Prince William Current Events 5: September-November 2005


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Harry's polo shirt said:
I hope he looks at all the options, Laser eye surgery can be dangerous.

Well, if he has laser eye surgery, then he can fly fighter jets. You cannot fly fighter jets unless your eyesight is 20/20 and this cannot be done if your vision is corrected by lenses or contacts. It has to be 20/20 without lens correction. So he'd only be able to achieve this with laser eye surgery. That could be part of his wanting this.
 
Prince William Current Events part 6

CasiraghiTrio said:
Well, if he has laser eye surgery, then he can fly fighter jets. You cannot fly fighter jets unless your eyesight is 20/20 and this cannot be done if your vision is corrected by lenses or contacts. It has to be 20/20 without lens correction. So he'd only be able to achieve this with laser eye surgery. That could be part of his wanting this.

I believe that Prince William would be to tall to fly fighter jets he is 6 feet 4 inches tall. He would however be able to do Helecopter training and be pilot.
 
kpusa1981 said:
I believe that Prince William would be to tall to fly fighter jets he is 6 feet 4 inches tall. He would however be able to do Helecopter training and be pilot.

He could fly anything without the eye surgery except fighter jets. So if it's a matter of flying helicopters or some other jet other than a fighter jet, then he's all set. Only fighter jets require 20/20 without correction. Other planes require 20/20, but it's fine to wear contacts or glasses.
:)
 
CasiraghiTrio said:
Well, if he has laser eye surgery, then he can fly fighter jets. You cannot fly fighter jets unless your eyesight is 20/20 and this cannot be done if your vision is corrected by lenses or contacts. It has to be 20/20 without lens correction. So he'd only be able to achieve this with laser eye surgery. That could be part of his wanting this.

If something goes wrong he wont be able to fly--if he is blind.
 
Harry's polo shirt said:
If something goes wrong he wont be able to fly--if he is blind.

HPS, there is risk with every surgery. Laser eye surgery has been around for more than five years that i'm aware of. When it was "new" it had many complications but it has been improved tremendously since that time. Of course there is still risk, but considerably less, and medicine continues to grow and improve. Besides, Prince William has the best doctors in the UK. He could even afford to go to another country to get the procedure done by a foreign who is especially noted in optometry, if that's what he wanted to do. His resources are boundless. Also, whoever performs the surgery will be so insanely careful because the person who messes up William's eyes will never work as a doctor again. They would be ruined for life.
 
I thought about that...if they messed up his eyes---have there been any blind kings before??
 
a blind king? good question. I don't know. Sounds very Shakespearian. There have been blind royals before. I think Princess Margaret was legally blind the last years of her life.
 
CasiraghiTrio said:
.
Also, whoever performs the surgery will be so insanely careful because the person who messes up William's eyes will never work as a doctor again. They would be ruined for life.
Awww….this is the scary part. Any Doc (s) volunteers in this forum ? LMAO
 
Harry's polo shirt said:
have there been any blind kings before??
King George V of Hanover (born a British Prince as Prince George of Cumberland). He lost his sight in one eye due to a childhood illness, and in the other eye in an accident. He was second in line to the British throne until the birth of Queen Victoria's first child.
.
 
Well, the author has a point, but if he really thinks William was going to spend his time being a teacher or a cartographer, he's fantasising.
 
Isn't the Guardian a republican paper?
 
It's a paper that, editorially, is left of centre. As far as being republican, I'm not sure.

These days The Times, a Murdoch paper, seems to be fairly republican. The Independent always was.
 
God, William, can you be anymore boring? So conservative. So Blah. Why can't we have a truly liberal British royal who reaches out beyond his class?
 
CasiraghiTrio said:
God, William, can you be anymore boring? So conservative. So Blah. Why can't we have a truly liberal British royal who reaches out beyond his class?

William's whole education has been the archetypal rich, aristocratic education of his mother's class - Eton, University (Oxbridge or in his case St Andrews), and now followed by Sandhurst and possibly The Guards.

I have had two friends who taught for a couple of years each at Eton on exchange programmes and the thing they hated most about teaching there was the belief among the boys and staff that the boys were better than everybody else. I have had another friend who did an exchange to teach at Gordanstaun (sp) but she says that view is actively discouraged there. Having the three of them for dinner can be fun whenever there is news about Harry/William as they all believe they would have been better off following their father's schooling rather than Diana's family. They believe that at Gordanstaun (sp) they would have been more in tune with ordinary people than in the elitist Eton.
 
chrissy57 said:
William's whole education has been the archetypal rich, aristocratic education of his mother's class - Eton, University (Oxbridge or in his case St Andrews), and now followed by Sandhurst and possibly The Guards.

I have had two friends who taught for a couple of years each at Eton on exchange programmes and the thing they hated most about teaching there was the belief among the boys and staff that the boys were better than everybody else. I have had another friend who did an exchange to teach at Gordanstaun (sp) but she says that view is actively discouraged there. Having the three of them for dinner can be fun whenever there is news about Harry/William as they all believe they would have been better off following their father's schooling rather than Diana's family. They believe that at Gordanstaun (sp) they would have been more in tune with ordinary people than in the elitist Eton.

I don't know......... Charles went to Gordonstoun. Granted, Charles is a helleva lot more liberal than most royals, but he still sells out. Charles has tried breaking out of the box but people just laughed at him. So he dove back into the traditional box and played the game. The only way he could be taken seriously is a way he'd never go. He'd have to give up everything he knows, the lifestyle to which he has become accustomed. Charles won't do that. William sure won't. What would he do without his polo ponies?his precious motorcycle?
:rolleyes:
 
Elspeth said:
It's a paper that, editorially, is left of centre. As far as being republican, I'm not sure.

These days The Times, a Murdoch paper, seems to be fairly republican. The Independent always was.
Hmm. Left of centre usually is republican leaning isn't it? at least in Australia anyway:)
 
I don't think a laser eye surgery is a good idea. the surgery is a comparatively new tech, what if the bad symptoms start to show after 10 or 20 years of the surgery?
 
florawindsor said:
I don't think a laser eye surgery is a good idea. the surgery is a comparatively new tech, what if the bad symptoms start to show after 10 or 20 years of the surgery?

I guess we can only hope he does his research, knows the risks, and hears out the advice of the experts.
 
CasiraghiTrio said:
I don't know......... Charles went to Gordonstoun. Granted, Charles is a helleva lot more liberal than most royals, but he still sells out. Charles has tried breaking out of the box but people just laughed at him. So he dove back into the traditional box and played the game. The only way he could be taken seriously is a way he'd never go. He'd have to give up everything he knows, the lifestyle to which he has become accustomed. Charles won't do that. William sure won't. What would he do without his polo ponies?his precious motorcycle? :rolleyes:
Charles of course was at Gordanstoun in the 1960s while my friends were teaching at those schools in the 1990s shortly before William and Harry went to Eton. They compare the schools' ethos now rather than in the 60s. The main point they make is that the two schools now have very different attitudes to how their students should regard themselves and the rest of the world - with Eton emphasising that the boys are better than everyone else just because they are Etonians while Gordanstoun encourages the pupils to believe in equality for all. It is that attitude of the schools in the 1990s that has them believing that the young princes would have been better off at their father's, uncles and grandfather's former school.

Yes, Charles has tried to be controversial at times and in the 1970s he was always portrayed as the Prince of Wales who was most in touch with ordinary people and this was often put down to his education and his parents insistence on educating him away from the palace as well. His conservatism seemed to grow in the 1980s after he married a scion of one of the traditional aristocracy, whose father and brother had travelled that very standard aristocratic path that the boys then followed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Harry's polo shirt said:
in the United States the right wing is republican...
Yeah but USA is not a monarchy nor is a monarchist country. I don't see the relievence...

Thankx for the Quizz. I got all right (apparently I'm related). I know it's terrible but Philip makes me roar with laughter. I'd love a dinner with him.

chrissy57 said:
His conservatism seemed to grow in the 1980s after he married a scion of one of the traditional aristocracy, whose father and brother had travelled that very standard aristocratic path that the boys then followed.
I find the suggestion that Diana or any of the Spencer could possibly have any influence on him (especially political) quite ridiculous to be honest.
 
Last edited:
Idriel said:
Yeah but USA is not a monarchy nor is a monarchist country. I don't see the relievence...

Thankx for the Quizz. I got all right (apparently I'm related). I know it's terrible but Philip makes me roar with laughter. I'd love a dinner with him.

we were talking about the paper...

He makes me laugh too! I don't think I would be able to eat though--I would be laughing to much.
 
Idriel said:
Yeah but USA is not a monarchy nor is a monarchist country. I don't see the relievence...

Thankx for the Quizz. I got all right (apparently I'm related). I know it's terrible but Philip makes me roar with laughter. I'd love a dinner with him.

I find the suggestion that Diana or any of the Spencer could possibly have any influence on him (especially political) quite ridiculous to be honest.

Idriel, I respect your opinion.

Mine is based on my remembrances of a very outgoing, down-to-earth, approachable and incredibly popular Prince of Wales who visited Australia a number of times in the 1970s and was seen as one of the people and one with the people.

Then he marries and that image changes. He is seen as remote and removed from the people. What changed? Did he suddenly decide that the path he was following in the 1970s was wrong? I don't know but I do know the change appeared to happen after his marriage. Maybe it was coincidence or maybe it was the influence of his wife. I have a clear timeline of when the image we have been presented with of him changed and it is about the time of his marriage. That is my point and nothing more.
 
chrissy57 said:
Idriel, I respect your opinion.
Thank you for that and be sure the courtesy is mutual (sorry if I sounded harsh).

What makes me think Diana or the Spencers did not have any influence on him is that he did not really loved her enough to really care and anyway Diana was notoriously empty headed as far as politics (or any really serious subject) was involved, and the Spencers... well he was never remotly close to them, was he?
Maybe the difficulties of his marriage (and the fact that Diana did not turn out to be so maleable eventually) put a strain on him in the 1070s.
If a conservative influence there was (but I'm pretty sure Charles has always been like that), I would look at Camilla, who all her life lived tha typically upper-class country life.
 
Idriel said:
Thank you for that and be sure the courtesy is mutual (sorry if I sounded harsh).

What makes me think Diana or the Spencers did not have any influence on him is that he did not really loved her enough to really care and anyway Diana was notoriously empty headed as far as politics (or any really serious subject) was involved, and the Spencers... well he was never remotly close to them, was he?
Maybe the difficulties of his marriage (and the fact that Diana did not turn out to be so maleable eventually) put a strain on him in the 1070s.
If a conservative influence there was (but I'm pretty sure Charles has always been like that), I would look at Camilla, who all her life lived tha typically upper-class country life.

But Camilla was there in the 1970s so why didn't she have that influence over him then rather than wait until after he married in the 1980s to change?

I think we may also be talking about slightly different aspects of Charles' personality etc. He would always have been a bit Conservative leaning politically (that is to the right) as he will be a monarch one day and the left is more opposed to that.

He was however, far more a people's prince and one who people (certainly those I was mixing with at the time) felt understood the ordinary man/woman in the street before his marriage rather than after it. It may have simply been that as he got older he grew away from that aspect of his life - after he left the navy, got married, had kids etc. It may have been going to happen anyway and the timing just coincided with his marriage but after the early 1980s he seemed less in touch with ordinary people than he had been in the 1970s. That is not the same as politics or anything like that.

I always love reading how William is the saviour of the monarch and a people's prince etc and then thinking back to the 1970s and remembering when those exact same headlines were written about Charles. My grandmother would say then that those were the headlines she remembers from the 1920s about the Duke of Windsor (although they didn't use the term 'saviour' but 'future' she said). Maybe it is a generational thing - we see the Prince of our generation being the saviour and most in touch with us when in reality they are simply being princes and doing the same things that has always been done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom