Prince Harry

Bridget · Post by **Bridget** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 2:47 pm

I read the site rules to see if this subject was taboo and did not find anything except don't start a thread that would cause bickering. None of you would do that would you? Nah! Anyhow I was wondering how you Brits felt about Harry being in war in Afg. The only news we get is on CNN. Saw pictures of him last night and he looked really hot as a soldier. I was really wondering if his Dad and Grannie thought he had some growing up to do as he was always in the headlines and it wasn't his perfect attendance at church either. Maybe they thought getting down and dirty was what he needed. It seems to be working.

Post by **spot** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 2:54 pm

He seems to have been killing Muslims. I don't see that's going to improve the image of the Royal Family round these parts, he's going to have to live with the shame of it for the rest of his days.

Benjamin · Post by **Benjamin** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 3:16 pm

The right wing website The Drudge Report revealed the information about Prince Harry. Here is the response from the Brittish Ministry of Defence:

“I am very disappointed that foreign websites have decided to run this story without consulting us. This is in stark contrast to the highly responsible attitude that the whole of the UK print and broadcast media, along with a small number of overseas outlets, who have entered into an understanding with us over the coverage of Prince Harry on operations,” General Dannatt said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 89335.html

Why do right-wingers hate the troops and want them in harm’s way?

Helen · Post by **Helen** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 3:51 pm

spot;788530 wrote: He seems to have been killing Muslims. I don't see that's going to improve the image of the Royal Family round these parts, he's going to have to live with the shame of it for the rest of his days.

no one thought any differently about prince andrew when he fought in the faulklands war and if this hadnt been leaked to the world, harry would still be there now. this is what he and thousands of other soldiers have trained for.

you join the forces to fight for your country, who ever you are.

in the first and second world wars there were never enquiries about who shot who and where, they were there to do a job and getting killed or killing was unfortunately all part of it.

thousands of others will have to live with it too not just harry.

theia · Post by **theia** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 4:27 pm

I found him very likeable in the interviews he gave.

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:25 pm

theia;788570 wrote: I found him very likeable in the interviews he gave.

Me, too. I especially liked the part where he said he hadn't had a shower

in four days... I think that's what it was. Anyway, him saying it was the most

normal he'd ever felt... well, he just seemed so warm, and honest.

I really liked that about him, of course I like both he and his big brother

and have for some time.

I did hear that he's been pulled already though, because of the reports.

He spent Christmas over there, pretty amazing.

:-6

moonpie · Post by **moonpie** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:30 pm

Hats off to Harry. I have to give him so much credit for trying to do what he wants to do. I certainly hope that nothing happens to him, but I am glad to see that he was pulled out of there. He would sure get a hansom ransom if somebody scooped him. Nonetheless, I would be proud to call myself a Brit.

BTW Brigit, NICE AVATAR!!

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:19 am

I think its admirable that someone who is obviously very privileged has served with his fellow citizens in a totally justified, but also very difficult war. It always takes courage to be involved in conflict no matter what the causes or media comment. Also in terms of the comment that he is "killing Muslims" he is a serving solider in a recognized theater of war fighting against the Taliban, with support from the Afghan army who are also Muslims. So that's a very provocative description of his activities, which sounds more like something Abu Hamsa would say.

Imladris · Post by **Imladris** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:25 am

So he's royal, so what, to his comrades he's Lt Wales and he's doing his job and working with the lads.

I should imagine that he's mightily pizzed off that he's had to come home and his troop is still there.

Good for him I say. He's better than his uncle Edward who couldn't even finish the training!

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 4:55 am

Good for Harry. I felt very sorry for him when it seemed he wouldn't be able to serve as he wanted to and well done the MOD or whoever for sorting it (even if they can't equip the army properly).

It's tough for the young royals to do something for themselves that can't be dismissed as because of their background and some have made awful twits of themselves trying, but at least active service in the armed forces can't be taken away from you as an achievement - bullets do not swerve for crowns.

What with young Zara riding in one of the more dangerous forms of horse racing (point-to-point?) they can't be accused of lacking courage!

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 5:00 am

Wills is to serve on the front line aboard a Royal Navy warship.

Detailed plans are being drawn up for the future King to fight for his country at his own request — like his war hero brother Harry, 23.

I think the younger generation Royals are a real credit to our country...They are wanting to live more normally and its often been said that Wills and Harry have both spoken about how they would love to have not been royalty due to how they get treated. Prime example here I suppose, young lad, joins army and wants to do what he signed up for and the bloody media go and spoil it for him and his regiment. Shame on them I say.

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 5:53 pm

I think we have a new style royal family heading our way. And about time too. Long live Princess Diana and her boys :-4

moonpie · Post by **moonpie** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:37 pm

I totally agree, we need some new blood with a different slant on who they are. I am truly proud of Harry and William. I have no use for their father or grand parents. Don't mean to offend you Brits, but as far as I am concerned this BS type of Royalty has got to end.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:54 pm

Gotta admire the man. He's not the only rich kid to do such a thing, but he's right at the top of the list of men with the most to lose and least to gain from such actions. I agree with Jester that Drudge should've kept his keyboard shut about this.

Y'know, Elvis did the same thing during Viet Nam. Refused to take the easy route of USO tours like he could have and enlisted as a combat troop instead.

Our world's future is always secure so long as we have young people like Harry around.

moonpie · Post by **moonpie** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 8:38 pm

Even though Canada's soveriignty is the Queen, I have had a huge problem with that until Diana came into being. She ws such great person, and I know she would have been so proud to raise some "real sons".

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 8:39 pm

Accountable;789321 wrote: Gotta admire the man. He's not the only rich kid to do such a thing, but he's right at the top of the list of men with the most to lose and least to gain from such actions. I agree with Jester that Drudge should've kept his keyboard shut about this.

Y'know, Elvis did the same thing during Viet Nam. Refused to take the easy route of USO tours like he could have and enlisted as a combat troop instead.

Our world's future is always secure so long as we have young people like Harry around.

During VIET NAM? Elvis went in in 1958... didn't realize we were in Viet

Nam that early!!

;)

moonpie · Post by **moonpie** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 9:16 pm

I definitely agree. I am though not sure if Elvis was in the Viet Nam crap either. None the less, Harry is a real trooper, and his mother would be proud of him. I sure don't want to see anything happen to him.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:27 am

valerie;789324 wrote: During VIET NAM? Elvis went in in 1958... didn't realize we were in Viet

Nam that early!!

;)
Oops

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:38 am

theia;788570 wrote: I found him very likeable in the interviews he gave.

I'd agree with you there, he came across as a very nice young man .

Lets hope he also had some mile high fun just like his big brov before he went out killing all those Muslims :rolleyes:

Post by **spot** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:59 am

Or, indeed, not.

The basis of governance in the UK is a constitutional hereditary monarchy. It's not going to stand well in a multicultural society if millions of people regard an heir to that throne as bathed in the blood of martyrs, especially if he had to travel half way round the globe to find them and took superior weaponry with him just to swing the odds in his own favour. Damned unsporting I call it. Honourable man against noble savage might be traditional but rich playboy holding a billion dollars worth of high tech goods which go boom, especially when attached to night sights, is safer than partying at Stringfellows.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 4:29 am

I thought the effectiveness of the low tech insurgent against regular forces had been pretty much settled since Vietnam. Whatever you may think of the issues involved, William has proved he's got what it takes to lead men under fire. For someone from his protected background, can't you see why that might be important to him?

Post by **spot** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 4:49 am

Tell me you're not trying to be serious, please. I'd hate to think you meant that.

The number of UK troops killed on operations in Afghanistan since 2001 stands at 89 (20 February 2008). Of those killed, 26 died from accidents, illness, or non-combat injuries, according to the Ministry of Defence.

63 casualties? Compared to tens of thousands of Afghans? "the effectiveness of the low tech insurgent against regular forces had been pretty much settled since Vietnam"? Sixty thousand against two and a half million? Forty gooks are worth less than one Western serviceman so the gooks came out ahead?

The only thing that stops a conflict is the invading army going home after negotiating a successful outcome for the people who actually live there, since you're quoting Vietnam at me. All the Vietnamese wanted was to be left in peace. Nothing about knocking over dominos, nothing about the inevitable victory of the Communist International, just simple nationalism thwarted for a while by a war machine grown mad on its own wealth.

Kipling would cry if he saw how low the moral capacity of the English has sunk. Nobody reads Stalky & Co any longer? Kipling wrote about who was right for what reason, he didn't demonize the defenders just because they were in conflict with the British. Neither did his characters.

For a British prince to go to a country where ten UK troops a year have died is immaterial as far as proving his manhood goes. It might show foolhardiness on the part of his commanders buckling under pressure from the Head of the Armed Forces and it smacks entirely of a PR stunt in full swing.

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 5:36 am

I think it will have been good for hm to get among normal people, sometimes royalty and such are toatlly cut off from real life and real people and end up having no idea about the people they are supposed to be serving. He seems like a down to earth chap,, like his mum:-4

Post by **spot** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 8:18 am

Normal people sit in forward command posts directing bomb releases and strafing targets? What a strange world you seem to live in. I'd not call them normal.

Post by **spot** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:26 pm

Tell me, in what way has he volunteered to go to a place that has increased risk? What increased risk are you talking about? Increased compared to what?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:48 pm

Bridget;788526 wrote: I read the site rules to see if this subject was taboo and did not find anything except don't start a thread that would cause bickering. None of you would do that would you? Nah! Anyhow I was wondering how you Brits felt about Harry being in war in Afg. The only news we get is on CNN. Saw pictures of him last night and he looked really hot as a soldier. I was really wondering if his Dad and Grannie thought he had some growing up to do as he was always in the headlines and it wasn't his perfect attendance at church either. Maybe they thought getting down and dirty was what he needed. It seems to be working.

Why would such a subject be taboo?

It's probably done the royal family some good in that at least he was prepared to "do his bit" as it were. Most would probably ascribe his motive as being fairly decent in nature rather than just a cynical ploy by the govt.

Won't make any difference to hostility to the war and our part in it. Tolerance of the royal family is ambivalent at best it's remarkable they've survived this long as it is. They need to be very careful what they do.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 12:53 am

Prince Harry's motives in wishing to fight alongside ordinary Britons are understandable. At the same time, he is not an ordinary Briton and enjoys a great number of benefits his co-fighters can only dream of. He is said to be privately furious that he's been thwarted in being sent home, now his cover has been blown.

The other side of the story is that, in fulfilling his own ambitions, noble if you like, he has put his mates in extra danger. This is not just about him and his personal desire for fulfillment, excitement, service, whatever you want to call it. Not so gung ho as toting a big gun and blasting nasty baddies, but maybe he can find something else, less glam, but more useful to do back home. The downside to celebrity.

Imladris · Post by **Imladris** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:09 am

Prince Andrew fought in the Falklands, Prince Harry goes to Afghanistan.

Margaret Thatcher's son got lost in the desert and lived the life of a playboy.

Tony Blair's sons have done exactly what for their country?

Seems to me we should be prouder of the royal family than our elected representatives - you wouldn't get them sending their sons into a war zone, far too dangerous.

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:27 am

Just because Harry is a Royal doesnt mean he cant follow his dream and enter a profession of his choice. Were in the 20th century now, times have changed, the royal family are changing and for the better I feel. That is greatly due to Princess Diana I feel.

Not along ago, Harry was in the news for all the wrong reasons in the Royal families eyes and many stuck up peeps who dont think he deserves to lead a normal life.

Finally Prince harry had found a way to shake off the "Heir and a Spare" tag the media stuck on him and he was able to make his mother, and his family and his country proud. He was desperate to be a soldier because it was one job where their was no bullsh*t. You either have the balls for it or you dont, doesnt matter where your from once on the battlefield. I feel he craves that equality. He wanted to prove to everyone that his life wasnt pointless and he was worth so much more than the headline "Harry pissed again"..

Im gutted for Harry, who doesnt see himself as a "Hero" but a lad who was never going to be an academic or a royal puppet who would turn up for the opening of a local factory and do small talk and be sober lol.... Hary wanted to be a soldier, he fought for it and he trained for it. When most disagreed and said he mustnt be allowed to he created an unholy stink because for the first time in his life he found something he wanted to do with his life.........Now thats been taken away from him by the bloody media that ended ( in a non direct way of course) up taking his mother from him.........God I feel sorry for this lad.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:06 am

Chezzie;790263 wrote: Just because Harry is a Royal doesnt mean he cant follow his dream and enter a profession of his choice. Were in the 20th century now,...
um ...... never mind.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:08 am

Spot: "Ten thousand pounds of education drops to a ten rupee jezail." Though I may have misquoted slightly, the intent is there. Kipling was well aware of the dangers of fighting "unbalanced" wars in Afganistan. British troops are fighting in an area NO-ONE has managed to subdue since the Mongols, or possibly Alexander. The Russians gave it a good go with a (then) fully modern superpower army and suffered heavily. If British casualties are so low, then it is a tribute to the skill of the troops there. I just think you are letting your dislike of our intervention devalue what Harry has done.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:07 pm

Jester: Sounds like you know what you are talking about in terms of active service. Well said, especially the half a face bit.

I'm relieved to say I've never had to do that. Would have gone if called (bit old now), but I'd be a rotten soldier. Too much imagination. Went into the closely related profession of teaching instead! (Have since left)

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:32 pm

This thread was about Prince Harry - not anyone else's tough active service, not about the Middle East wars.

A tearaway prince, priveleged etc etc, who has been photographed blind drunk, all over party girls, dressed as a Nazi etc etc, suddenly is photographed looking rugged and manly, in a war zone. Great photos, professionally taken.

He is not an ordinary person. He gets all the good stuff about being a prince. There's a downside too. He cannot always just do whatever takes his fancy, even if it is noble. Maybe he did want to go and fight. I expect he was looked after in a way his co-soldiers were not. (Can you imagine his senior officers taking their eyes off him for one moment!!) There have been some bitter letters in the English press from others whose sons were not so looked after. But his presence did put the others in extra spotlight, and therefore danger.

Or, as some newspapers are now suggesting, this has been a cynical propoganda drive, to boost disenchantment with continuing engagement. Enlist now, and fight for your country. Your prince did !!!

Sigh.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:02 pm

Fair enough. To come back onto topic:

He's young. Young people do stupid things. I did. Bet you did too. Fortunately the press weren't interested in us because of our Mums and Dads, and the pictures of me or you aged 20 after a heavy session aren't plastered all over the tabloids.

Not all people are the sort of characters who make good representatives for charities - not a fault, just a matter of personality type. Harry's clearly not the type, but if he can contribute in the Armed Forces, good for him.

You have a point about putting his mates in danger, but if the Taliban didn't know he was there, then he wasn't - and as soon as some twit went public he was pulled out, so he didn't. Although I see and sympathise (to some extent) with your point of view I think the facts as I am currently aware of them suggest that all the effort went into making sure that he wasn't a danger to his men. Any more than any young 2nd Lieutenant is.

Actually, I suspect he'd make a very good Regimental officer. Whether he's got the grey matter to make is past colonel is a moot point, but I reckon he's got "natural leader" plastered all over him.

Post by **spot** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:05 pm

Jester;790198 wrote: You think he was safer in the UK?

I think he has the level of safety that heads of state enjoy and that he could go anywhere on the planet with impunity. I do think - and if you like I'll even go and fetch figures - that the average UK serviceman is safer in Afghanistan than a man of the same age group is in the UK. I'm not trying to hedge, it's just that those are the only easy figures to find for comparison. Would they be meaningful?

What I'm quite sure of is that the average of ten deaths a year among all the UK servicemen in Afghanistan is effectively identical to zero. It's a background hiss, it's not a meaningful significant heavy duty risk. I suggest it's the sort of figure the army would find entirely acceptable in exercises, for example, in that fewer would mean the exercises weren't realistic - does that tally with your service experience? Not what would they most prefer, just what would they think was reasonable in training that number of troops.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:09 pm

spot;788530 wrote: He seems to have been killing Muslims. I don't see that's going to improve the image of the Royal Family round these parts, he's going to have to live with the shame of it for the rest of his days.

For fun ?

Or because theres a war going on ? :rolleyes:

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:40 pm

Galbally;788804 wrote: I think its admirable that someone who is obviously very privileged has served with his fellow citizens in a totally justified, but also very difficult war. It always takes courage to be involved in conflict no matter what the causes or media comment. Also in terms of the comment that he is "killing Muslims" he is a serving solider in a recognized theater of war fighting against the Taliban, with support from the Afghan army who are also Muslims. So that's a very provocative description of his activities, which sounds more like something Abu Hamsa would say.

Whilst I agree with the rest of your post I continue to take exception to calling it "totally justified".

I still maintain that you cannot fight terrorists with tanks and helicopter gunships - they just melt back into the general population and the attempt just increases the forces arranged against you.

The way to combat terrorists is with intelligence led police operations, covert if necessary, but directed against very specific targets and this cannot possibly be achieved by sending in a tank division or three and invading the whole country.

The Afghan government never had control over Osama Bin Laden nor did they have him in their custody. How then can they be expected to hand him over within two months when the entire force of the "Coalition" have not managed it in five years.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:49 pm

I do think - and if you like I'll even go and fetch figures - that the average UK serviceman is safer in Afghanistan than a man of the same age group is in the UK. I'm not trying to hedge, it's just that those are the only easy figures to find for comparison. Would they be meaningful?

Hi Spot. Ah. The eternal question about figures, no matter how honestly got: what the F do they actually MEAN?

Your figure about Afghan service could equally well be regarded as a great tribute to the professionalism of the troops...not that 18 to 23 year olds are well known for their sensible behaviour:rolleyes:...

I think you are letting your quite clearly genuine dislike of our presence there to influence your attitude to the men on the ground, and I don't think that's fair on them. Also, it's not fair on you, because as a result, I can't tell if your apparent dislike of the Royals is part of that issue or another one in its own right. :-3

Post by **spot** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:56 pm

It's entirely fair on them, they volunteered and thereby gave the politicos the option of killing large numbers of foreigners. It's the fault of the volunteers down at the root of things, beneath all the layers of argument.

I'm a huge admirer of our current monarchy and I'd hate to see the UK under any other constitution.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:01 pm

JAB;791223 wrote: You know what? I feel sorry for Harry and William. For no matter what they do, they can't win. It's the proverbial rock and a hard place for both of them.

He's brave, living a commoner's life - good on him!

No wait, he's foolish for putting others in harm's way - how dare he?!

What is it that we actually expect him to do?

Hardly living a commoner's life - he is an officer after all :wah: