Prince Harry: news and pictures 4: Aug - Sept 2005

[tiaraprin]

Originally Posted by H.M. Margrethe

Did Prince Andrew participate in the figth about the Falkland islands in the 80´s ??

Prince Andrew flew helicopter missions from his ship during the Falklands war. Many wanted to exempt him from wartime service, but he, with the support of the Queen, flatly refused. He wanted to do his duty and this is one thing Andrew did that I think is quite marvelous!

If it had been Charles, he would not have been allowed as the immediate heir.

[Elspeth]

I think the current Duke of Kent was somewhat hampered in his Army career by a reluctance on the part of the top brass to let him serve in Northern Ireland. If the royals are going to go into the armed forces, they shouldn't be able to get out of active service, and I'm sure they wouldn't want to. It reflects badly on a government if it's asking people to risk their lives and the lives of their loved ones in a war started by the government but at the same time the members of the government and their families exempt themselves.

There are very few people in the US Congress, Senate, and Administration who have close family members in Iraq. I assume there are very few British MPs (including those who support the war) who have loved ones out there too. It would look very bad for a family like the Windsors to protect their privileged youngsters from fighting if they were career military.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by segolen

I don’t think Harry would be sent to Iraq, because everyone is going to try to capture him as a POW.

That's why the PM prevented the Duke of Windsor as Prince of Wales from going to the front lines in WWI. His value to the Germans as a POW far outranked his value to the British as a fighter.

The Duke of York and Duke of Kent were pilots. They were very likely to be killed (and the Duke of Kent was killed) but they were less likely to be taken prisoner.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

There are very few people in the US Congress, Senate, and Administration who have close family members in Iraq. I assume there are very few British MPs (including those who support the war) who have loved ones out there too. It would look very bad for a family like the Windsors to protect their privileged youngsters from fighting if they were career military.

I totally agree with you Elspeth.

[iowabelle]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

There are very few people in the US Congress, Senate, and Administration who have close family members in Iraq. I assume there are very few British MPs (including those who support the war) who have loved ones out there too. It would look very bad for a family like the Windsors to protect their privileged youngsters from fighting if they were career military.

I agree also.

Additionally, it would send Harry the wrong message too. Basically, we want you to have training so we can say you have a career, but we're going to coddle you and keep you from seeing what you can really do.

I think at some times Prince Charles has mentioned some resentment on his part that he didn't get an opportunity to put his training to the test.

[grecka]

But let's think about this for a second. The Iraqi insurgency aims for strategic strikes. By killing or capturing Prince Harry, they would be forcing Britain's hand. Imagine a scene where Harry was tied up and blindfold and Islamist terrorist insurgents were threatening to cut off his head if the British government didn't withdraw from Iraq. Believe it or not, it's a feasible situation, were Harry to go to Iraq. In addition, if Harry were to be killed in an attack, imagine the message that would send to the world- the insurgency is live and well. That would give heart to Islamist extremists throughout the Muslim world. Therefore, I think it's in the interests of the British government to prevent him from serving in Iraq.

[iowabelle]

But realistically, any royal in public could be the target of a terrorist attack.

Are the royals going to hide in Windsor Castle until this is over??

[I know there isn't a correct answer to this, the royal family, their advisors, the military and the Government must be mulling this over too.)

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by grecka

But let's think about this for a second. The Iraqi insurgency aims for strategic strikes. By killing or capturing Prince Harry, they would be forcing Britain's hand.

The possibility of being taken prisoner would prevent him from going over in the infantry but not as a pilot as his uncle and great-uncle did. Pilots when they fall from the sky usually end up dead. If Harry got killed, he would be forever remembered as a hero much as the Duke of Kent.

[Elspeth]

It was the possibility of the Prince of Wales being taken prisoner that stopped George V from sending his eldest son to fight in the first world war, but the second son (Prince Albert) was expected to go and fight.

The only reason I could see for them not to send Harry is if ensuring his security (innot being taken prisoner etc) takes too much of the focus away from his regiment being able to do its job properly.

Realistically, we're probably looking at the face of modern warfare - it's increasingly going to be about terrorism and insurgency rather than sovereign countries sending armies out to fight each other. If the royal family isn't prepared to take the risk of one of their young members going out there and getting involved, someone should stop them going into the Army.

There are going to be security nightmares if William really wants to spend some time in the Army and the Iraq war is still going on.

[iowabelle]

Originally Posted by ysbel

The possibility of being taken prisoner would prevent him from going over in the infantry but not as a pilot as his uncle and great-uncle did. Pilots when they fall from the sky usually end up dead. If Harry got killed, he would be forever remembered as a hero much as the Duke of Kent.

Maybe I'm getting a little off-topic but... there's always been a great mystery about what mission the Duke of Kent was on at the time of his death. Over sixty years later why haven't the records been made public?

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

It was the possibility of the Prince of Wales being taken prisoner that stopped George V from sending his eldest son to fight in the first world war, but the second son (Prince Albert) was expected to go and fight.

I didn't realize that Elspeth. Did he go?

[iowabelle]

Prince Albert, later George VI, was on HMS Collingwood during the Battle of Jutland.

[sara1981]

Biker prince in new birthday shot
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4255196.stm

Harry captured in Brando pose - the rebel with a cause
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...18/ixhome.html

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by iowabelle

Prince Albert, later George VI, was on HMS Collingwood during the Battle of Jutland.

Thanks iowabelle. are you from Iowa by any chance? :)

I found this in Time.com's obituary in 1952 for George VI:

he was second-in-command of "A" turret aboard H.M.S. Collingwood. "The King," remembered Turret Commander W.E.C. Tait years later, "made cocoa as usual for me and the gun crew during the battle."

[iowabelle]

According to Sara's articles posted above, William's motorbike can go 165 mph.

Yes, ysbel, I live in Iowa (for now at least). I'm not good at coming up with names for myself so I put iowa, then Belle (for my girl cat) and sometimes Flower (for my boy cat, he doesn't know he has a girly name!).

[lamass]

in that pic of harry they put dirt on him.... that is kinda odd!

good photo though makes him seem down to earth

[Harry's polo shirt]

I like the new pics of him alot better than the others.

[regardez]

yes this pic shows more personality

[sara1981]

Queen txts Harry 4 bday

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005430441,00.html
.