My Pot-au-Feu with Prince William

[Marengo]

Well, wouldn´t that be the case at any first time he will lay a wreath, whether that would be now or in 70 years, when he might do it for the first time as King?

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

And as I thought, William's become the star of the show with the focus on him and not the fallen. Well done Windsors, you really know how to cock it up royally.

Should William have a drape thrown over him then until people are less enamored with him?

[BeatrixFan]

Not exactly. I can understand the Queen being focused on, I can understand William being focused on as he laid his wreath - but practically the whole coverage was of him being there. A drape is going a bit far but I just feel his place should have been with his step-mother.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Not exactly. I can understand the Queen being focused on, I can understand William being focused on as he laid his wreath - but practically the whole coverage was of him being there. A drape is going a bit far but I just feel his place should have been with his step-mother.

Until when? When he's the heir apparent? When he's the King?

[BeatrixFan]

When he learns some responsibility and respect for his position.

[COUNTESS]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Not exactly. I can understand the Queen being focused on, I can understand William being focused on as he laid his wreath - but practically the whole coverage was of him being there. A drape is going a bit far but I just feel his place should have been with his step-mother.

I am kind of out of this discussion. William will garner publicity, because he is Wiiliam, the torchbearer, Diana's torchbearer. I din't get the part about his stepmother, was he to lay a wreath on her.

[BeatrixFan]

No but he could have stood next to her like he did last year. That didn't cause any problems.

[COUNTESS]

He's their star. The big white hope. True or not. He will be front and center more and more.

[CasiraghiTrio]

Yeah, I agree with Marengo, countess, wbenson here. William is the star of anything he takes part in, not because he asks for it. The media just does that to him no matter what. It's pathetic, but it's the media's fault there.

I know that William is the cause of some of his issues (maybe even most) but this particular issue is all the media's fault. They make it all about William, put him on this pedestal. What is disturbing is the thought that after all the pumping up, they are bound to one day turn on him.... just like they turned on Diana. Just like they turn on anyone they pump up like that. The higher they go, the harder they fall.

[Zonk]

Well...I hardly think you can blame William because the press focuses on him during the Rememberance and not other members of the Royal Family.

And yes, I do agree that William and Harry should sow better judgement regarding their drinking, and partying while there is a war going on. Not because there is a war going on but because of who they are ...I am sure that there are other soldiers doing the same thing...but you don't see the press trying to take pictures of them.

And honestly, while everyone is entitled to their opinion. I am sorry but I am of the belief that in this day and age...their is no way on EARTH that Harry and William should be fightining in Afghanistan and/or Iraq. Its just not safe...the "enemy" that we are fighting is not like the "enemies" that previous royals have fought in older wars. In WWII, there was talk of Hitler trying to kidnap the Duke of Windsor and placing him on the English throne. And while I am not trying to make any comparisons between Hitler and the "enemies" that we now face.....let's just say that I'd rather have a boring William than a William fighting in Iraq, everyone knowing his location because of the news crew, his fellow soliders being in an extra state of constant danger...because he is a moving target. And I don't think his life is worth anymore than the other soldiers...but him (and Harry) are not like other soldiers. That's a fact. You can't have it both ways. If you say that they are just the same...well...then what's the point of having a royal family?

[BeatrixFan]

Then if that's the case, why has he wasted public money by training for a job he can't do? At least Harry showed some enthusiasm for going and genuine disappointment at not being allowed to go.

[CasiraghiTrio]

Standing ovation, Zonk! That was good! Wars today are totally different than in the past. The Duke of Windsor, as Prince of Wales, was allowed to do a tour on the front lines during WWI, although he was still very much more protected than everyone else and he had a desk job, but still, it's more than modern princes can do, and that kind of thing is unthinkable today.

[Zonk]

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

Standing ovation, Zonk! That was good! Wars today are totally different than in the past. The Duke of Windsor, as Prince of Wales, was allowed to do a tour on the front lines during WWI, although he was still very much more protected than everyone else and he had a desk job, but still, it's more than modern princes can do, and that kind of thing is unthinkable today.

Thank you...its a sad but true fact.

If you think about what the "enemy" has done to regular men...Daniel Pearl, the soldiers who have been captured and are still missing, those Oil company workers, etc...can you imagine what they would do if they caught the 2nd and 3rd in line to the British throne!?

It would be horrible and on television so fast...you wouldn't believe it! When you think of the "idea" of sending William and/Harry to war.....we really need to think of the possible consequences.

[COUNTESS]

Well, you are all correct. And that, I believe, is what Beatrix Fan's complaint is all about. They cannot be soldiers, as you have all stated, so get them out of the uniforms, which for them is costume party time and give them something they can do. I see no problem with William's laying of the wreath. Just a ceremonial job. All manner of people lay wreaths.

[Zonk]

So if William (for example) can't lay the wreath..who is going to do it? A former soldier...what press is going to show up for that? And by no means I am trying to be disrespectful to sacrifice of soldier's and their families..but let's keep it real. Who is the last British royal to actually participate in war...Andrew right? And if I recall correctly, there was a lot of discussion about him possibly being captured by the "enemy" during the Falkland wars.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

They cannot be soldiers

But they are. "Soldier" is not a term defined by opinion, at least when referring to the Army.

[COUNTESS]

I think where this is going, is, yes, they can train and learn to fulfil the duties of a soldier, but they can never fill the full job. Yes, some go into the service and never see combat, but the real criteria is that they could be shipped out at any time. I don't think it much matters, because many royals have worn uniforms and never served a real lick. That is the way it has always been. I assummed that that was acceptable in Britain. I never thought, until Beatirx Fan brought it up, that times, especially leave them unable to fulfil their whole duty and some might object to the role playing.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Zonk

.

And honestly, while everyone is entitled to their opinion. I am sorry but I am of the belief that in this day and age...their is no way on EARTH that Harry and William should be fightining in Afghanistan and/or Iraq. Its just not safe...the "enemy" that we are fighting is not like the "enemies" that previous royals have fought in older wars.

Sorry I don't agree. We're in a world of terrorists. There have been terrorists since the beginning of time and there were definitely terrorists before WWI and WWII. The only thing that is different is the technology.

And past royals have done some quite humiliating things to their enemies. When Edward IIIs son, the Black Prince, captured the French king, Jean II, the French king was led in chains through the London streets with the London citizens cheering the conquest.

When Edward I captured the wife and brothers of the Scottish king, Robert the Bruce, he commanded that the brothers of Robert be publicly hanged, drawn, and quartered in full public view, which meant that they were hanged until almost dead, cut open while still conscious with their entrails being dragged out of their bodies, and then their bodies cut in four pieces and sent as trophies to different parts of the kingdom.

The Iraqis just didn't wake up and decide to create a totally different type of war. Depravity of human against human has an old history and the Europeans of the past were well aware of it.

[Zonk]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Sorry I don't agree. We're in a world of terrorists. There have been terrorists since the beginning of time and there were definitely terrorists before WWI and WWII. The only thing that is different is the technology.

And past royals have done some quite humiliating things to their enemies. When Edward IIIs son, the Black Prince, captured the French king, Jean II, the French king was led in chains through the London streets with the London citizens cheering the conquest.

When Edward I captured the wife and brothers of the Scottish king, Robert the Bruce, he commanded that the brothers of Robert be publicly hanged, drawn, and quartered in full public view, which meant that they were hanged until almost dead, cut open while still conscious with their entrails being dragged out of their bodies, and then their bodies cut in four pieces and sent as trophies to different parts of the kingdom.

The Iraqis just didn't wake up and decide to create a totally different type of war. Depravity of human against human has an old history and the Europeans of the past were well aware of it.

This is very true. But the "enemies" of the past didn't have the technology that we have now. Its one thing to murder and torture someone (and I definitely am not an advocate of either) but its quite another to have no problem putting on satellite television for the whole world to see. I hardly think that the British public would like to see their Princes (or any of their soldiers for that matter) tortured on a regular news feed.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Zonk

This is very true. But the "enemies" of the past didn't have the technology that we have now. Its one thing to murder and torture someone (and I definitely am not an advocate of either) but its quite another to have no problem putting on satellite television for the whole world to see. I hardly think that the British public would like to see their Princes (or any of their soldiers for that matter) tortured on a regular news feed.

Well I think Edward III wouldn't have minded putting a hanging drawing and quartering on worldwide television if he had had the chance.

But since the British have to send somebody, they must be pretty much resigned to the prospect of their regular soldiers being tortured and humiliated on satellite televison.