Prince Harry Current Events 19: May 1-17, 2007


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
cowarth said:
Why did Harry decide on the Army if everyone in his family is Navy?


Some members of his family did serve in the army - e.g. the Duke of Gloucester and his uncle Mark Philips. I think some of the Spencers served in the army as well, as of course, did James Hewitt ( and no I am not throwing his name in there because of the rumours - which I totally discount - Harry is too much his great-grandfather's great-grandson for me - ggf being Prince Andrew of Greece). Hewitt was around Harry while Harry was growing up and wrote to Harry's mother from Iraq and may have had an influence is all that I am suggesting.
 
jspate said:
The deployment has got to be hard for him and his girlfriend.
Just as it is for every other serviceman away from home. No more. No less. :flowers:
 
chrissy57 said:
Some members of his family did serve in the army - e.g. the Duke of Gloucester and his uncle Mark Philips. I think some of the Spencers served in the army as well, as of course, did James Hewitt ( and no I am not throwing his name in there because of the rumours - which I totally discount - Harry is too much his great-grandfather's great-grandson for me - ggf being Prince Andrew of Greece). Hewitt was around Harry while Harry was growing up and wrote to Harry's mother from Iraq and may have had an influence is all that I am suggesting.

The current Duke of Kent was in the army for 20 years, so was his brother Prince Michael of Kent. The current Duke of Gloucester's son The Earl of Ulster is a serving army officer and will be in Iraq the same time as Harry, but in a different regiment.

To answer the original question, Prince William was asked why the army instead of the navy and he said it was because he had no love of the sea. So maybe it's the same for Harry, also Harry was in the Cadet corps at Eton, that's an introduction to the army, not the navy.
 
jspate said:
The deployment has got to be hard for him and his girlfriend.
She knew that deployment may be a possibility when she started dating a soldier.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Forget Wills and Kate - it's Harry who's found love

Forget Wills and Kate - it's Harry who's found love

Gazing into the flames of a campfire on the banks of Botswana's Okavango River, a scruffily dressed young man took a sip of his beer and let out a prolonged sigh.


Minutes later, he was pouring his heart out to the three strangers sitting beside him. "Apparently, he had fallen in love with some girl in Cape Town who was the daughter of a rich businessman in Zimbabwe.

Forget Wills and Kate - it's Harry who's found love | the Daily Mail
 
Our View - British royalty set example in Iraq war

Our View - British royalty set example in Iraq war

Thousands of soldiers are deployed to fight in the war in Iraq and risk their lives every day. American media has constantly reported how numerous U.S. soldiers and Iraqis have died since the day the war was first declared. The U.S. government does not hesitate to recruit young men and women, especially those who come from low-income backgrounds, to serve the country.

But for some reason, many people become frantic when royalty decides to serve in a war. Why? Maybe it is assumed that the masses are the ones who should risk their lives for their country.

People were in frenzy after hearing that the head of the British army said Prince Harry, who is the younger son of Prince Charles and the late Princess Diana, will go to Iraq. But people may have been more surprised when Harry said, "I've waited a long time and just want to get out there and serve my country," according to cbsnews.com. Again we ask, why?



Our View - British royalty set example in Iraq war - Opinion
 
Sister Morphine said:
As a Yankees fan, I take offense to his choice of headgear. :lol:

Me too! But I think I've seen him wear Yankee's hats before too. He probably doesn't realize the significance of wearing them! :lol:

He does look great though! All of them do.
 
It is kind of romantic the way they met in Africa.

"I've waited a long time and just want to get out there and serve my country," I am SOOO proud of Harry. He believes in what the soldiers over there are trying to accomplish for the Iraqi people.
 
Last edited:
Prince Harry current events 16: 1 May 2007 -

cowarth said:
It is kind of romantic the way they met in Africa.

"I've waited a long time and just want to get out there and serve my country," I am SOOO proud of Harry. He believes in what the soldiers over there are trying to accomplish for the Iraqi people.
I agree with you cowarth. :D ;) :) :D ;) :)
 
HRH Kimetha said:
Forget Wills and Kate - it's Harry who's found love

Gazing into the flames of a campfire on the banks of Botswana's Okavango River, a scruffily dressed young man took a sip of his beer and let out a prolonged sigh.


Minutes later, he was pouring his heart out to the three strangers sitting beside him. "Apparently, he had fallen in love with some girl in Cape Town who was the daughter of a rich businessman in Zimbabwe.

Forget Wills and Kate - it's Harry who's found love | the Daily Mail

I wish the press could find it in themselves to refrain from slapping down one of the brothers when praising the other :ermm:
 
What would the press do without the royals?
 
Harry will get a break from the press in Iraq.
 
I hope that information won't be made public.
 
This doesn't say much, except about Harry's red toff.

GINGER SNIPES
Red hair makes Harry top target

REDHEADS such as Prince Harry are seen as fair game for teasing, a survey reveals. A cruel 81 per cent of us think it is acceptable to slag off people with ginger hair. Other celebrities in the firing line include Duchess of York Sarah Ferguson, TV stars Chris Evans and Charlie Dimmock, Nicola Roberts of Girls Aloud and former Ginger Spice Geri Halliwell.

The Daily Record - NEWS - News Feed - GINGER SNIPES - GINGER SNIPES
 
How does the military control the press?
 
A prince among warriors

Here are some interesting articles based upon an "opinion" and a "poll" taken in Canada. So, the argument is not only in UK, but has crossed the Atlantic and Pacific (as shown in the last few days in other articles I placed on the forum). Harry's quest for Iraq becomes an debate throughout the English & European spoken world. With this exposure, the insurgents are surely apprised of public view of the Iraqi war and those soldiers that fight in it.

A prince among warriors

British should reconsider decision to put a royal and his comrades at risk

Prince Harry, third in line to the throne of Great Britain, will serve in Iraq. Unfortunately.
As noble a desire as it is to serve, the decision-makers in London need to rethink this. The presence of a member of the Royal House in insurgent territory does not bode well for Harry’s regiment, the efforts to quell disruption in the British- patrolled region or Britain. It simply moves all three further up the insurgents’ priority target list.
Harry deserves credit for standing up to his duties with British forces in Iraq, as his uncle, Prince Andrew, did in flying dangerous helicopter patrols in Britain’s conflict with Argentina over the Falkland Islands in 1982. Harry has not chosen simply to enjoy the privileges of royal birth. But there is this difference between the military duties of the princes — Harry serves with ground forces, and is both more vulnerable to capture and more resource-intensive to protect.


The Buffalo News: Opinion


Give 'em heck, Harry; Star poll finds majority support Britain deploying Prince Harry to Iraq warzone

The majority of respondents to The Sudbury Star's online poll question, should Britain allow Prince Harry to fight in Iraq with other soldiers?, agreed the young royal should be allowed to take part in battle.

About 72 per cent, or 259 respondents, voted yes, while 26 per cent (92 respondents) voted no. With only 361 voters taking part, this question didn't seem to resonate with The Star's online and print readers


Osprey Media. - The Sudbury Star - Ontario, CA
 
scooter said:
:sad: Boy I sure hope he doesn't get killed. Although, the IIC might rethink this ill considered war if hey had some skin in the game. I hope it doesnt take that.

I hate to go all political, but I've lost a few friends and I've had friends who have lost their parents or a sibling to this war. Plus, my brother-in-law is currently in Iraq right now. I've yet to turn my back on this war. It may have been poorly handled, but the point is that we're there and leaving right now would be the worst decision.

I commend Harry for wanting to serve with his comrades. Why shouldn't he? Everyone complains that the royal families are treated too good. So let's treat Harry like a regular person. Oh, but wait. Now we should treat Harry like a Royal. Make up your minds! Let Harry go. As long as the media keeps their stupid noses out of it, Harry and his unit will be in no more danger than any of the other units.
 
The problem is that the media won't keep their stupid noses out of it. The more danger Harry is in, the more profit the media will make.
 
