The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Current Events Archive

Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #201  
Old 03-03-2007, 05:12 AM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
Will the sanctimonious be sending white feathers to Clarence House?

Does the white feather symbolize something?
__________________

__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "
  #202  
Old 03-03-2007, 05:24 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine
Does the white feather symbolize something?
During World War 1 young men who were conscientious objectors were given white feathers and called cowards. To be given a white feather is to call someone a coward.
__________________

  #203  
Old 03-03-2007, 05:32 AM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlotte1
During World War 1 young men who were conscientious objectors were given white feathers and called cowards. To be given a white feather is to call someone a coward.

Thank you. :-) Now that I know this, I can answer Warren's question.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
Will the sanctimonious be sending white feathers to Clarence House?

I should hope not.
__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "
  #204  
Old 03-03-2007, 08:16 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
Will the sanctimonious be sending white feathers to Clarence House?
And will they be sending them from Iraq, Afghanistan or any of the other areas UK troops are fighting?
  #205  
Old 03-04-2007, 06:48 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Harry's two-week holiday from the frontline...for his mother's concert

Prince Harry will make an emotional return to Britain from the Iraqi frontline to attend a memorial concert for his mother Diana at the new Wembley stadium.
  #206  
Old 03-04-2007, 05:59 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Arcadia, United States
Posts: 450
May June July two weeks rec leave August September October
Depending on when the deployment actually begins wouldn't the concert fall during the rec leave?
I had thought the concert was to correlate to Diana's brithday and be be on July 1.
  #207  
Old 03-04-2007, 06:38 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpusa1981
May June July two weeks rec leave August September October
Depending on when the deployment actually begins wouldn't the concert fall during the rec leave?
I had thought the concert was to correlate to Diana's brithday and be be on July 1.
When anyone is deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan or any frontline duty on a 6 month tour, they are entitled to 2 weeks R+R, which they apply for before they go. They apply for which 2 weeks they want and if they are lucky, they get it. If there are operational reasons that are unforeseen when the dates were agreed, it can and is cancelled.

The dates he has applied for are to enable him to be at the concert. I hope the media will shown a little sense and not publish the dates and time he will be in transit.
  #208  
Old 03-04-2007, 07:20 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Even in WWII where there was great need for fighting men, the armed forces in the United States refrained from putting all the sons in a family on the front lines. And these were not royal men! The reasoning behind it was that in the agricultural environment under which most families lived, a family would undergo undue hardship if all if its sons were killed in battle. I understand that the German forces followed the same unwritten rule until later in the war when they were losing and when they went to draft the lone remaining son, they caused an outcry among the people.

Of course there were exceptions and their stories proved the point of why the armed forces didn't want to take all a family's sons. The Fighting Sullivans were seven brothers of first generation Irish immigrants who not only were all allowed to serve on the front line, they were also all allowed to serve on the same warship. Several Naval officers objected strenously and the brothers wrote to President Roosevelt to get the decision overturned because they wanted to serve together. The President agreed and made an exception to allow them to serve on the same warship. All the brothers were killed when a torpedo hit their warboat.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
  #209  
Old 03-04-2007, 09:58 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Arcadia, United States
Posts: 450
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
Even in WWII where there was great need for fighting men, the armed forces in the United States refrained from putting all the sons in a family on the front lines. And these were not royal men! The reasoning behind it was that in the agricultural environment under which most families lived, a family would undergo undue hardship if all if its sons were killed in battle. I understand that the German forces followed the same unwritten rule until later in the war when they were losing and when they went to draft the lone remaining son, they caused an outcry among the people.

Of course there were exceptions and their stories proved the point of why the armed forces didn't want to take all a family's sons. The Fighting Sullivans were seven brothers of first generation Irish immigrants who not only were all allowed to serve on the front line, they were also all allowed to serve on the same warship. Several Naval officers objected strenously and the brothers wrote to President Roosevelt to get the decision overturned because they wanted to serve together. The President agreed and made an exception to allow them to serve on the same warship. All the brothers were killed when a torpedo hit their warboat.
The real policy.
U.S. Navy Policy on Family Members Serving Together, Sole Survivor Policy
"Reference to a "Sullivan Act" in connection with family members serving in the same ship/unit is a popular misconception. The Sullivan Law of 29 May 1911 is a New York State Law dealing with firearms. Although proposed after the death of the five Sullivan Brothers, no "Sullivan Act" was ever enacted by Congress related to family members serving together. Similarly, no President has ever issued any executive order forbidding assignment of family members to the same ship/unit.
Following are nine references that describe the U.S. Navy policy toward the assignment of family members to ships since 1942, and one other article that helps explain this policy."

They are in the same regiment but different squads and William is not even done with his training. Since Harry is going to be deployed in May and come back in October. William will be done training in September so could possibly be deployed to Afghanistan.
  #210  
Old 03-04-2007, 11:46 PM
HRH Kimetha's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Arlington, United States
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpusa1981
The real policy.
U.S. Navy Policy on Family Members Serving Together, Sole Survivor Policy
"Reference to a "Sullivan Act" in connection with family members serving in the same ship/unit is a popular misconception. The Sullivan Law of 29 May 1911 is a New York State Law dealing with firearms. Although proposed after the death of the five Sullivan Brothers, no "Sullivan Act" was ever enacted by Congress related to family members serving together. Similarly, no President has ever issued any executive order forbidding assignment of family members to the same ship/unit.
Following are nine references that describe the U.S. Navy policy toward the assignment of family members to ships since 1942, and one other article that helps explain this policy."

They are in the same regiment but different squads and William is not even done with his training. Since Harry is going to be deployed in May and come back in October. William will be done training in September so could possibly be deployed to Afghanistan.

I never really knew about the Sullivan Act in its entirety. Thanks kpusa1 for explaining it. But, it did give me another perspective of sending William to the battle zone, if Harry was already there. Then again, as you pointed out, Harry would be out of the zone by the time William can go. So, William can also go to the battle zone whether he is the 2nd in line.
  #211  
Old 03-05-2007, 03:54 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,487
Time for a new thread.

Prince Harry current events 14 can be found here.

__________________

__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Closed Thread

Tags
prince harry


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Prince Harry Current Events 26: January 2012-April 2013 Zonk Current Events Archive 1081 04-01-2013 07:10 AM
Prince Harry Current Events 18: March 2007-May 2007 Avalon Current Events Archive 214 04-30-2007 07:23 PM
Prince Harry Current Events 17: March 2007 Warren Current Events Archive 200 03-30-2007 07:31 AM
Prince Harry Current Events 15: November 2006-January 2007 Warren Current Events Archive 192 01-23-2007 12:57 PM
Prince Harry Current Events 10: January-March 2006 Elspeth Current Events Archive 196 03-14-2006 10:46 AM




Popular Tags
abdication belgium best outfit brussels carl philip crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events death fashion fashion poll funeral germany grand duchess maria teresa hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit ottoman picture of the week poland president gauck president komorowski prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince henrik princess alexia (2005 -) princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess madeleine princess mary princess mette-marit princess of asturias queen fabiola queen letizia queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sonja royal royal fashion sofia hellqvist spain state visit stockholm sweden the hague visit wedding willem-alexander



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:59 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2015
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]