Prince Harry been in Afghanistan for the last 10 weeks!

[Undesired Walrus]

How did they possibly keep it secret for as long as they did?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7269743.stm
Prince Harry has been fighting the Taleban on the front line in Afghanistan, the MoD has confirmed.

I'm looking forward to the day when there is a general consensus in Britain that using human beings as royalty because of what they happened to be born into is somewhat wicked, but seeing how I am somewhat of a supporter of this venture in Afghanistan, I suppose.. good for him?

[Lisa Simpson]

I say good for him. At least he's doing something with his life aside from taking up space on the tabloids.

[a_unique_person]

Well....it's all over the tabloids now :p

[Undesired Walrus]

Ooo! Can I predict tommorow's Sun?

'From Nazi to Wahhabi'?

'Get those towel heads Harry'?

'Low sense of Arabia'?

'Breat Cancer cured by Lotto funding scandal'?

[Rolfe]

And the reason this is news is?

Rolfe.

[Redtail]

Ooo! Can I predict tommorow's Sun?

'From Nazi to Wahhabi'?

'Get those towel heads Harry'?

'Low sense of Arabia'?

'Breat Cancer cured by Lotto funding scandal'?

A little touch of Harry in the night.

[Undesired Walrus]

And the reason this is news is?

Rolfe.

I'm sure we'll find a way.:)

[Big Les]

Because if we're going to have a royal family, they should damn well be prepared to sacrifice the flower of their youth as well as that of their "subjects". That's why, for me, can't speak for the tabloid gawkers.

[senorpogo]

The Sun gives him credit for thirty kills! 30 Afghans? That's like 450 Boers!
And you know the air strikes were SERIOUS air strikes because the number is capitalized and in bold.

THREE air strikes > three air strikes

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article858482.ece

[rjh01]

The big risk though is that the enemy may launch a massive attack on the prince's location, and either capture or kill him. That would be the first time such a thing has happened to a person in line to be King of England for a long time. So the consequences would be unknown.

Maybe the British should tell the enemy he is here, they attack and the British would know how to fight such a battle. Heavy enemy casualties would result. Mind you they would suffer some themselves.

Sorry for the rant.

[The Fool]

Good on him.... If you are going to have a royal family at least they can take thier share of the risks. The British royals have actually got quite a history of war service.

[Darat]

This was not a secret, all that happened is that the UK media agreed beforehand to not break the story until after he had finished his tour of duty.

I am not bothered if he is there or not, the issue for me is the voluntary "media black out".

[Zep]

Apparently his superior officers had to ping him for trying to chat up the female Air Force pilots over the radio while they were all supposed to be coordinating air-strikes. I guess he just can't help himself... :rolleyes:

[The Fool]

Apparently his superior officers had to ping him for trying to chat up the female Air Force pilots over the radio while they were all supposed to be coordinating air-strikes. I guess he just can't help himself... :rolleyes:
Hi honey...what are you wearing? Oh.... a G-suit ....Damn....

[gumboot]

Good on him.... If you are going to have a royal family at least they can take thier share of the risks. The British royals have actually got quite a history of war service.


My understanding is that members of the Royal Family are required to do military service. Don't they do a certain time in each branch of the military or something?

Elizabeth II did military service during WW2 I believe (I think there's a famous photograph of the Princess in overalls at a factory or something).

One thing that you have to give them credit for is their willingness to get stuck in when it's needed.

[richardm]

I don't think it's a requirement, exactly, but there is a very long tradition of it. Very long indeed.

[lionking]

Yes I think that's right richardm. Good on Harry. He could easily avoided the war zone.

[Francesca R]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7270743.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7270743.stm)

From a related story, British Army Chief Dannatt says:
I am very disappointed that foreign websites have decided to run this story without consulting us. This is in stark contrast to the highly responsible attitude that the whole of the UK print and broadcast media, along with a small number of overseas, who have entered into an understanding with us over the coverage of Prince Harry on operations.
The problem as I see it is that the UK press was offered an "exclusive" deal by the government whereby they could gather lots of footage for future documentaries about "Harry at War" in return for their discretion. Assuming that foreign media were not all party to this deal, it seems obvious that they had no such incentive to suppress the story when they found it. So it is wrong-headed to refer to overseas media as being irresponsible for spoiling the UK government's plan to deploy Prince Harry--even though that does probably carry a net benefit (and probably still will since the excercise was a success for ten weeks)

Naturally now the BBC and others are tripping over themselves to get out as much of their exclusive footage as quickly as they can under the moniker of news. Expect a one-hour special by next Monday night latest.

(post title should of course say "Afghanistan" Ooops)

[Francesca R]

I am not bothered if he is there or not, the issue for me is the voluntary "media black out".Does it reduce your trust of the media? I have not made up my mind about this.

[rjh01]

How did any press get to know where the Prince was? The British could have kept it a secret and not done any deals with anyone. The only people who would have known would have been the unit and whoever says where they are.

[richardm]

Does it reduce your trust of the media? I have not made up my mind about this.

It is perhaps slightly disturbing that the government and press were complicit in this, but I'd hope that if it were something that was actually genuinely important rather than simply interesting then they wouldn't have kept quiet about it.

ETA: I think it is mildly interesting, and I'm glad to see a Royal putting his money where his mouth is, but was rather miffed that it was top story on the News at Ten on the BBC who ran on about it for something like ten or fifteen minutes.

And now some other items of news we've just got time to squeeze in. Hey, they've found some more bits of children in another cellar in Jersey. And here's a dog with yogurt pots on his paws.

[Francesca R]

How did any press get to know where the Prince was? The British could have kept it a secret and not done any deals with anyone. The only people who would have known would have been the unit and whoever says where they are.The press knew where he was because they were informed and allowed to accompany him so that they could shoot footage to be used afterwards.

Evidently the government concluded that cutting the press a deal was safer than trying to keep the whole thing secret from them.

[Francesca R]

It is perhaps slightly disturbing that the government and press were complicit in this, but I'd hope that if it were something that was actually genuinely important rather than simply interesting then they wouldn't have kept quiet about it.I think that if the press is supposed to act in the public interest then they have a duty and a right to decide what the public interest is, and not be told. It seems that this was the case--I can just about accept that allowing Prince Harry to fight in combat (which necessitates keeping this from the public) and then broadcasting it later is in the public interest.

[Lucky]

This was not a secret, all that happened is that the UK media agreed beforehand to not break the story until after he had finished his tour of duty.
How do you know that? Unless this statement from the army Chief of General Staff (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7269787.stm) is a direct lie then the voluntary blackout should still have been in operation, and he's being brought home because of the leak in the foreign media.
I am very disappointed that foreign websites have decided to run this story without consulting us.

This is in stark contrast to the highly responsible attitude that the whole of the UK print and broadcast media, along with a small number of overseas, who have entered into an understanding with us over the coverage of Prince Harry on operations.
...
I would like to thank them for that and I do appreciate that once the story was in the public domain, they had no choice but to follow suit.
...
Now that the story is in the public domain, the Chief of Defence Staff and I will take advice from the operational commanders about whether his deployment can continue.



How did any press get to know where the Prince was? The British could have kept it a secret and not done any deals with anyone. The only people who would have known would have been the unit and whoever says where they are.
That's rather naive. They get to know because it's something they're extremely eager to know, and they have methods that work very well. Most unlikely it could have been kept a secret, so there's no need to look for ulterior motives for the deal.

[Zep]

My understanding is that members of the Royal Family are required to do military service. Don't they do a certain time in each branch of the military or something?

Elizabeth II did military service during WW2 I believe (I think there's a famous photograph of the Princess in overalls at a factory or something).

One thing that you have to give them credit for is their willingness to get stuck in when it's needed.The Queen, then Princess Elizabeth, served as an ATS truck driver later in the war. Subaltern Windsor was taught to service and drive army cars and lorries.

[MG1962]

The Queen, then Princess Elizabeth, served as an ATS truck driver later in the war. Subaltern Windsor was taught to service and drive army cars and lorries.

Yes and some like Prince Andrew saw some extremely dangerous active duty. Another famous royal Lord Mountbatten, aside from being a good destroyer man, held the title of fastest morse operator in the Royal Navy

[UnrepentantSinner]

Give 'em hell Harry!

Good for him wanting to be with his guys.

The Queen, then Princess Elizabeth, served as an ATS truck driver later in the war. Subaltern Windsor was taught to service and drive army cars and lorries.

You've happened on something that bugged me while the boys were at Sandhurst. Shouldn't they have been Cadets' Windsor, not Wales while they were there or is there something about surnames and peerage that I'm completely missing.

(ex. Edward's business cards reading Edward Windsor, not Edward Wessex)

[Francesca R]

How do you know that? Unless this statement from the army Chief of General Staff (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7269787.stm) is a direct lie then the voluntary blackout should still have been in operation, and he's being brought home because of the leak in the foreign media.The conditions were that those media organisations party to the agreement would not cover the story until Harry finished duty or the story was broken by someone not party to the agreement. So the voluntary blackout ended because the story broke due to someone else.

That's rather naive. They get to know because it's something they're extremely eager to know, and they have methods that work very well. Most unlikely it could have been kept a secret, so there's no need to look for ulterior motives for the deal.As per my post above, they were invited to gather coverage to use later in return for the blackout, not just as a pure incentive IMO but because news coverage that the third in line to the commonwealth throne had been in active military service was viewed as a public good.

[Lothian]

10 weeks unscathed. Those Taliban have a lot to answer for.

[Lucky]

The conditions were that those media organisations party to the agreement would not cover the story until Harry finished duty or the story was broken by someone not party to the agreement. So the voluntary blackout ended because the story broke due to someone else.
Yes, that was my point. Unless I read him wrong, Darat was suggesting that the blackout ended according to plan because the tour of duty was finished – that's what I was disputing.


As per my post above, they were invited to gather coverage to use later in return for the blackout, not just as a pure incentive IMO but because news coverage that the third in line to the commonwealth throne had been in active military service was viewed as a public good.
I'm sure that's true – the army (and whoever else was involved in the decision) are expecting some useful propaganda as a side benefit. But that wasn't the primary reason - they really had no other option if they wanted to keep it quiet as long as possible.

[richardm]

You've happened on something that bugged me while the boys were at Sandhurst. Shouldn't they have been Cadets' Windsor, not Wales while they were there or is there something about surnames and peerage that I'm completely missing.

(ex. Edward's business cards reading Edward Windsor, not Edward Wessex)

I think I'm right in saying that strictly speaking the royals don't have a surname at all in the sense that you or I do. So Harry (for example) is legally Harry of Wales. This is a bit poncy so they make it sound a bit more normal by calling him Harry Wales. The family name is Windsor (or it is now, anyway), but it gets superceded in the same way; so the Queen calls herself Elizabeth Regina (i.e. Elizabeth the Queen), not Elizabeth Windsor; Henry VIII wouldn't have been Henry Tudor, but Henry Rex, and so on.

There was a Henry Tudor, Henry VIII's son, but he died only a few hours after birth. I assume that there wasn't time to bestow any titles on him so he got the family name.

Edward got stuck with Windsor I suppose because he didn't have any good titles until he got married, at which point his professional life had already got started.

More knowledgeable posters will now demolish this, I don't know why I bother sometimes ;)

[Darat]

Yes, that was my point. Unless I read him wrong, Darat was suggesting that the blackout ended according to plan because the tour of duty was finished – that's what I was disputing.

...snip...

No I wasn't saying that.

[Overman]

I am not bothered if he is there or not, the issue for me is the voluntary "media black out".

Loose Lips Sink Ships.

[Ausmerican]

The most disturbing thing to me about this thread is the fact that I am going crosseyed trying to read acuitys posts while not taking my eyes off acuitys avatar.

[Darat]

Loose Lips Sink Ships.
I recognise that there are times when I would want the media to keep quiet about something however I don't see any of those conditions in this.

What we have here is the MoD and the UK media all being complicit in keeping quiet about the posting of one soldier and for what reason? To allow one of the most privileged young people the world to fulfill an "ambition" he had.

[headscratcher4]

Maybe he could be a clerk at Marx (or is it Marks?)and Spencer for a little more "normalacy" and fitting in.

[christie malry]

Has anyone made the joke about him joining the same regiment as his father yet?

Oh, also http://www.thedailymash.co.uk :)

[Francesca R]

I recognise that there are times when I would want the media to keep quiet about something however I don't see any of those conditions in this.

What we have here is the MoD and the UK media all being complicit in keeping quiet about the posting of one soldier and for what reason? To allow one of the most privileged young people the world to fulfill an "ambition" he had.I don't see this as simply an exercise to indulge Prince Harry's aspirations. I sincerely don't believe that the government would have supported it for that reason alone--the Royal family is simply not popular enough to justify it. Rather--the popular boost that the notion of voluntary military service would have received, and probably will receive, is likely much of the motivation. The army is a public employer that needs to attract talent.

[Overman]

I recognise that there are times when I would want the media to keep quiet about something however I don't see any of those conditions in this.

What we have here is the MoD and the UK media all being complicit in keeping quiet about the posting of one soldier and for what reason? To allow one of the most privileged young people the world to fulfill an "ambition" he had.

Agreed, and I'm no expert on their international policy, but one can eaisly imagine a scenerio where news of him on the front lines puts him (or his squad) in an even greater danger than the average soilder. I think that is enough of a reason to keep it out of the headlines right there, but then also on top of that, if he was directly targeted, would that dramatically effect the publics opinion one way or the other regarding the war?

And I think "ambition" may be the incorrect word, if at some point you are going to be in a place where you influence decisions about miltary policy, you should have some experience in military.

[Overman]

The most disturbing thing to me about this thread is the fact that I am going crosseyed trying to read acuitys posts while not taking my eyes off acuitys avatar.

Also,

QFT!

[UnrepentantSinner]

I think I'm right in saying that strictly speaking the royals don't have a surname at all in the sense that you or I do. So Harry (for example) is legally Harry of Wales. This is a bit poncy so they make it sound a bit more normal by calling him Harry Wales. The family name is Windsor (or it is now, anyway), but it gets superceded in the same way; so the Queen calls herself Elizabeth Regina (i.e. Elizabeth the Queen), not Elizabeth Windsor; Henry VIII wouldn't have been Henry Tudor, but Henry Rex, and so on.

There was a Henry Tudor, Henry VIII's son, but he died only a few hours after birth. I assume that there wasn't time to bestow any titles on him so he got the family name.

Edward got stuck with Windsor I suppose because he didn't have any good titles until he got married, at which point his professional life had already got started.

More knowledgeable posters will now demolish this, I don't know why I bother sometimes ;)

Thank you for the lengthy reply wish covered some of the few things I know about the Royal family and their names (re: for now/Saxe-Coberg Gotha doesn't quite have the ring of Windsor), but I'm specifically referring back to the military service and what Zep noted about the Queen, then Princess Royal and, assuming George V had no male heirs, the putative Soverign being referred to as Subaltern Windsor* and not Subaltern Wales or some other titular surname rather than the (adopted post WW-1) surname. Wills and Harry are both one step further from the throne than Liz was in 1942 so it just seemed strange to me.

I haven't had time or bandwidth to do any research, but can anyone link to a cite noting how Charles, Andrew and Edward were referred to while they were doing thier time at Sandhurst** or once they got their commission?

* Not to tweek gumboot's nose, but I have seen footage of the Queen driving and doing maintenance on vehicles sufficient times in the U.S. (mostly on PBS and the History Channel) to have corrected him but Zep beat me to it.

** There is a Dudley Dooright(sic) cartoon from the 60s where his RCMP commander has a collage pennant reading "Sandhurst '92" or "Sandhurst '03" or such. The last time I saw it, I appreciated it as we were closing in or were slightly past the century mark of said cartoon character's graduation.***

*** I bet some of you Commonwealth folks are wondering why an American knows anything at all about British military traditions. Well, we're not all as ignorant and self-centered as you think.

[Darat]

I don't see this as simply an exercise to indulge Prince Harry's aspirations. I sincerely don't believe that the government would have supported it for that reason alone--the Royal family is simply not popular enough to justify it. Rather--the popular boost that the notion of voluntary military service would have received, and probably will receive, is likely much of the motivation. The army is a public employer that needs to attract talent.

Can't see how your argument works - if the Royals aren't that popular why would this be a popular boost for the idea of military service?

[christie malry]

I bet some of you Commonwealth folks are wondering why an American knows anything at all about British military traditions. Well, we're not all as ignorant and self-centered as you think.

However, of all the pieces of useless information to acquire, that's probably some of the most useless... ;)

[Darat]

Agreed, and I'm no expert on their international policy, but one can eaisly imagine a scenerio where news of him on the front lines puts him (or his squad) in an even greater danger than the average soilder. I think that is enough of a reason to keep it out of the headlines right there, but then also on top of that, if he was directly targeted, would that dramatically effect the publics opinion one way or the other regarding the war?

...snip...

Oh I agree with this however this only applies after they'd made the decision to send him, there was a much simpler way to have handled this at the start - don't send him.

And I think "ambition" may be the incorrect word, if at some point you are going to be in a place where you influence decisions about miltary policy, you should have some experience in military.

I don't know if he has any plans to ever go into politics but even if he has why should the MoD and so on bend over backward to help him in this way?

[Francesca R]

And I think "ambition" may be the incorrect word, if at some point you are going to be in a place where you influence decisions about miltary policy, you should have some experience in military.I really think that the army (and therefore the government) gets more out of this than Harry does, making it not in the slightest an act of expensive generosity to HRH.

[Francesca R]

Can't see how your argument works - if the Royals aren't that popular why would this be a popular boost for the idea of military service?I suspect that (i) the Royals are not so popular that paying for secret military action for Harry to satisfy his aspirations would be approved of, but (ii) not so unpopular that revealing that Harry had served frontline service would not both improve the Royal's popularity and provide good marketing for the army.

[richardm]

I'm specifically referring back to the military service and what Zep noted about the Queen, then Princess Royal and, assuming George V had no male heirs, the putative Soverign being referred to as Subaltern Windsor*

When she was born she was dubbed Elizabeth of York and so would have been Elizabeth York, but at the point where her father became King in 1936 - when she was still a child - she became the Heir Presumptive. Since that trumped everything else I'm guessing that either she wouldn't want to refer back to the lesser title of York or the title was relinquished. Either way she just used the family name Windsor. When her father became King there were apparently suggestions that she should be made Princess of Wales, in which case she would have been Elizabeth Wales instead. (The male heir to throne has been Prince of Wales for Centuries)

how Charles, Andrew and Edward were referred to while they were doing thier time at Sandhurst** or once they got their commission?

Charles and Andrew were Naval types so didn't go to Sandhurst, but from a quick look around it seems that they were "HRH Prince" whatever and didn't bother with surnames at all (as is their right). I Could be wrong though. No idea about Edward at all but since his business cards read Edward Windsor he was probably either that or HRH Prince Edward as well.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Breaking news: Prince Harry is being withdrawn from Afghanistan.

So much for that.

Well, he very quickly was becoming the most popular cop on the beat... Funny how the photos of him in action in Afghanistan look exactly like the British tabloid creeparazzi snapshots. He has a tendency to get photographed doing abolutely nothing.

[Lucky]

Oh I agree with this however this only applies after they'd made the decision to send him, there was a much simpler way to have handled this at the start - don't send him.
Thing is, though, there was no possible neutral course of action. Not sending him to either war zone would have been a positive decision that would have been seen as wrong for other reasons. It could certainly be argued that it would send a message to the troops that his life is more valuable than theirs, which would damage morale. You could argue that he shouldn't have been allowed to join the army, but that would have been even more difficult to justify.

[Overman]

I really think that the army (and therefore the government) gets more out of this than Harry does, making it not in the slightest an act of expensive generosity to HRH.


Agreed, however I still want to give credit where its due, it sounds like he was in action, and if so that means he put himself directly in danger for his country (even if his means were more selfish, or even the MoD's) and that has a lot of value and says a lot in its own right to me.

(edit: Of course the debate on how much 'danger' he was in is a different matter, but it sounds like bullets could have at least been directed at him)

[UnrepentantSinner]

However, of all the pieces of useless information to acquire, that's probably some of the most useless... ;)

:D Unless I wear to be a contestant on Jeopardy, when it might be worth $1800.

When she was born she was dubbed Elizabeth of York and so would have been Elizabeth York, but at the point where her father became King in 1936 - when she was still a child - she became the Heir Presumptive. Since that trumped everything else I'm guessing that either she wouldn't want to refer back to the lesser title of York or the title was relinquished. Either way she just used the family name Windsor. When her father became King there were apparently suggestions that she should be made Princess of Wales, in which case she would have been Elizabeth Wales instead. (The male heir to throne has been Prince of Wales for Centuries)

Charles and Andrew were Naval types so didn't go to Sandhurst, but from a quick look around it seems that they were "HRH Prince" whatever and didn't bother with surnames at all (as is their right). I Could be wrong though. No idea about Edward at all but since his business cards read Edward Windsor he was probably either that or HRH Prince Edward as well.

Thanks Richard for doing the digging (and providing already known knowledge) that I didn't have access to. It was Edward's choice to be known as Edward Windsor on his business cards for his television/film (IIRC) career that made me interested in the particular subject. Thanks for you information. :)

[Francesca R]

Agreed, however I still want to give credit where its due, it sounds like he was in action, and if so that means he put himself directly in danger for his country (even if his means were more selfish, or even the MoD's) and that has a lot of value and says a lot in its own right to me.That may be a widely held view, and it would underscore the likelihood that the widespread giving of such credit would boost both the Royal's image and the attraction of the army, so aligning the interests of Harry, the army, the government and the Royal family (if they had any say in this)

[christie malry]

Unless I wear to be a contestant on Jeopardy, when it might be worth $1800.

Ooh I know that one - it's an American quiz show right? How does knowing that put me in useless knowledge stakes? Probably not as high as arcane knowledge about military ranks that most of us Brits couldn't give a monkeys about... :D

I should probably make an OT contribution, but I genuinely can't take seriously the antics of an unelected sponger related through his deceased mother's marriage to another group of unelected spongers.

Although my pet theory about letting him go out to a danger zone is that his gran wants him bumped off so there's no threat to the bloodline for the throne. I can't back that up at all but it fits my republican* prejudices nicely.

That and I'm hoping to be called as an expert witness at the Diana inquest :cool:

*small 'r' obviously.

[Nogbad]

10 weeks unscathed. Those Taliban have a lot to answer for.

At least our Merkin comrades gave the Taliban a fighting chance by letting them know as our media weren't prepared to. Although in case of the latter if Harry croaked there would no years of lurid nightclub and dodgy party stories to expose. ;) So it is hardly surprising they have a vested interest in his skin.

[JonWhite]

That and I'm hoping to be called as an expert witness at the Diana inquest.


It is our Great British media's cover up of Harry being out in Afghanistan that gives the first possible glimmer of truth to Al Fayed's barking claims. :D


Whole load of PR nonsense. If they want to do it properly, send the entire family out there (permanently).

[Soapy Sam]

I'm no royalist, but for hell's sake. This young man joined the army. He wanted, like most young soldiers, to see action. He was not allowed to go to Iraq, and realising that any army career he ever had would be a charade, he considered quitting. The army brass, knowing damn well that the British public don't give a toss about the war in Afghanistan and seeing recruitment haemorraging, decided to get a bit of positive publicity by letting one of Diana's boys go there.

The security blanket was not to protect him, but to protect those around him, as he would be a priority target if the Taliban found out.
Which they now do.

I feel sorry for him. "This is as close as I may ever get to normality". That's pretty damn awful, when you think about it, that anyone has to go to war to have a normal life. And they pulled him out .

Fair play to him. He tried.

[JonWhite]

Yeah, being born into a life of such privilege must be just terrible for him. :rolleyes:

[Soapy Sam]

That's not at issue. The issue is putting your arse on the line.

[JonWhite]

I somehow doubt that he (or any of the BBC crew that kept him company for the entire time) put his arse on the line in anything like the way an ordinary non-royal grunt would be expected to.

So he spent 10 weeks playing soldier in Afghanistan. Whoopee.

[Nogbad]

Yeah, being born into a life of such privilege must be just terrible for him. :rolleyes:

Not that he had a lot of say in the matter like. Life in a goldfish bowl? I don't envy him. There are loads of people lucky enough to be born into a wealthy family that don't have to put up with that crap.

Not much of a Royalist myself and would prefer to see less sycophancy/lurid scandals in the press (odd combination that - sometimes I think our popular media is utterly schizophrenic).

[christie malry]

Well, the Daily Mash story I linked to was entitled 'I'M JUST LIKE ANY OTHER MILLIONAIRE SOLDIER WHO CAN COME HOME WHENEVER HE WANTS'

which kind of sums it up, surely.

[MG1962]

I'm no royalist, but for hell's sake. This young man joined the army. He wanted, like most young soldiers, to see action. He was not allowed to go to Iraq, and realising that any army career he ever had would be a charade, he considered quitting. The army brass, knowing damn well that the British public don't give a toss about the war in Afghanistan and seeing recruitment haemorraging, decided to get a bit of positive publicity by letting one of Diana's boys go there.

The security blanket was not to protect him, but to protect those around him, as he would be a priority target if the Taliban found out.
Which they now do.

I feel sorry for him. "This is as close as I may ever get to normality". That's pretty damn awful, when you think about it, that anyone has to go to war to have a normal life. And they pulled him out .

Fair play to him. He tried.

Very well said sir!!

[Undesired Walrus]

Yeah, being born into a life of such privilege must be just terrible for him. :rolleyes:

Do you base a good life on wealth and influence? How sad.

[mummymonkey]

He has a tendency to get photographed doing abolutely nothing.He's the spare; it's what he's been bred to do.

[Zep]

Now we know the Taliban read Australian New Idea (a trashy women's mag), one of the magazines who broke the embargo on Harry.

He's out. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/29/2176999.htm)

[timhau]

Funny how the photos of him in action in Afghanistan look exactly like the British tabloid creeparazzi snapshots. He has a tendency to get photographed doing abolutely nothing.

Maybe that's the only time the photographers were there.

[Zep]

I suspect they won't be anywhere near there when he has to man a weapon and use it in anger - they might get hurt!

[JonWhite]

Do you base a good life on wealth and influence? How sad.


In and of itself, no. But it's a damn site better head start than almost everybody else gets.

It's such a problem for him? As mentioned, he's just the spare anyway. Why not pay back the public sums that have been wasted on supporting his existence, education and lifestyle and go get the kind of "normal" life he apparently craves which would otherwise be suitable for him. Probably as a non-ranked grunt in a position of genuine danger in the army or burger flipping in in McDonalds. My guess is that he'd be regretting his decision pretty damn quickly.

If he'd been out there as just another ill-equipped soldier riding up front of some convoy trundling down IED alley I would have some respect for what he did. I have none for the reality of his token, cossetted, PR, Afghanistan role (his personal therapy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/01/monarchy.princeharry)?) or his whinging about intrusions into his privileged life that I am forced to contribute to.

[Undesired Walrus]

In and of itself, no. But it's a damn site better head start than almost everybody else gets.

It's such a problem for him? As mentioned, he's just the spare anyway. Why not pay back the public sums that have been wasted on supporting his existence, education and lifestyle and go get the kind of "normal" life he apparently craves which would otherwise be suitable for him.

I'd say it gets a lot harder when you are born into a family with a history of this kind of thing, and a nation that calls you a prince and sees you as third in line.

That and watching the entire world watch you walk behind your mothers coffin.

[Damien Evans]

Now we know the Taliban read Australian New Idea (a trashy women's mag), one of the magazines who broke the embargo on Harry.

He's out. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/29/2176999.htm)

trashy? that's the nicest thing I've heard about that filth in a while. Personally, I wouldn't even use it as toilet paper.

[jimbob]

I don't think it's a requirement, exactly, but there is a very long tradition of it. Very long indeed.

Can I mention Prince Edward? I want him to to be monarch, because he would embody the status and inherent respect that this institution deserves.

And "King Edward" is a type of potato.

[rjh01]

In the old days both heads of state often were in the front line. The battle was over when one of them was killed. Pity those days are over. Imagine if that policy was still in place - Politician would rarely support any war on the grounds that if they did they would be sent over there. The few that do would be eligible for the Darwin award.

[Soapy Sam]

Indeed. The chance of Dubya or Tony Blair actually risking their valuable hide in Iraq was never very high.
And Dubya is just as much a privileged son as Harry.

[jimbob]

He does resemble his legal father

[Soapy Sam]

Who, Tony?

[jimbob]

I was thinking of Bush