Prince Harry Current Events 11: March-April 2006

[Rebafan81]

I can't believe the press waste paper writing about how many beers Prince Harry had at a party. He just completed a grueling regiment and passed with flying colors- I say, have fun Harry, you deserve it. I think it is time for the press to quit the "bad" press road for Harry. Let him alone, he is a man now and deserves some respect. I bet he wasn't the only one smoking and having a drink, he is just a target for the press.

 

[Frosty_lady]

i totally agree with Rebafan81 about the press's interest in Prince Harry's drinking habits. so what if Harry goes and has a few drinks somewhere he is entitled to. im sure there is more important news to report on from around the world!!!

 

[kaydura0717]

I bet also that the reporters who are writing these tabloid stories do the same exact thing.

 

[Incas]

17 April 2006[/B]
EXCLUSIVE: HARRY'S ARMY CHIEF QUITS OVER STRESS
By Adrian Shaw

THE Army boss in charge of Sandhurst is quitting over the stress of training Prince Harry and his brother William.​

That's too funny. If the general in charge of Sandhurst couldn't handle two princes, how can anyone expect Sandhurst to turn out officers capable of handling stress during a war.​

 

[gaggleofcrazypeople]

Since Wills can't go to war, that is already one less.

 

[christinacg]

So I'm a little confused. How long does Harry get to vacation before he has to get back to work?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Since Wills can't go to war, that is already one less.

Please explain why William 'can't go to war'?

I know that many people believe that as the second in line to the throne he probably won't and personlly I don't think he will but there is a difference between believing he won't and saying he 'can't'.

He has indicated that he doesn't want to be put in cotton wool.

As his great-grandfather was second in line to the throne when he served at the Battle of Jutland (while the heir to the throne was serving on the western front - albeit not in the trenches but there were officers who served behind the lines who were killed so he was in some danger there). Prince Andrew was the third in line to the throne when he served in the Falklands (and only just as the service was shortly after William's birth - it might have even started before the birth).

From everything I have read about him I doubt very much if William would be putting himself through the rigours of Sandhurst if he 'knew' he wouldn't be allowed to serve with his regiment in a war zone.

 

[Skydragon]

Yeah, they are like very forgetful about the stuff that won't fit in their stories, aren't they?
And thanks, I must admit I didn't know that he had to inform of his resignation 12 months before resigning. Seems like it's clearing Harry and William, isn't it?

Head of Sandhurst to retire early

Maj Gen Ritchie will take up a post outside the military
The commanding officer of Sandhurst military academy is retiring two years early, the Ministry of Defence said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england...ies/4915522.stm

It's a bit like a company CEO, they have to give a massive amount of notice as well. I have to say if there are extenuating circumstances that lead to a shorter notice period, the Army will try to help out.

It isn't half as much fun when they print all the facts though is it?

 

[WindsorIII]

by Chrissy57 Please explain why William 'can't go to war'?

I know that many people believe that as the second in line to the throne he probably won't and personlly I don't think he will but there is a difference between believing he won't and saying he 'can't'.

This has been debated before and I don't think there is any law which prevents him from going to war. Actually it is a really grey area. It is unclear.

Here is an article in where Prince William states that "it would be humiliating to be kept back"

So as far as William is concerned, if it came to that, he would go.

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/men/news/s/178/178889_prince_william_to_join_the_army.html

 

[ysbel]

As his great-grandfather was second in line to the throne when he served at the Battle of Jutland (while the heir to the throne was serving on the western front - albeit not in the trenches but there were officers who served behind the lines who were killed so he was in some danger there). Prince Andrew was the third in line to the throne when he served in the Falklands (and only just as the service was shortly after William's birth - it might have even started before the birth).

From everything I have read about him I doubt very much if William would be putting himself through the rigours of Sandhurst if he 'knew' he wouldn't be allowed to serve with his regiment in a war zone.

I'm not aware of Edward VIII ever being put in combat. He was very disappointed that he couldn't go. William's great-grandfather, George VI, then the Duke of York was more in the position of Prince Andrew, the present Duke of York than Prince William. Prince William just needs to outlive the Queen and Prince of Wales to succeed to the throne. For Prince Andrew to succeed, he would have had to outlive the Queen and Charles with the condition that Charles not have any children. Of if Charles had children, Andrew would have had to outlive them too.

William may not want to be wrapped in cotton wool but if he gets killed in battle before he gets married, the BRF and Harry will have to do some readjusting to prepare Harry for the throne, a situation none of them, least of all Harry would want. And with Harry most probably going into combat, putting William in combat would put the BRF at risk that both would be killed leaving Andrew the most likely heir behind Charles. That would cause a major upheaval in his life and that of Beatrice which I'm sure the Queen having had the throne thrust upon her quite unexpectedly would not want.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I'm not aware of Edward VIII ever being put in combat. He was very disappointed that he couldn't go. William's great-grandfather, George VI, then the Duke of York was more in the position of Prince Andrew, the present Duke of York than Prince William. Prince William just needs to outlive the Queen and Prince of Wales to succeed to the throne. For Prince Andrew to succeed, he would have had to outlive the Queen and Charles with the condition that Charles not have any children. Of if Charles had children, Andrew would have had to outlive them too.

William may not want to be wrapped in cotton wool but if he gets killed in battle before he gets married, the BRF and Harry will have to do some readjusting to prepare Harry for the throne, a situation none of them, least of all Harry would want. And with Harry most probably going into combat, putting William in combat would put the BRF at risk that both would be killed leaving Andrew the most likely heir behind Charles. That would cause a major upheaval in his life and that of Beatrice which I'm sure the Queen having had the throne thrust upon her quite unexpectedly would not want.

Edward VIII served in France - he just wasn't allowed to serve in the front line trenches.

Just like General Haig served in France the Prince of Wales did so. And there are reports of the places where these generals served being bombed.

William is the second in line to the throne and there are plenty of others to take his place if anything happens.

I am sure that the RF prepare all those close to the throne with the basics of their role should they inherit - remember that car accidents and terrorists can happen even in the middle of large cities while these people are going about their daily business.

If William really 'knew' before he entered Sandhurst that there was no way he could actually serve in the way that his uncle did in the Falklands do you really believe, with everything we have been lead to believe about him, that he would have agreed to join the army?

From all that I have read about him and heard him say I doubt if he would have agreed to join the army unless he had an agreement that he would serve whereever his unit was sent - and if that means Iraq or Afghanistan, or anywhere else that the British army currently has forces stationed then so be it.

I was pointing out that people in his position, and closer to the throne, have seen battlefront service within the last 100 years. The fifth in line to the throne actually died during WWII (the Duke of Kent was fifth if my calculations are correct - Elizabeth, Margaret, Henry Duke of Gloucestor, Prince William of Gloucester (Prince Richard the present Duke wasn't born until 1944).

I personally doubt if William will actually end up in either Iraq or Afghanistan but he may serve in Peacekeeping forces somewhere. Active military service is very much a part of the Royal Family tradition and I don't see William not fulfilling that part of his heritage, just not in Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

[ysbel]

William is the second in line to the throne and there are plenty of others to take his place if anything happens.

I am sure that the RF prepare all those close to the throne with the basics of their role should they inherit - remember that car accidents and terrorists can happen even in the middle of large cities while these people are going about their daily business.

I don't think the death of William is to be too casually brushed over. One only need to remember the impact that Edward VIII's abdication had, for George VI was definitely not prepared to take over the throne and the abdiction caused a lifetime of resentment from the Queen Mother. George V was not that prepared when he took over as heir for his brother the Duke of Clarence. His grandsons mentioned that root of the remoteness of George V was that he was not trained as a King but as a regular soldier. Although we can't know for sure, from the looks of it, Harry hasn't been prepared either. I can't imagine the Queen willingly allowing a situation that could make this most unfortunate occurence closer to reality.

People do get killed everyday but the chances of getting killed in a car accident is far less than the chances of getting killed in combat.

William may have had some goals and aspirations for going into Sandhurst but from an institutional standpoint, a military career is practically 'de rigeur' for the heir to the heir, regardless of whether he sees combat.

 

[Skydragon]

People do get killed everyday but the chances of getting killed in a car accident is far less than the chances of getting killed in combat.

William may have had some goals and aspirations for going into Sandhurst but from an institutional standpoint, a military career is practically 'de rigeur' for the heir to the heir, regardless of whether he sees combat.

Even if he goes to Iraq or Afghanistan, there is nothing to say he would fight. Not all 'front line' officers leave their secure accomodation within a base that has been set up.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't think the death of William is to be too casually brushed over. One only need to remember the impact that Edward VIII's abdication had, for George VI was definitely not prepared to take over the throne and the abdiction caused a lifetime of resentment from the Queen Mother. George V was not that prepared when he took over as heir for his brother the Duke of Clarence. His grandsons mentioned that root of the remoteness of George V was that he was not trained as a King but as a regular soldier. Although we can't know for sure, from the looks of it, Harry hasn't been prepared either. I can't imagine the Queen willingly allowing a situation that could make this most unfortunate occurence closer to reality.

People do get killed everyday but the chances of getting killed in a car accident is far less than the chances of getting killed in combat.

William may have had some goals and aspirations for going into Sandhurst but from an institutional standpoint, a military career is practically 'de rigeur' for the heir to the heir, regardless of whether he sees combat.

George V was a sailor not a soldier.

Statistics would suggest that you have a greater risk of dying in a car accident than in combat.

Surely, the Royal Family have learnt from the mistakes made by Queen Victoria and George V and prepared more than one heir. There were reports in the 70s that the Queen did prepare Andrew and even Edward in the event of Charles' death so why wouldn't she prepare both William and Harry?


If she didn't stop her own son from fighting why would she stop her grandson? She has insisted on her children and grandchildren having greater freedom than had been the case in the past but in this case it would simply be living up to their duty as she sees it.

William's death on active duty, before becoming king, can't be compared to a king voluntarily giving up the throne for love. The main ciriticism of Edward VIII over the abdication was that he put love before duty. William would be putting duty before life itself and that, in many people's eyes would be what he should be doing.

I have said in previous posts, however, that I don't think he will go to one of these places but have been attempting to point out that past experience suggests that royals do fight and spend time with their troops there.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Even if he goes to Iraq or Afghanistan, there is nothing to say he would fight. Not all 'front line' officers leave their secure accomodation within a base that has been set up.

So true - just like Edward VIII in WWI.

He was as secure as he could be made in France for much of the war and the same could be done for William but he would still be in one of the danger zones.

 

[ysbel]

I'm saying is that an heir apparent or the heir to an heir apparent has never been on active combat duty whereas their younger brothers have and that is not a coincidence. George, Duke of York and Andrew, Duke of York, yes. Edward VIII and Charles no and I don't see that changing with William.

I doubt very seriously if the Queen's modernizing of the monarchy entails putting William on the real front lines in an actual combat zone and if she does allow a situation where William is in reality as secure as he is at home while 'officially' on the front lines, that is a little duplicitous and shady IMHO. I sincerely hope Her Majesty doesn't do that. Both William and the British men who are really putting their lives on the line deserve better.

Harry, like Andrew, is a more likely candidate to see real combat duty.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I'm saying is that an heir apparent or the heir to an heir apparent has never been on active combat duty whereas their younger brothers have and that is not a coincidence. George, Duke of York and Andrew, Duke of York, yes. Edward VIII and Charles no and I don't see that changing with William.

I doubt very seriously if the Queen's modernizing of the monarchy entails putting William on the real front lines in an actual combat zone and if she does allow a situation where William is in reality as secure as he is at home while 'officially' on the front lines, that is a little duplicitous and shady IMHO. I sincerely hope Her Majesty doesn't do that. Both William and the British men who are really putting their lives on the line deserve better.

Harry, like Andrew, is a more likely candidate to see real combat duty.

You do of course mean in recent years with regard to the heir never being on active combat duty - after all the Black Prince was certainly on active duty but then so was George II and many kings before that.

Please watch the use of 'never' and 'all' as they are definite terms when you need to modify them.

Edward VIII was a staff officer which places him in France and not all that far from the front lines.

You define 'active combat duty' as being shot at do you?

Active combat duty to my understanding is serving in a war zone - Edward VIII certainly did that and William may very well do so.

By your definition - if I am understanding your concept correctly - then the generals (Haig, Joffre, Gough, Monash, Pershing etc and other staff officers weren't on 'active combat duty' during World War One. Something that they would dispute I am sure.

Do you really believe that if he believed he wouldn't be allowed to do so he would have joined Sandhurst? From all that I have read, and I assume that you have done as well, as well as from his own comments, I think he would certainly have had an understanding that, if his unit goes he goes or he wouldn't have joined at all.

 

[ysbel]

You do of course mean in recent years with regard to the heir never being on active combat duty - after all the Black Prince was certainly on active duty but then so was George II and many kings before that.

Please watch the use of 'never' and 'all' as they are definite terms when you need to modify them.

Edward VIII was a staff officer which places him in France and not all that far from the front lines.

You define 'active combat duty' as being shot at do you?

Active combat duty to my understanding is serving in a war zone - Edward VIII certainly did that and William may very well do so.

By your definition - if I am understanding your concept correctly - then the generals (Haig, Joffre, Gough, Monash, Pershing etc and other staff officers weren't on 'active combat duty' during World War One. Something that they would dispute I am sure.

Do you really believe that if he believed he wouldn't be allowed to do so he would have joined Sandhurst? From all that I have read, and I assume that you have done as well, as well as from his own comments, I think he would certainly have had an understanding that, if his unit goes he goes or he wouldn't have joined at all.

chrissy, you knew what I meant. Let's stop giving other members advice about our posting style, shall we, even when prefaced by the word, please. Yes, the Black Prince was an active warrior but its been awhile since the heir to the throne was active in battle. The WWI generals you mentioned had active combat duty before they ever got to WWI so they were not without combat experience. That's why they commanded the respect of their officers.

I believe William fervently wants to make a difference wherever he is in life and wants to participate fully in whatever his fellow officers will face. I also believe the reality is somewhat less because of his position.

 

[Iluvbertie]

chrissy, you knew what I meant. Let's stop giving other members advice about our posting style, shall we, even when prefaced by the word, please. Yes, the Black Prince was an active warrior but its been awhile since the heir to the throne was active in battle. The WWI generals you mentioned had active combat duty before they ever got to WWI so they were not without combat experience. That's why they commanded the respect of their officers.

I believe William fervently wants to make a difference wherever he is in life and wants to participate fully in whatever his fellow officers will face. I also believe the reality is somewhat less because of his position.

I am still not sure what you mean by 'active combat duty'.

You have said that no heir to the throne has done this - I pointed out that some did so.

You have implied that Edward VIII didn't have 'active combat duty' but when I point out that by your terms then staff officers, including generals, from WWI didn't have 'active combat duty' you reply by pointing out that the generals did so before they became generals.

I was asking about your interpretation of 'active combat duty' with regard to the work of Staff officers during WWI.

You still haven't made clear your understanding of the term which I believe is germaine to the discussion.

If you don't believe that the staff officers were seeing 'active combat duty' then Edward VIII didn't either and I would agree that over the last 200 or so years no heir to the throne has seen 'active combat duty' but if you do agree that staff officers are, at the time of being staff officers, on 'active combat duty' as I do, then Edward VIII saw 'active combat duty' and therefore it is incorrect to say that no heir to the throne as seen 'active combat duty'.

Please claify your definition of 'active combat duty' with regard to staff officers so I can understand your terms.

 

[Skydragon]

This is a small section from Andrews interview on SKY, where he gives his opinion on whether the boys will see active service.

The prince, who put himself in the firing line as a helicopter pilot during the 1982 Falklands War between Britain and Argentina, discussed the possibility of William and Harry serving in a conflict zone.

Harry joined the Blues and Royals of the Household Cavalry regiment earlier in April as Second Lieutenant Wales. His elder brother, Officer Cadet Wales, is still training at the elite Sandhurst academy.

"I think with the modern way of the armed forces, it is inevitable that they are going to see action of some kind somewhere in the not too distant future, particularly as young officers, because we are already out in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"They are open to those sorts of deployments just as everybody else is, and open to the same risks as everybody else, as I was.

"I could have been sunk, I could have been shot down, but you have to take your run with everybody else.

Active combat service is anywhere troops are deployed and can be killed. Whether that is a car accident going from base to base in Iraq, or a suicide bomber in Afghanistan.

 

[christinacg]

Here's some pics from Getty:

Ahh, he looks so good! as always.

 

[ysbel]

Active combat service is anywhere troops are deployed and can be killed. Whether that is a car accident going from base to base in Iraq, or a suicide bomber in Afghanistan.

Thanks skydragon. That's what I meant.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Active combat service is anywhere where troops are deployed and can be killed....

Thanks skydragon. That's what I meant.

So now you agree that Edward VIII saw 'active combat duty' during WWI - he was in position where he could have been killed as a staff officer during the war.


He travelled around the support lines and the areas where he was were under artillery fire at times (remember that even London was bombed during WWI).


So now we are at the point where the most recent male heir to the throne during a war was on 'active combat duty'.

Remember that Charles didn't get the chance as he had left the navy by the time of the Falklands.

I did like Andrew's comments about his views on whether William and/or Harry would serve - yes they will he basically said.

 

[Skydragon]

Harry at Larkfield Community Centre 21st April 2006. Abaca

 

[purple_platinum]

Prince Harry, now in army, insists on front-line mission

LONDON (AFP) - Prince Harry is threatening to quit the British army if he is not allowed to join fellow soldiers in harm's way.
"If I am not allowed to join my unit in a war zone, I will hand in my uniform," he was quoted as telling senior officers before his passing-out from Sandhurst military academy, southwest of London, on April 12.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060423/wl_uk_afp/britainroyalharrymilitary_060423091913


Prince Harry: Send me to war or I quit

Prince Harry has threatened to quit the Army if commanders refuse to send him to the front line.
He told senior officers before recently passing out of Sandhurst as a Second Lieutenant: ‘If I am not allowed to join my unit in a war zone, I will hand in my uniform.’
The embarrassment for the Army caused by him quitting would be matched by uproar at the notion that while ordinary citizens are allowed to that their main problem is not whether Harry can take the pressure of coming under fire in action – but whether the lives of the men fighting alongside him will be more at risk because he is regarded as a ‘trophy target’ by insurgents

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=383902&in_page_id=1766&in_a_source=&ito=1490


Let me fight or I quit, says Prince Harry

PRINCE Harry has threatened to quit the Army unless he is sent to the front line, it was reported today.
The Prince and his older brother, Prince William, have both previously made it clear they are determined to see active service with their units.

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/men/news/s/211/211346_let_me_fight_or_i_quit_says_prince_harry.html

 

[kaydura0717]

Well glad that he's determined to go and fight for his country like anyother soldier. I think he might go but it'll be a long time from now.

 

[Mrs.Smith]

Just to add my coment on that war discussion:
I can't imagine that William woukld EVER be allowed to go as a a soldier into a region like iraq, he isn't even allowed to fly together with Charles in one plane. With harry, of course it is different.

I don't think that "fighting" was the reason for William to go to the army. In his position he simply had to do that. All male members in his family do so and he will be chief of the forces one day, won't he? He needs a military "deregree" (I know that's not the correct expresion) therfore.

Finally IMo it would be dangerous because of moral reasons, too. Specially in an area like Iraq - the danger that he might get his hands "dirty" is simply too big.

And a change in the line of success after william's death wouldn't be good for monarchy, too.

 

[Skydragon]

LONDON (AFP) - Prince Harry is threatening to quit the British army if he is not allowed to join fellow soldiers in harm's way.
"If I am not allowed to join my unit in a war zone, I will hand in my uniform," he was quoted as telling senior officers before his passing-out from Sandhurst military academy, southwest of London, on April 12.

Just 2 of the reasons I think this story is rubbish.

As I am sure Harry is already well aware, no soldier, private or officer gets much say in where he is or is not sent.

He would resign his commission, not hand his uniform in!

 

[Royal Fan]

You think he actually he would resign his commission Or do you think hes in it for the long haul Much like his Uncle the Duke of York who served 22 years.

 

[kpusa1981]

Prince Harry current events part 8

Just 2 of the reasons I think this story is rubbish.

As I am sure Harry is already well aware, no soldier, private or officer gets much say in where he is or is not sent.

He would resign his commission, not hand his uniform in!

Harry is not ordering them to send him overseas but is saying that if his unit were to get sent overseas that he would want to lead his men. He seems to be worried that that might not send him overseas with his men if his unit with his men.