falklands. There is an enormous difference between being in the skies under fire, and being on the ground in the center of a city filled with people determined on attacking and/or kidnapping. In the skies, it would take a pretty impressive shot from a rifle or even a large number of rifles to bring down a helicopter, not all Argentine units had the capability to bring down a Sea King with anti air equipment. Almost all radical forces on the ground in Iraq have the ability and the equipment to attack ground forces.
This all goes back to the debates on why he was kept back from Iraq, was it good to keep him back, and so on.

 

[tomahawk6]

Perhaps my memory is off but didnt Prince Andrew decoy an Exocet away from a critical target ? Either you let the Prince serve in combat or its all for show. I think Harry could serve 6 months in theater with no one the wiser.

 

[midget-boyd91]

I think Harry could serve 6 months in theater with no one the wiser.

I would agree with you on this .. but the only problem is once again - the media. After all that has been said about his career and deployments, it wouldn't take long for someone to bring up a story in a paper pointing out that he has not been seen for 'X' many months. The media writers would, as always, put 2 and 2 together and come up with their own conclusion, even if that conclusion is far from reality.

Edit: When I say the media would put 2 and two to come up with their own conclusion, I am not meaning media like the BBC. I am meaning the many many tabloid outlets, who in turn catch on, and the larger ones like the BBC continue to widen the story and keep it in the public eye.

 

[InfantryGrrl]

Quote
America has NOTHING comparable to the cultural or historical significance of the Royal family.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion...

Yes, we are .  I admit that I am incredibly biased towards the Royals.  To be more fair....the President of the United States would hold a SIMILAR, YET I maintain NOT EQUAL standing to to the conscience of society.  Though the President was chosen by the people, not born into it.  A new President is elected every 4 years.  The Royals serve from birth to death, though they are not as significant as they once were when they held more power personally.  They are a symbol more than anything now.  The Royals of past were the politicians and celebrities of their day.  The rise and fall of nations and the lines on the map were decided by families and their followers, the political parties of past.  History was shaped by the personalities of individuals born to rule.  Elected Officials are not as personally significant as the position they temporarily hold and decisions are more disseminated.                        

 

[InfantryGrrl]

Prince Andrew was in the skies when he saw action in the Falklands. There is an enormous difference between being in the skies under fire, and being on the ground in the center of a city filled with people determined on attacking and/or kidnapping.

This is a VERY important fact to point out in this debate. 

 

[tomahawk6]

Why is it the Queen Mum was such a favorite ? Was it because she rode out the blitz with the common folk rather than live in the countryside or in Canada ? I think Harry could serve a similar role in either Iraq or Afghanistan. As for secrecy the Brits have the Official Secrets Act which would keep the press in check.

 

[InfantryGrrl]

Why is it the Queen Mum was such a favorite ? Was it because she rode out the blitz with the common folk rather than live in the countryside or in Canada?

Yes, that's exactly why.  The Royal family during the Second World War really stood out as an example to the British people of strength through hardship. 
The Queen Mum (Queen at the time) was photographed a lot touring bombed out areas of London.  She is credited with bring a lot of hope to these areas  and apparently her concern for her people appeared very genuine.  Queen Elizabeth II also did her part during the war.  A Princess at the time, she joined the Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service and was trained as a driver.  She was the first and only female member of the Royal family to actually serve in the armed forces. 

The Second World War to the British is a LOT different than Iraq.  WW2 was the fight for their homeland and for their way of life.  It was total war that affected every facet of life.  Iraq is for "interests abroad" and does not have a lot of daily significance for anyone who is not personally involved or doesn't have a loved one there.  It is geo-politically significant, but not the defining moment of a nation. 

 

[tomahawk6]

Seems like a great way to reconnect to the British public.

 

[a78jumper]

Yes, we are .   The Royals of past were the politicians and celebrities of their day.                        

Not to mention nutters, womanizers, wife killers, tax avoiders,  the list goes on. A quaint but totally outdated institution that has no place in a modern independant country such as Canada. Argueably the longest chain of welfare cases in history. But we keep on sucking up to these foreigners.

This topic was featured on page 4 of the Edmonton Sun today.

 

[a78jumper]

Queen Elizabeth II also did her part during the war.  A Princess at the time, she joined the Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service and was trained as a driver.  She was the first and only female member of the Royal family to actually serve in the armed forces. 

History also proves that her platoon mates were hand selected, indeed were already fully trained NCOs,  so HRH would not have to associate with the wrong kind of girls. And she got to go home to Windsor Castle every night. I doubt her peers were afforded the same quarters. What a sacrifice!

 

[Michael OLeary]

History also proves that her platoon mates were hand selected, indeed were already fully trained NCOs,  so HRH would not have to associate with the wrong kind of girls. And she got to go home to Windsor Castle every night. I doubt her peers were afforded the same quarters. What a sacrifice!

Not to mention nutters, womanizers, wife killers, tax avoiders,  the list goes on. A quaint but totally outdated institution that has no place in a modern independant country such as Canada. Argueably the longest chain of welfare cases in history. But we keep on sucking up to these foreigners.

This topic was featured on page 4 of the Edmonton Sun today.

OK, you've made your point. You don't like the Royal family, which is a point I believe you've made before more than once.  Do you have anything constructive to add to this thread?