Elspeth said:
The problem is that the media won't keep their stupid noses out of it. The more danger Harry is in, the more profit the media will make.

That's very true and also very sad. It's a shame that the media is willing to put Harry and his unit in danger just to get a story.

It's too bad they'll never change.
 
This is no longer a UK issue it has become a global one, people all over the world are devided on weather or not Harry should be sent to fight in Iraq.

What happens to the line of succession IF GOD FORBID something does happen to Harry in Iraq?
 
Last edited:
cowarth said:
This is no longer a UK issue it has become a global one, people all over the world are devided on weather or not Harry should be sent to fight in Iraq.

What happens to the line of succession IF GOD FORBID something does happen to Harry in Iraq?
It just skips Harry of course. It will be Charles - William - Andrew etc until William has children (preferably getting married first)! :lol:
 
Well, if he doesn't get married first, it could well still be Charles - William - Andrew, depending on the relative timing of the wedding and the birth.;)
 
It just skips Harry of course. It will be Charles - William - Andrew etc until William has children (preferably getting married first)! :lol:
I phrased that wrong, what I meant to ask was what will the NEW line of succession be? I thought Anne was born before Andrew?
 
Skydragon was giving you the new line of succession. Although Anne was born before Andrew, boys take precedence over their female siblings in the line of succession even if the boys are younger. Thus, Mary the Princess Royal (daughter of George V) followed her elder and her younger brothers in the line of succession. If the present Queen had had a younger brother, he would have been king on the death of George VI.

The line of succession at the moment is Charles, William, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, Edward, Louise, Anne, Peter, Zara, David Linley, Charles Armstrong-Jones, Margarita Armstrong-Jones, Sarah Chatto, Samuel Chatto, Arthur Chatto, The Duke of Gloucester and his descendants, the Duke of Kent and his Protestant descendants (and those with Protestant spouses), and The Earl of Harewood (descendant of Mary Princess Royal) even though the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent are the sons of younger brothers of Mary Princess Royal.
 
Elspeth said:
Skydragon was giving you the new line of succession. Although Anne was born before Andrew, boys take precedence over their female siblings in the line of succession even if the boys are younger. Thus, Mary the Princess Royal (daughter of George V) followed her elder and her younger brothers in the line of succession. If the present Queen had had a younger brother, he would have been king on the death of George VI.

The line of succession at the moment is Charles, William, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, Edward, Louise, Anne, Peter, Zara, David Linley, Charles Armstrong-Jones, Margarita Armstrong-Jones, Sarah Chatto, Samuel Chatto, Arthur Chatto, The Duke of Gloucester and his descendants, the Duke of Kent and his Protestant descendants (and those with Protestant spouses), and The Earl of Harewood (descendant of Mary Princess Royal) even though the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent are the sons of younger brothers of Mary Princess Royal.


You have left out the descendents of Prince Michael of Kent.

I was under the impression that Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella were raised as Protestants meaning that although their father forfeited his place they still have theirs.

Do you have an update on that indicating that they have converted to the faith of their mother?
 
Skydragon was giving you the new line of succession. Although Anne was born before Andrew, boys take precedence over their female siblings in the line of succession even if the boys are younger. Thus, Mary the Princess Royal (daughter of George V) followed her elder and her younger brothers in the line of succession. If the present Queen had had a younger brother, he would have been king on the death of George VI.
This is an archaeic and VERY out dated law and custom. Sweden changed its law with the birth of Princess Madeleine. England should do the same.
 
cowarth said:
This is an archaeic and VERY out dated law and custom. Sweden changed its law with the birth of Princess Madeleine. England should do the same.

But it's part of the history of England and it's probably not going to change. I think the Act of Settlement should probably go first.


And it wasn't the birth of Princess Madeleine that precipitated the change. They planned on changing it when the Queen was pregnant with Victoria, and it went into effect January 1, 1980, shortly after Carl Philip had been born. Even before their first child's gender was announced, there was a bill/law going through the Parliament to make the succession equal primogeniture.
 
Last edited:
Indeed. That law is way overdue for being ditched.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom