My Pot-au-Feu with Prince William


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
When he learns some responsibility and respect for his position.
 
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.
 
No but he could have stood next to her like he did last year. That didn't cause any problems.
 
He's their star. The big white hope. True or not. He will be front and center more and more.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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. :ermm:
 
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?
 
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.
 
:clap: 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.
 
:clap: 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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
I think you have hit it right on the head, Ysbel. Pretty sad, but correct.
 
Sorry I don't agree........
........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.
Most of it was taught to other countries by the British!

You are right, there have always been terrorists, many of whom now form legitimate governments. The IRA blew up the household cavalry and Lord Mountbatten, it is nothing new, one reason security was everywhere yesterday!

The royals are different, but only up to a point and that doesn't mean their children are more important than anyone elses. If it's OK for any other British soldier to be fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan, then Harry and William should, as paid members of the armed services, also go!

If they are not going to be 'real' soldiers, they should resign their commissions. All other soldiers, clerks, musicians, etc are sent out to fight, so the people who organise or have other trades are not exempt. If it is purely for the 'experience' for if he becomes King, then do it unpaid!
 
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.

No one said the Iraqis created a totally different kind of war.

Wars today, are different period, because of terrorism (which is not new, but technologies and other factors have made it different). It's complicated and I don't know how to explain it. I have taken classes on the history of terrorism but I can't find the words to explain it and it take too much time, and it's wildly off topic.... Well, let's just say that I stand by my opinion that wars and terrorism are different today, and it is mostly to do with the progress of science and technology. Atrocities are nothing new, true enough, but science today has allowed atrocities to be accomplished literally with the snap of a finger. It's a little different than galloping on a horse with a sword and shield....
 
Does anyone remember what William said about his then-possible future in the army in 2004? I wonder if William remembers, and what he thinks about it now. Does he, as he suggested might happen, feel humiliated by the bruising he has from critics about being a "plastic soldier"? He more or less repeated these words to Matt Lauer earlier this year.

"I would not want to be kept back for being precious, or whatever, that's the last thing I'd want. It's the most humiliating thing and it would be something I'd find very awkward to live with, being told I couldn't go out there when these guys have got to go out there and do a bad job."

Source
Transcript: Prince William Interview, The BBC, 19 November 2004

[Matt Lauer voiceover]: Three weeks after our interview, the Ministry of Defense decided the risk was just too great. Harry will not deploy to Iraq, although there's speculation he might be sent to Afghanistan. If any war zone proves too risky for Harry, you can be sure that 24-year-old William, the future king, won't be going either. It's a fact William seems reluctant to accept.

Prince William: Well, I don't know that yet. Because, otherwise, what's the point of me doing all my training and being there for my guys when I can turn around to somebody and say, "Well, I'm far too important. I'm not going."

Source
Transcript: A Conversation with William and Harry, NBC, page 5
 
Last edited:
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.

He's training for the job of King, not career Army officer. Charles didn't go into the Navy with the expectation of spending most of his life as a serving officer, and the same is true for William. The question of being deployed in a war zone didn't arise during Charles's Navy years, but it might have done, and it would have been interesting to see what might have happened.

Harry is a bit different because, as the second son he could conceiveably he a career serving officer, in which case he needs to be able to do the things that career officers do.
 
So does being King mean he has to wear a uniform? Could he not just be the first monarch who doesn't play dress up?
 
It seems that the Royal Family still think that a background in the Armed Forces is a useful attribute for a senior royal. That may not always be the case, but as long as Prince Philip is a force in the family, I don't see it changing.
 
Most of it was taught to other countries by the British!

You are right, there have always been terrorists, many of whom now form legitimate governments. The IRA blew up the household cavalry and Lord Mountbatten, it is nothing new, one reason security was everywhere yesterday!

The royals are different, but only up to a point and that doesn't mean their children are more important than anyone elses. If it's OK for any other British soldier to be fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan, then Harry and William should, as paid members of the armed services, also go!

If they are not going to be 'real' soldiers, they should resign their commissions. All other soldiers, clerks, musicians, etc are sent out to fight, so the people who organise or have other trades are not exempt. If it is purely for the 'experience' for if he becomes King, then do it unpaid!

Well, Skydragon, you are right, too. I think that that was Beatrix Fan's point, too. If you can't serve fully, your out. No uniforms, not rankings, no soldier. You must be able to serve fully. If their children are more important, then they can't claim membership in the club. If I had a kid in Iraq, etc, I would wonder why they can march and receive salutes, but they cannot serve. Don't tell me about terrorism. The Joneses and the Smiths sons are in the army and no one said, we cannot send them here, because they are too precious. By the way, if you know anything about the history of war, being whacked with a sword was a terrible thing. No one said they should serve in Iraq, the argument is that they shouldn't be in the army, because the really are not. By the way, the reason they are princes, is that their forebears wielded a mighty sword and went into battle.
 
No one said they should serve in Iraq, the argument is that they shouldn't be in the army, because they really are not.

They are in the army, though. As many have pointed out before in this thread, being in the army does not merely mean serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. There are a multitude of jobs in the army that require many enlisted and officers to stay in their homeland and serve in supportive duties.

It's the same with the navy. You don't have to be on a ship to be a sailor.

With the air force, you don't have to be flying planes to be an airman.

You don't have to be on the front lines to be in the military, period. No, not even when there is a war going on.

If William and Harry are just playing dress up, then all their fellow soldiers who are based at the same duty station where they work, well, all of them are playing dress up too, because by your argument, if you are not serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, you're not a real soldier, or really in the army.
 
So does being King mean he has to wear a uniform? Could he not just be the first monarch who doesn't play dress up?

Perhaps not at the Cenotaph, but male colonels and colonels-in-chief are expected to wear their uniforms at regimental events (trooping the colour), even in the absence of previous military service. To do otherwise would be seen as rude by the regiment itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom