The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Current Events Archive (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f166/)
-   -   Prince Harry Current Events 17: March 2007 (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f166/prince-harry-current-events-17-march-2007-a-12122.html)

Warren 03-05-2007 03:47 AM

Prince Harry Current Events 17: March 2007
 
https://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i1...rinceHarry.gif

Arms of HRH Prince Henry of Wales

Welcome to Part 14 of the Current Events of Prince Harry

It starts on March 5, 2007

Part 13 can be found here.

Skydragon 03-05-2007 06:07 AM

The UK doesn't have a policy on family members serving together, not even in WWII when many families lost all male family members.

kpusa1981 03-05-2007 11:43 AM

Prince William and Prince Harry
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon
The UK doesn't have a policy on family members serving together, not even in WWII when many families lost all male family members.

Nither dose the USA however the commander oficers would ave prefured that the Sullivans not served on the same ship.
HRH Kimetha:I never really knew about the Sullivan Act in its entirety. Thanks kpusa1 for explaining it. But, it did give me another perspective of sending William to the battle zone, if Harry was already there. Then again, as you pointed out, Harry would be out of the zone by the time William can go. So, William can also go to the battle zone whether he is the 2nd in line.never really knew about the Sullivan Act in its entirety.


What do you mean?

Quote:

Although proposed after the death of the five Sullivan Brothers, no "Sullivan Act" was ever enacted by Congress related to family members serving together. Similarly, no President has ever issued any executive order forbidding assignment of family members to the same ship/unit.
Following are nine references that describe the U.S. Navy policy toward the assignment of family members to ships since 1942, and one other article that helps explain this policy."

Sister Morphine 03-05-2007 03:24 PM

Just because they haven't issued an order making it mandatory doesn't mean it doesn't happen. A lot of times commanders will try and have family reassigned to other units if it's possible BECAUSE of what happened to the Sullivan family.

Skydragon 03-05-2007 03:32 PM

It may or may not happen in the US, but Harry is in the British Armed Services and they have no such directive.

kpusa1981 03-05-2007 06:39 PM

Prince William and Prince Harry
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon
It may or may not happen in the US, but Harry is in the British Armed Services and they have no such directive.

I was olny trying t [oint out to HRH Kimetha that there no such Act of Congress ever pasted and that the Sullivan Brothers did not have to write a letter FDR .They did their service and did die like serivcemen in WWII.
They are in the same regiment but different squads and William is not even done with his training. Since Harry is going to be deployed in May and come back in October. William will be done training in September so could possibly be deployed to Afghanistan.

Thank you Skydragon you are always so helpful in these and other matters aas well.

Skydragon 03-05-2007 07:12 PM

I thought the MOD had already made it clear that William would not be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, that they are considering allowing a deployment to NI, which although far from 'safe' is not as dangerous.
As with Harry, the decision does not lay with the individual and it doesn't matter what William wants, the fact is that as the son of the heir (I did not use the 2nd in line deliberately), he is not considered dispensable.

kpusa1981 03-05-2007 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon
I thought the MOD had already made it clear that William would not be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, that they are considering allowing a deployment to NI, which although far from 'safe' is not as dangerous.
As with Harry, the decision does not lay with the individual and it doesn't matter what William wants, the fact is that as the son of the heir (I did not use the 2nd in line deliberately), he is not considered dispensable.

Than what is the use of letting him do armoured recce training if can't be deployed? Why not just make William just join the mounted regiment?

ZandraRae 03-05-2007 08:52 PM

There is no such act or law. However, after the Sullivan brothers were killed, there were several bills introduced in Congress that related to family members serving in a military unit together. None of these bills were enacted into law. However, there are military policies and directives to discourage immediate family members from serving together.The facts: The five Sullivan brothers of Waterloo, Iowa, enlisted in the Navy on the same day, January 3, 1942. The brothers were assigned to the U.S.S. Juneau, which was torpedoed and sank on November 13, 1942, killing all but 10 crew members. Although an existing Navy regulation forbade the assignment of the brothers to the same ship, their request to serve together was granted. The existing regulation was issued in July 1942, and was certainly influenced by the loss of the U.S.S. Arizona during Pearl Harbor, with three brothers among the casualties.

Source: U.S. Senate

Correct me if I'm wrong here, Skydragon, but couldn't William serve IF his country needed him? Perhaps, not in the Iraqi war, but if there was let's say a WWIII (God forbid that should happen). I am sure there are situations were he could, I guess.

HRH Kimetha 03-05-2007 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kpusa1981
HRH Kimetha:I never really knew about the Sullivan Act in its entirety. Thanks kpusa1 for explaining it. But, it did give me another perspective of sending William to the battle zone, if Harry was already there. Then again, as you pointed out, Harry would be out of the zone by the time William can go. So, William can also go to the battle zone whether he is the 2nd in line.never really knew about the Sullivan Act in its entirety.


What do you mean?

Sometimes I type too fast and forget to go back and reread, so there may be sintax and grammatical errors in my posts, etc. What I meant was, I thought there WAS such an act, but there is not.

In reference to William and Harry being posted in Iraq, I never thought that as one came home, the other could go and not have both brothers over there at the same time (which isn't related to any Sullivan Act). :smile:

Skydragon 03-06-2007 09:18 AM

I asked my sons and daughters why they wanted to join the armed services and they all said they wanted to follow in their fathers footsteps, to 'make them proud'.

We are very proud of them, but it would have saved us so much money if they had become accountants or veterinary surgeons! :rolleyes:

Warren 03-07-2007 08:08 AM

As Harry's thread was in danger of being swamped by his brother, posts relating exclusively to William have been moved out.

cowarth 03-07-2007 06:25 PM

What is the protocol?

Jang 03-08-2007 04:22 AM

When will he go to irag?

Sister Morphine 03-08-2007 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jang
When will he go to irag?


May or June, I believe it is.

Lamyah 03-08-2007 07:40 PM

Prince Harry: The Saviour of Basra?
 
Prince Harry: The Saviour of Basra?

Quote:

In interviews conducted by IWPR, Basra residents gave various reasons for welcoming the prince, who will come as a serving officer with the Blues and Royals.

Some are impressed that a senior royal is willing to put his life on the line in such a dangerous country, and that Britain is willing to let him do so.

Others hope that as a royal rather than a politician, he might play some mediating role between the army and the people of Basra, where ten British soldiers have been killed and 60 injured in the past three months alone.

Accustomed to seeing the sons of their own leaders enjoying lives of privilege and comfort, they are surprised and pleased at the egalitarian approach of a British prince serving in the army like any ordinary citizen.
interesting article;)

MARG 03-08-2007 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamyah

Well, it certainly covered all the bases! :flowers:

Skydragon 03-09-2007 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamyah

I think they are expecting rather a lot from someone they probably won't get a chance to see or talk to, unless we are back to the 'Harry is here' flag, as for rebuilding Basra.....:rolleyes:

MARG 03-09-2007 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon
I think they are expecting rather a lot from someone they probably won't get a chance to see or talk to, unless we are back to the 'Harry is here' flag, as for rebuilding Basra.....:rolleyes:

No, lets not do that lap again. :wacko:

Though I have to admit, it is interesting to hear the spin put on his mere presence in the war zone. If that does generate any positive PR I am all for it, as for the rest ..... well Harry has been quite specific as to his role.... With his men, in the field. :ermm:

Somehow I don't think Sandhurst does a module on "Politics and the exceptionally junior officer in the war zone".:rofl:

Skydragon 03-09-2007 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MARG
Somehow I don't think Sandhurst does a module on "Politics and the exceptionally junior officer in the war zone".:rofl:

They do 'Defence and International Affairs'. :rolleyes:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises