General News for Prince Harry, Part 1: December 2016 - November 2017

[Denville]

Better he doesn't make ANY statements at all honestly. He just aint bright and he's tactless. Kind hearted yes, and willing to put in a bit of work.. but really he does say stilly things. All Royals do at tmes, in spite of spin doctors, speech writers and so on.. but Harry is noticed quite a bit because I think at present, he is the most popular youngr Royal.

 

[Empress Merel]

Harry has carved out an amazing role for himself. He did a great job there and in my opinion, has done it far better than his brother or SIL. The public, no matter if they're pro royal or not, tend to take an immediate liking to him.

These type of interviews are a case of foot in your mouth, in my opinion. Don't be telling the public you wanted out and an ordinary life when ordinary is for most people not as cracked up to be and a daily struggle. Don´t say stuff like this when life is as insecure as it now in the wake of political situations all across the globe.

 

[Skippyboo]

Harry has carved out an amazing role for himself. He did a great job there and in my opinion, has done it far better than his brother or SIL. The public, no matter if they're pro royal or not, tend to take an immediate liking to him.

William and Kate don't have to carve a role out. They have one. Their roles in the monarchy are set.

Harry is popular now. So were Andrew and Margaret back in the day, but it didn't last.

 

[Empress Merel]

Within the monarchy yes, but getting the public to care is another.

And I wasn't around for Andrew and Sarah, I'm too young, but I do think Harry knows that his time of popularity won't last forever. It will only lessen as George, and specifically Charlotte, grow older.

 

[Skippyboo]

Considering Kate is the only one who can guarantee press coverage of her engagements, somebody in the public cares. Because if no one cared and didn't click on the stories then the press would not cover her so extensively.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

For Harry (I prefer the more distant Prince Henry, the name Harry was already a forebode of all this) I can see a role as the rock on which the King can build, his closest counsel, a sort of "Prince Bertil and Princess Lilian"-role for the future King George.

He just need to re-set his act, re-balancing his core business which is being a senior member of the royal family and beware a little bit more of the decorum and the distance around it. Then he will have a great and meaningful role in the future

 

[Mbruno]

Yes, I thought Diana would come into this sooner or later, Lady Nimue. Where in this interview does Harry disrespect the Queen? Have you read the whole Newsweek article at all? Or just the bits the DM and other tabloids chose to publish?

"The monarchy cannot go on as it has done under the Queen" may be interpreted as disrespectful to his grandmother. That is why I asked what he meant exactly by that.

Furthermore, when he says that "no royal wants to be King or Queen", "no royal" here obviously includes his brother and father and, by saying that, he is undermining their position.

The problem, you see, is that the "bits that the tabloids chose to publish" are pretty clear literal quotes (as is BTW "I wanted out"). It is not a matter of the press twisting Harry's words, but, on the contrary, of some posters on the forum trying to find hidden meanings or convoluted interpretations to exonerate Harry .

The truth is that Harry, like Andrew or Margaret before him, is a not a particularly bright person. On top of that, he has many issues and is clearly not very emotionally stable. The best advice to him, in the interest of the institution he represents, is to keep his mouth shut.

 

[Skippyboo]

General News for Prince Harry, Part 1: December 2016 -

I am not that familiar with the Swedish royals, however didn't Carl Gustav come to the throne as a relatively young man? George will most likely be middle aged when he becomes King. Harry is only 2 years younger than his brother. Harry could die before William. Younger siblings don't always out live older ones. Look at the Queen and Margaret. Harry is a smoker too.

It's unlikely barring some sort of early death of William, that we will see a young King George on the throne who needs a older mentor royal. Even Elizabeth herself didn't rely on her uncle the Duke of Gloucester when she came to the throne in 1952.

 

[royal rob]

Let's be real: everyone can be perceived as having an "agenda" of some kind, regardless of which "camp" they sit in.

It would be nice if we could have mature discussions without the constant snarky remarks about agendas/etc because everyone dares not have the same opinion as everyone else.

IMO bringing Diana into threads that are not hers is some people's agenda. It happens repeatedly by the same posters. The people who don't like Harry will always twist something he might have said again to me that's not discussion it's an agenda.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Surprising to see some commenting here who would never come onto Harry threads except when he's perceived to have done something wrong that offends them. When he receives praise for something he did wonderfully the silence is deafening.

Curryong, although I rarely agree with your posts, I do appreciate them. But if this post was directed at me, then I don't thinks it's fair.

1. I adore and love HM (as most peole does) and I therefore follows her.

2. I'm a great admirer of Charles and I therefor follows him and I think Camilla does a great job.

3. I'm a big fan of William and Kate and I therefor follows them.

4. I'm also a big fan of Sophie and follows her.

5. I've never been very interested in Philip, Harry, Anne, Andrew and Edward or the so-called minor royals, but I have respect for the work they does.

6. And I'm often around in the Harry's threads, although I don't write here so often, but this is a special situation who affects the monarchy.

7. And you must accept that people don't always agree with you, I have to accept that all the time on this forum.

8. You can write that you disagree, but you can do it in a pleasant way. I think I've become a bit better in doing this than I was before, but I know that I have a tendency to still get irritaded when you and others praise Diana like no one else and attack those who disagree.

More about Harry:

Dickie Arbiter and Rachel Johnson are both pro Harry and have praised him in the past, so they are not out after Harry because of some stupid agenda and I agree with everything they say about this.

Dickie Arbiter‏ @RoyalDickie
He should never been let loose. He's not exactly brain of Britain when it come what to & what not to say

Dickie Arbiter‏ @RoyalDickie
At the end of a week in which Prince Harry bared his soul, he should read Rachel Johnson and digest

This is really worth a read:
Prince Harry on the perils of 'doing a Ratner'* | Daily Mail Online

Dear Harry,

In normal times I'd let it pass, but I'm writing as your Ken Palace advisers are clearly AWOL, and these are not normal times. You may not have noticed, as you're too busy at the meat counter of Whole Foods or getting the Natural History Museum to open just so you and Meghan can gaze at dinosaurs in private, but we're all on post-Election edge here.

The nation is divided and angry, the Government is hanging by a gossamer thread, and in the past week or so it has seemed as if it's only the Queen keeping the country together: visiting the bereaved of Grenfell Tower, giving her Gracious Speech in Parliament, shooting off to Ascot.

Right in the middle of all this – in a Newsweek interview on Wednesday – you pop up and rattle our faith in the one thing this country basically still believes in, far more than bloody Brexit and almost as much as the blessed NHS.

The Monarchy.

What on earth were you thinking, frightening the horses with this: 'Is there any one of the Royal Family who wants to be king or queen? I don't think so, but we will carry out our duties at the right time.'

What a Ratner moment that was. 'Reluctant Royals' is very bad PR for the brand, and The Firm is not just any brand – it's arguably the most successful in UK plc.

In that one sentence you also reveal that you fail to grasp the corporate purpose of The Firm. The entire point of the Royals is: you do what you are, not you are what you do. The Queen is Queen. Your father is heir to the Throne. Camilla is consort. Your only job – since you threw in the Army, which must count as a mistake – is therefore Prince.

Your sister-in-law Catherine seemed to get this when she described herself as 'Princess' in the space left for occupation on George's birth certificate. It's your honour and your privilege, whether you like it or lump it, and you don't seem to like it very much.

I shudder to think of your grandmother's reaction.

She has served this country without putting a foot wrong or opening her mouth out of turn for 70 years, and now you reveal that your father and brother are mere huffy hostages of history.

Then, in the next breath, you explain that you are doing the world a favour just by your very existence. 'It's a tricky balancing act,' you say. 'We don't want to dilute the magic… the British public and the whole world need institutions like it.'

This makes me worry, Harry, that you have either never heard of Bagehot's first rule of the Royal Family, which is never let daylight in on the magic, or you've chosen to ignore it.

After all, you are, as you say, on your 'journey' and still finding your 'path'. You have chosen to broaden the national conversation on mental health as a tribute to your late mother. This is all wonderful, and your creation of the Invictus Games is also a great credit to you. But your Newsweek interview shows – God, I sound old – that you still have some growing up to do, and 'learnings' to absorb.

'Even if I was king, I'd do my own shopping,' you boast, thus missing the key point. Unlike Princes Charles, William and George, you have dodged that heavy duty.

You will never be king – and therefore have nothing to complain about.

You are free to enjoy your status as most popular Royal, the People's Prince. You can merrily have your cake and eat it from here to kingdom come. So we don't want to hear another peep for a while (and yes, that's the Royal 'we'.)

Yours, Rachel

 

[Osipi]

As always, your post reflects a lot of thought and is clear and precise in what you say. Its a quality I admire.

I think that letter you quoted pretty much reflects everything we've been hashing out in this forum. Points out the mistakes Harry has made and gives precise reasons what they *are* mistakes.

My thought though, at the end with the comment that Harry would "still do his own shopping even if he were king" would be that I would insert my own opinion that if it ever arose that Harry would be king, he may just find out that his schedule doesn't allow time for shopping.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

William and Kate don't have to carve a role out. They have one. Their roles in the monarchy are set.

Harry is popular now. So were Andrew and Margaret back in the day, but it didn't last.

Ah, but they do and they are....just as Charles had to and did. Because if not it would be a long wait to be King. If George VI had not died when his daughter was still a young woman, she and Philip would have carved out their role more definitively. Just because the end job is defined doesn't mean the path to get there is limited.

 

[Curryong]

Yes, Royal Norway, Rachel from the Daily Mail, hmm. The Daily Fail, that rag that many regular posters on this forum, (including myself to be fair,) discount, criticise and make fun of, week after week, month after month, year after year. Unless it's something we agree with, of course!

Oh, by the way, Dickie Arbiter, who was criticised for publishing a book about his life as Royal Press Secretary, (been retired for years) has been irritated by Harry for some months about his girlfriend, Meghan, whom he described on his Twitter page last year as 'a fling.'

 

[Osipi]

To be honest here, I'm also one that is dubious about anything from the Fail except for their photographs.

I have to admit, however, that the letter that Royal Norway posted is a deviation from the norm at the Fail and makes sense, is written with clear thinking and makes good points. It doesn't happen very often but as human beings make an occasional mistake every now and then, so can the Fail get something right once in a blue moon.

 

[Mbruno]

Yes, Royal Norway, Rachel from the Daily Mail, hmm. The Daily Fail, that rag that many regular posters on this forum, (including myself to be fair,) discount, criticise and make fun of, week after week, month after month, year after year. Unless it's something we agree with, of course!

The problem, Curryong, is that it is not just the Daily Fail. It is also eminent authors like Sir Max Hastings whose piece has been quoted before on this forum. Or respectable public institutions like the BBC. As a matter of fact, "I wanted out" was even on the BBC World News channel today, which is seen all over the world.

Regardless of the circumstances, we would be burying our heads in the sand if we denied that was de facto a blunder for Harry.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Oh please come on. That letter is so full of ego puffery and self-importance, it's a wonder the paper it's written on doesn't up and take flight from it's own self-obsessed hauteur. 'Get wid it Harry and be merry prince charming so I can keep my job observing, criticizing and going on in print about the way you lucky royals are supposed to act!'

BTW, psst to the letter scribe Rachel Johnson: Duchess Kate did not write 'Princess' on Prince George's birth certificate, her husband did! Because what else was he supposed to enter?? 'Housewife'!? Listen up please: The modern royals are striving to find a balance between royal tradition and the modern world. Why the heck can't people with their noses in the air see that!? Too busy sniffing after rarefied air apparently.

Oh pish-posh all ye begrudgers and enviers of the royal lifestyle of a British prince! Yes, visiting the National History Museum at night is one of the perks of Harry's position. The writer of that letter is dreaming if she thinks she'd be able to manage the downsides, demands and pressures that come along with such perks, even to the degree that Harry has so far managed to do!

Prince Harry was young in his twenties and he had the thing that made him happiest (being in combat with his buddies) taken away from him, simply because he is a British royal prince. Harry did not want to leave the army. He had to make that choice because he was prevented by his royal status in being able to make it a viable career. That's what Harry is talking about. His freedom to choose what he'd like to do in life is drastically circumscribed and curtailed as a royal. He wants to lead a meaningful, productive life, which is difficult to do when your choices are constricted and your every move and utterance are over-analyzed and criticized. He obviously does not want to live a celebrity playboy lifestyle. His partying and making mischief during his twenties was largely in rebellion against the strictures and smothering he felt, not to mention the anguish he had yet to come to grips with regarding the loss of his mother at such a young age.

Harry comes from wealth on both sides of his family, so its not as if he's talking about living a struggling existence. By 'ordinary,' he seemingly means being able to make his own decisions freely, and being able to walk down the street and go grocery shopping without being recognized and bombarded by the public and the media, who have followed his every move for his entire life. He would probably like to be able to kiss his girlfriend in public and take her openly to a family wedding without tabloid media frenzy and trollish negativity being hurled at not only his girlfriend but at his sister-in-law's sister! He's talking about the desire he felt in his twenties to escape the daunting downsides of the royal yoke around his neck. It's likely he eventually realized that attempting to lead life as a commoner would not have given him any escape from who he is, nor from media prying and poking. Maybe we should heed the dictum: 'Walk in someone else's shoes before throwing stones at them.'

We should be able to see that what Harry was going through in his twenties was growing pains complicated by the nature of his position in life, and by his unresolved anguish over the loss of his mother. Some of you seem to feel that having money, privilege and the ability to lead a jet-setting lifestyle protects a person from personal woes and emotional challenges. Obviously it does not. With wealth and stature comes greater responsibility and more complicated decision-making, especially if you are a thoughtful, caring person. Of course, wealth and connections offer the opportunity to receive expert help, and I'm glad that Harry was eventually able to reach out and receive the counseling he needed, which is an important first step. But even then, it's not always easy to find a therapy situation that's a good fit. Harry has spoken about that too. In many ways, what he went through has been a trial by fire that has enriched his understanding and insight into how he might help others in need.

Bottom line: A rich, purposeless lifestyle actually benefits no one. Aimless partying and trekking around the world without a specific purpose or a sense of being able to do something beneficial can be dispiriting and self-defeating. Harry is telling us that's not who he is, and not what he wants to become. He wants royal traditions to work for people, not to shackle his life. Fortunately, Harry has come through that agonizing episode in his life, and I see nothing wrong with him sharing some of what he's been through. He apparently feels the need to be open as part of the ongoing charity work he's doing to benefit his country and to inspire other young people who are dealing with emotional struggles. He's also realizing and strategizing how he can use his status in ways that can make a difference.

 

[Osipi]

As much as I do really enjoy your points of view, MaiaMia, there are a couple places in your last post that may not be totally accurate.

1. "Yes, visiting the National History Museum at night is one of the perks of Harry's position."

My thoughts on this is that its very possible that Harry wasn't using it as a perk but as he wished to tour the National History Museum with Meghan, it was probably his RPOs that veto'ed the visit during the time the museum was open to the public because of security concerns and it was they that arranged a private nocturnal visit. That's one thing about being a RPO. They can say "no" to a plan as they don't answer to Harry himself but to their bosses at Scotland Yard.

2."Harry did not want to leave the army. He had to make that choice because he was prevented by his royal status in being able to make it a viable career."

It wasn't his royal status at all that dictated what he could and could not do in the Army as far as making it a viable concern. It was the Army itself that makes the decisions and the rules and like any other soldier, Harry had to either fall in line with their modus operandi or leave the Army. From what I understand, Harry did his stint in active service in Afghanistan and the Army decided that a desk job would be next in order to advance up the ranks. Harry chose to not continue in this vein. His royal status had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Just thought I'd point these out.

 

[wyevale]

I [and other Monarchists of my acquaintance] begin to wonder whether this [rather suddenly] 'open' Harry is not due to recent new influence in his life, one from a world where emoting in Public is seen as healthy and without price ?

 

[Skippyboo]

General News for Prince Harry, Part 1: December 2016 -

Who knows if the Natural History Museum story is true or not? There wasn't any supporting evidence besides Emily Andrews's story. We have photos of Kate with George at the NHM during the day when it's open. If the future King can go during the day, how it's that Harry isn't allowed by his RPO?

 

[Mbruno]

It wasn't his royal status at all that dictated what he could and could not do in the Army as far as making it a viable concern. It was the Army itself that makes the decisions and the rules and like any other soldier, Harry had to either fall in line with their modus operandi or leave the Army. From what I understand, Harry did his stint in active service in Afghanistan and the Army decided that a desk job would be next in order to advance up the ranks.

which, as I asked more knowledgeable in another post, seems to be pretty standard in any long-term officer's career, isn't it ?

 

[Osipi]

Who knows if the Natural History Museum story is true or not? There wasn't any supporting evidence besides Emily Andrews's story. We have photos of Kate with George at the NHM during the day when it's open. If the future King can go during the day, how it's that Harry isn't allowed by his RPO?

This is a valid point also. It could have also been that the visit with George was planned enough in advance that the RPOs could have done a full sweep (they call it a recee (reconnaisance of the area which is done before a royal visits anywhere public). It could have been Harry wanted a visit at a spur of the moment kind of thing and the private visit was a "quick fix" as far as security measures.

We really don't know. It could be a multitude of other things involved too that we don't know about. Just pointing out that at the drop of a hat, Harry may not have been using a "perk" but other things were involved.

 

[Dman]

I think it's pure sad that the media got it wrong with Harry. Now there's a lot of unnecessary PR noise that he have to deal with. Obviously, the media will not say they got it wrong, so it's his problem.

Everyone on this forum, other royal watchers and veteran royal reporters/correspondents know the royals primary focus, attention and drive is pretty much dedication to service and duty to the people of the United Kingdom, Commonwealth and all other territories under The Queen. They spend a great deal of time of their lives extended the role of the monarch by being royal patron of countless charities, organizations and have many honorary roles within the military. The institution of the monarchy is very ancient, but it survives by the will of the people and the hard work of the family itself.

Do anyone think Prince Harry, who loves and respects his family, would undermine the roles of his grandmother, father and brother?

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Something very strange happened to my mac when I edited this post.

As always, your post reflects a lot of thought and is clear and precise in what you say. Its a quality I admire.

I think that letter you quoted pretty much reflects everything we've been hashing out in this forum. Points out the mistakes Harry has made and gives precise reasons what they *are* mistakes.

My thought though, at the end with the comment that Harry would "still do his own shopping even if he were king" would be that I would insert my own opinion that if it ever arose that Harry would be king, he may just find out that his schedule doesn't allow time for shopping.

Thanks Osipi (nice of you to write) and I feel exactly the same about your posts, and thanks to all those who uses the thanks button!

It's not easy to write when you're dyslexic like me, but I think I've gotten better in the past year. And I am writing a lot worse in Norwegian, almost worse than the dyslexic Prime Minister Erna Solberg, who is bullied for it by trolls for her posts on facebook.

Yes, Royal Norway, Rachel from the Daily Mail, hmm. The Daily Fail, that rag that many regular posters on this forum, (including myself to be fair,) discount, criticise and make fun of, week after week, month after month, year after year. Unless it's something we agree with, of course!

Oh, by the way, Dickie Arbiter, who was criticised for publishing a book about his life as Royal Press Secretary, (been retired for years) has been irritated by Harry for some months about his girlfriend, Meghan, whom he described on his Twitter page last year as 'a fling.'

1. There is hardly anyone who criticizes the Daily Fail or (my new naime) Daily Lying more than me, but I often agree with many of the more serious people there when it comes to the monarchy, especially Robert Hardman.

2. If I had not seen the tweet from Dickie Arbiter I wouldn't have read the letter from Rachel Johnson either.

3. Dickie Arbiter - pro Diana/Harry, praised both of them often in the past. And I for one liked his book (that was after I read it.)

4. Rachel Johnson - pro Harry, praised him in the past.

5. And as Mbruno wrote, it's not only the DF who have a problem with this. Almost everyone I talks too are pretty angry with him.

 

[Osipi]

Do anyone think Prince Harry, who loves and respects his family, would undermine the roles of his grandmother, father and brother?

Most of us here are pretty much informed by watching and reading of what the roles of the BRF are and how they not only take it seriously but also represent the continuity of the monarchy.

Then there is the rest of the world where there are so many people that will only pay attention to headlines in tabloids and blips on a news report and social media and form their opinions from that with no real knowledge into how the royal family operates.

As I've seen recently somewhere here, Charles has been reputed to say "Sometimes I think we're just a soap opera".

 

[Mbruno]

Do anyone think Prince Harry, who loves and respects his family, would undermine the roles of his grandmother, father and brother?

No one is accusing him of doing it intentionally.

 

[Dman]

Most of us here are pretty much informed by watching and reading of what the roles of the BRF are and how they not only take it seriously but also represent the continuity of the monarchy.

Then there is the rest of the world where there are so many people that will only pay attention to headlines in tabloids and blips on a news report and social media and form their opinions from that with no real knowledge into how the royal family operates.

As I've seen recently somewhere here, Charles has been reputed to say "Sometimes I think we're just a soap opera".

Osipi, I'm just shocked that the media and people online are using Harry's words against him. He talks about service of the monarchy and his struggles to deal with the aftermath of his mother's very tragic passing, and people are pretty much throwing all his words right back in his face. The crazy part is that everyone was just praising the man same meaningful words leading up to Heads Together campaign marathon.

What has he done to deserve this kind of treatment?

I know some people feel they have to protect the institution of the monarchy and think anyone who sounds like they're undermining it must be bashed. That's not what Harry is doing.

No one is accusing him of doing it intentionally.

He didn't do it at all. People obviously misunderstood him. The headline made it seem like he's saying the family don't care about the role of the monarch. The way he meant it is they no one wants to be a king and Queen in the family, but take on the role with a sense of duty and service when it it comes to them. There's no game of thrones hunger for the iron throne in the British royal family.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Good points @Osipi. I actually linked the video interview earlier in this thread in which Prince Harry discussed making that decision. So yes, his decision definitely had to do with the fact that at some point he would have had to face desk job requirements. And he clearly liked working out in the field with his mates and the men he oversaw. So of course the looming reality of a desk job weighed into his decision not to renew his commission. But the other factor inevitably was that his royal duties and status often conflicted with and prevented him from being able to engage in front line battle, and he wasn't always available to take part in other operations and assignments. He spoke about this specifically in the interview I linked. He did not feel good about not being there for his men, and having to allow other officers to sub for him. So his royal status was one of the hindering factors in his decision to leave the army.

Thanks as well for elaborating on the point about the night visit to the museum, which was reported in the media, but which has not yet been confirmed. I was simply responding to the OTT criticism in the Rachel Johnson letter. If H&M did in fact have to visit the museum at night with RPOs for security reasons, then clearly that supports the points I outlined in my previous post. Some view it as a perk and a privilege to be able to have an entire museum to yourself at night, when it's not actually that cut and dried. Your explication @Osipi, further highlights the fact that many on the outside of royal life looking in, are more pretentious and overweening than the most stuffiest members of the aristocracy and the royal family.

I do believe that there are likely some members of the royal family who frankly don't feel the need to hold onto being royal just for the sake of being royal. Some of them, especially the younger royals might be perfectly fine with the gradual end of the monarchy, or at least with putting an end to some of the more antiquated rituals and protocol. They may be caught between a rock and a hard place in how they feel about the institution. Respect and dutifulness on the one hand, but also frustration and impatience on the other hand with all the confining strictures and some of the annoyances involving royal courtiers, intrusive media and unending public criticism from all sides.

If the monarchy is pushed to its limits by all this constant criticism and tabloid frenzy, then it will be the royal courtiers and the royal journalists, paps, tabloids, and royal gossip-mongers who may suffer losses in their livelihoods. The public who have tended to take the royals and the so-called 'magic,' for granted will also feel the loss. The royal family will simply move on to other pursuits, many of them most likely with a vast sense of relief and freedom!

 

[TLLK]

t's not easy to write when you're dyslexic like me, but I think I've gotten better in the past year

Going off topic, but I would had no idea that you were dyslexic ROYAL NORWAY. IMO you express yourself very well in English.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

2."Harry did not want to leave the army. He had to make that choice because he was prevented by his royal status in being able to make it a viable career."

It wasn't his royal status at all that dictated what he could and could not do in the Army as far as making it a viable concern. It was the Army itself that makes the decisions and the rules and like any other soldier, Harry had to either fall in line with their modus operandi or leave the Army. From what I understand, Harry did his stint in active service in Afghanistan and the Army decided that a desk job would be next in order to advance up the ranks. Harry chose to not continue in this vein. His royal status had absolutely nothing to do with it.

I generally agree with you but here I don't entirely. Yes, it was the Army's decision to put Harry in a desk job- but it was because he was the grandson of the Queen. I believe the Army decided it was too hazardous to both Harry AND the men he was serving with to send him back again to the combat zone. That would have been an option for non-royal helicopter pilots- neither Isis, the Taliban or the gutter press would have targeted a random pilot for capture or a scoop.
He may have had to have a desk job of sorts eventually but not while he was still in his 20s. And I don't see him being that good at event planning which is what I believe the job was.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Do anyone think Prince Harry, who loves and respects his family, would undermine the roles of his grandmother, father and brother?

No, not on purpose. But he needs better PR.