BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at

Subject: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Stu
Date: 16 May 07 - 02:11 PM

"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;"

Yeah right - unless Grannie's the Queen that is, then unlike your nameskae you get to stay out of the fray dear old Nan's government is embroiled in.

Nice to see after a thousand years under the Norman Yoke it's still one rule for them, one rule for every other poor sod. Is a Royal's life still worth more than one of us proles after all this time?

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 07 - 02:13 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/05/16/iraq.harry/index.html

Not HIS choice.

"LONDON, England (CNN) -- Britain's Prince Harry will not serve in Iraq as a troop commander because of "a number of specific threats" against him, the UK's top general says.

A spokesperson for the 22-year-old prince says he is "very disappointed" by the decision.

Chief of the general staff Sir Richard Dannatt said Wednesday: "I have decided today that Prince Harry will not deploy as a troop commander with his squadron. "

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 May 07 - 02:17 PM

His presence would make his unit a choice target as well as himself. The General Staff decision was the right one.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Stu
Date: 16 May 07 - 02:24 PM

It doesn't matter whose choice it is, it's the implication of the decision that interests me, right or wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: GUEST
Date: 16 May 07 - 02:27 PM

Andrew protected too. Was never near the heat in Falklands as reported.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Pseudolus
Date: 16 May 07 - 02:30 PM

The last squadron I would want to be in would be his. He's probably a nice guy and all, but who wants THAT bull's eye on their forehead?!?!

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: MMario
Date: 16 May 07 - 02:32 PM

Same type of decision was often made about various entertainers who enlisted and/or were drafted - they were kept back from combat *because* they were targets.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Wesley S
Date: 16 May 07 - 02:51 PM

Gee - Aren't ALL of the men over there targets?

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Leadfingers
Date: 16 May 07 - 02:55 PM

Look at WW Two , and the 'priority' prisoners who were related to VIP's ! Colditz had a few of them ! And they didnt have suicide bombers then , except the Japanese , of course .

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: MMario
Date: 16 May 07 - 02:56 PM

you know what I meant!

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 07 - 03:32 PM

They are all targets.
British soldiers have ,say, a one in a thousand chance of being killed in a tour.
If the insurgents have indeed decided to concentrate on harry's unit, it takes some heat off others but pushes up the odds on those guys.
Not a nice thought for their families.
If it also draws in activists from US sectors and from abroad, the odds really start to stack up on the chosen ones.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Peace
Date: 16 May 07 - 03:38 PM

It is little known that baby-faced Audie Murphy was one of the most decorated American people from WWII. The list includes the Medal of Honor. One just never knows.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 07 - 03:46 PM

Peace,

I knew that. I was on the search effort to find him when the plane he was in crashed. ( I was in the Civil Air Patrol, as a radio operator)

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: jacqui.c
Date: 16 May 07 - 03:49 PM

I feel sorry for Harry. I get the impression that he wanted to serve over there and must be feeling very sore that his family situation did not allow him to do it. Being born into that family has its disadvantages as well as advantages.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 07 - 03:50 PM

http://www.audiemurphy.com/welcome.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: artbrooks
Date: 16 May 07 - 03:51 PM

Being a random target is bad enough - been there. Being a special target because your commander has everyone on the other side gunning for him would be an intolerable situation. Personally, I'm sorry for young Leftenant Windsor (is that right?) if a military career is what he wants, but the senior British Army commanders did the right thing, for the sake of everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 07 - 03:53 PM

Agreed, Art.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Sorcha
Date: 16 May 07 - 05:03 PM

Seems like being born into that family is mostly drawbacks. I know I wouldn't want any part of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 16 May 07 - 05:20 PM

His presence would put other troops at more risk. It's just a shame any of them have to go.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 May 07 - 05:24 PM

I'd have thought that having been identified so clearly by the media as an appropriate target for jihadists, he will continue to be a target wherever he goes. As will the rest of his family.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Gurney
Date: 16 May 07 - 05:35 PM

Norman Yoke, Stigweard? I thought the royal family were Hanover/Windsor, although his dad was a Greek. A good many of the aristocracy are Normans, still, of course.

I do understand your asperity, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 16 May 07 - 05:37 PM

Do you really believe everything you read in the press???? or hear over whatever media????.....Who says he is not going???? What better way of drawing attention away from his presence there than saying he is not going? Is he really not going?................

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Rog Peek
Date: 16 May 07 - 05:55 PM

So, he'll never be a real soldier, only ever get to playing at one.
Comforting to know they don't always get what they want.
I bet he'll end up with a rack of medals though for all of that. After all, look at his dad!

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 16 May 07 - 06:22 PM

A real soldier does not have to be a tank commander..she can be a nurse, a legal person, a computer specialist, a mechanic...mg

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 May 07 - 06:54 PM

Actually Art, his army identity is Lieutenant (pronounced, as you said, Leftenant) Wales, as his parents were Prince and Princess of Wales.

Real name of course is indeed Windsor, as the german sounding names (Hanover & Battenberg) were discarded in favour of the more English sounding Windsor & Mountbatten.

Stig, both Andrew and Harry were willing to go in with their units and do the jobs they signed up for. One thing that has always been true of the royals, they have never lacked guts and determination (with one possible exception).

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: GUEST
Date: 16 May 07 - 07:03 PM

When will the Royal family produce someone interested and talented in the Arts? A painter, a writer, a poet, a singer, anything that offers the people a better alternative to being a trained killer.
What a waste of money and space they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: skipy
Date: 16 May 07 - 07:16 PM

Hey Guest, see my Ebay site, I can sell you troll food at the right price. Wales was prepared to go whilst using his real name, are you even prepared to go?
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 16 May 07 - 07:28 PM

No one should have to go. No one should have gone. F***ing stupid war.

Okay, wait. One guy should go. Send George.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: skipy
Date: 16 May 07 - 07:30 PM

SRS, you are so, so right, BRING THEM HOME, NOW!
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: billybob
Date: 16 May 07 - 07:32 PM

I may be wrong guest, but Prince Charles plays cello, and is a very talented painter!Also interested in architecture and they say the Queen is a really good mimic!Princess Margaret was the patron of the English Folk Dance and Song Society and they all like a good old Scottish dance.
But then I am a royalist and my dad has an MBE what would I know?
I think if Harry went he would put his comrades in danger,I am sure he is gutted but imagine the press coverage if he was captured or killed?
No win situation I think?

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: GUEST
Date: 16 May 07 - 07:35 PM

skipy, don't use someone else's "old" posts in your thread. His real name, now that's funny.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Barry Finn
Date: 16 May 07 - 07:35 PM

Didn't they produce one artist, back before the first WW but shut him away as a disgrace.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: The Walrus
Date: 16 May 07 - 08:46 PM

Part of the problem was the media and the Press Office.

If they'd all kept their gobs shut, Lt. Wales would probably have gone over with his squadron like any other subaltern (and more or less taken his chances like any other light tankie) without a fanfare (until he came back), without handing a propaganda victory to the insurgants and without feeding the trolls or providing an opportunities for the nameless ones to gibber on this site.

Walrus.

BTW. How many 'National' level politicians (either side of the pond) have family involved in the war they* started?



* I don't care which way they voted, I believe in collective responsibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: number 6
Date: 16 May 07 - 08:51 PM

Barry ... are you referring to Prince John,the youngest son of King George V?

If so he was hidden away from the public as he suffered from epilepsy. He was not an 'artist'. He passed away at the age of 13 (in 1919) after suffering a severe seizure.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: mg
Date: 16 May 07 - 09:08 PM

oh for heavens sakes..the enemy would have known where he was regardless if there was fanfare or not. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Peace
Date: 16 May 07 - 09:18 PM

Well, now they'll know where he ain't.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 17 May 07 - 12:08 AM

I don't think Harry would have been "shot at". However, I think an all-out effort would have been mounted to capture, display, humiliate, torture, and execute him in a very public way, documented on video clips from Al Jazeera. I'm sure he's upset he can't accompany his comrades into war, but this was the wisest course of action.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Barry Finn
Date: 17 May 07 - 01:31 AM

Yes #6 I weas, I thought he was a musician of sorts, didn't realize he died that young.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: alanabit
Date: 17 May 07 - 02:37 AM

What Lonesome EJ said.
I am not a supporter of monarchy, which I regard as an absurd institution. However, there is no reason to believe that this Harry Windsor bloke did not want to do the job he was trained for. He may not be very bright, but he isn't chicken. In this case, he would have faced unreasonable danger himself and have brought even more unreasonable danger to his comrades.
Real progress will be made when all the troops are brought back from this disgraceful shambles. Then no one will need to endanger their life, health or sanity for Mr. Bush's absurd delusions.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 17 May 07 - 03:25 AM

Barry - there was a very moving and thought provoking programme called 'The Lost Prince' by Stephen Poliakov on TV a while back, which dramatised his short, sad little life. He was born into a privileged family who were just as ignorant and superstitious about epilepsy as any 'country dweller'. He managed to avoid the public asylums because he was a prince, but he was still incarcerated, in (to borrow a phrase from Ian Fleming) a mink-lined prison. Even in 1900, people were locked away because they had epilepsy, ecxema, diabetes, depression and other illnesses that we now understand and can treat. The play suggests that he also had learning difficulties and at 13, had the mental age of 6 or 7. He spent his last years in a cottage on the Sandringham estate, where he gardened, painted, played the trumpet and took lessons with the only person who believed he shouldn't be hidden, his nanny, Lalla.

As for Andrew, he did actually go to the Falkland Islands. For a fortnight. His Naval career and movements were not publicised as nephew Harry's have been, neither was the fact that he spent the majority of the Falklands campaign in Portland, Dorset.

Whenever the Windsor family does produce anyone remotely inclined towards the arts, the public slags him off and calls him a coward - Edward decided he really didn't want to be a Marine and so left with a storm of jeers, catcalling and insults from the press. OK, so he hasn't done particularly well at his chosen career, but at least he's one of the few of that family who've had the guts to stand up and say No to the military as a way of life.

It would seem that despite being mentally challenged, hidden away from public life and almost forgotten, little Prince John was indeed, the happiest of them all.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: GUEST,Batsman Holding
Date: 17 May 07 - 03:42 AM

It was the right decision. It would have been the right decision for all the other troops too- they shouldn't have sent any of them. Here's my solution- we organise a cricket tournament between Sunnis, Shias, Kurds, Iranians, Syrians, Americans and British... we need one more to make two groups of four... how about dividing Britain into England and Scotland. The winner to rule, that's fair isn't it? At least England and America would be safe.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Stu
Date: 17 May 07 - 04:09 AM

"asperity" - excellent word Gurney!

After watching the news the general impression I get is that soldiers families are pissed off their sons and husbands are sent to be shot at whilst Harry is deemed too valuable. The soldiers themselves however, recognise everyone around Harry will draw fire from every insurgent for miles, and they think that's unfair on the men.

Personally, I think this has more to do with PR than whether the boy should actually fight or not. If he was caught or killed the propaganda value to the insurgents would be immeasurable. - nothing the west could do could counter it.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: MikeofNorthumbria
Date: 17 May 07 - 05:38 AM

Karlo (the "lost" Marx Brother) said that when history repeats itself, the first time round is a tragedy, the second time a farce. I think he was referring to the careers of Napoleon I and Napoleon III, but similar factors may be operating here.

During the 1914-18 war, the then Prince of Wales (the future Edward VIII) requested permission to go to the front and take his chances with the rest of his generation. When reminded of his constitutional responsibilities, he replied "My father has four sons". However, his request was refused by the Army high command. Field-Marshal Haig put it something like this - "I don't mind him being killed, but it would be damned embarrasing if he were taken prisoner."

Clearly, the army big-wigs who decided that Harry shouldn't go made the same calculation as Haig. And given the immense political value of Harry as a prisoner, it was certainly the correct one. But the young man himself may have to pay a considerable price - just as his great-grandfather's brother did.

It seems likely that the hangover of "survivor's guilt" which followed his rejection made a significant contribution to Edward VIII's subsequent misfortunes. As to the impact on Harry's future - time alone will tell. But he has my sympathy.

Speaking as someone who hasn't been in the military, it's hard for me to assess the impact of such a refusal on the mind of a young officer. But one might recall here the words of Shakespeare's King Harry on the eve of Agincourt:

"And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall count themselves accursed they were not here
And hold their manhoods cheap while any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's Day!"

Meanwhile, the dying goes on ... when will they ever learn?

Wassail!

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 May 07 - 05:47 AM

Re Prince Andrew.
He was 22 years in the Navy, and in the Falklands he flew as a so-called Exocet decoy to protect warships from missile attack.

Throughout the war he flew on various combat missions, helped in casualty evacuation, transport, and search and air rescue.


It is difficult to see how he could have visited Britain during the conflict. There were no flights until Stanley fell.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Big Phil
Date: 17 May 07 - 06:41 AM

Hurahhhhhhhh for the Royals, the saviours of our Isle.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: The PA
Date: 17 May 07 - 07:04 AM

This may have already been covered, but i think he probably joined knowing it was a safe bet he wouldnt be sent. Anyway, what a pity my friends son wasn't given the same consideration, he's in the marines and has been out there more than once. What makes Harry Wales so special, if he didnt want to fight what did he join up for. And no, I dont subscribe to the opinion that he's 'gutted' that he cant go. Send the whole b****y family if I had my choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 17 May 07 - 07:10 AM

Stilly River Sage
George AND TONY!

Mike of Northumbria

Which side was Edward VIII planning to fight on?

Rog Peek

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 May 07 - 07:23 AM

PA, all the evidence is that he did want to go.
He seemed very pleased when it was decided he could go, and that was the impression he gave to a friend of mine who spoke to him at Lydd Camp a few weeks ago.
The consideration was not just for him, but for his comrades too.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: GUEST,Darowyn
Date: 17 May 07 - 07:38 AM

"What makes Harry Wales so special?"
He's third in line to the throne. Anything involving him is headline news throught out the world.
Any injury to him would be a massive propaganda coup for the bloodthirsty thugs who are hiding behind the banner of Islam right now.

He is politically special. Live with it.
Cheers
Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 17 May 07 - 07:58 AM

PEACE: I don't know how old you are, but I would guess that every film goer in the 1950s knew about Audie Murphy's army record; indeed, his autobiography "To Hell the Back" was made into a very successful film in the mid-50s. And, of course, he didn't start making films until after the war.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Grab
Date: 17 May 07 - 08:42 AM

Re Andrew and the Falklands, Wikipedia and all other references I can find on the web suggest that Guest and LtS are incorrect - Andrew *did* serve, and *was* in harm's way.

I'm also faintly amused by the quote "band of brothers". Faye Turney got all that newspaper coverage and made her fortune selling her story. You think she'd have got that attention if she'd been a guy? Certainly none of the dozen-odd men who were equally in danger did.

I'm with Walrus on this one. Had the papers not published exactly where the lad was going to be, and when, and which unit he'd be in, this wouldn't ever have been an issue. The lad could have gone out there and taken his chances with the rest of his troop, as he evidently wanted to. Like the leak of Plame's ID in the US, this should never have been made public.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: GUEST
Date: 17 May 07 - 08:53 AM

Hewitt knew he was never going to Iraq. Went along with the media charade as advised.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Stu
Date: 17 May 07 - 09:00 AM

I take it you're talking about James Hewitt, Harry's dad?

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Big Mick
Date: 17 May 07 - 09:03 AM

I certainly would not want to serve in his unit. Sending him would endanger all around him.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 May 07 - 09:06 AM

Guest,
any evidence at all to support your assertion?

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Peace
Date: 17 May 07 - 09:32 AM

Tunesmith: I'm old enough to remember black and white TV, jujubes at four for a penny, chocolate bars at five cents each, movies at a quarter and the hemline going to mid knee. Old enough to remember streetcars, holding doors for women and older men, speaking when I was spoken to and paperback science fiction books for a quarter each. Old enough to remember wondering if humans would ever get to the moon, if it would ever get more advanced than the rotary phone, if it would ever be possible to beat Roner Bannister's record for the mile. Gonna be 60 in a few months.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 17 May 07 - 09:36 AM

Just a youngster then.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Peace
Date: 17 May 07 - 09:59 AM

Yeah. And that should be Roger Bannister. Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 May 07 - 10:14 AM

Roger ran so fast because Minnie was chasing him.

Behind every good man there is a woman....

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: GUEST,Rog Peek
Date: 17 May 07 - 10:19 AM

GUESTmg

Yes, I take your point, but I thought Harry had been trained to kill!

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 17 May 07 - 10:21 AM

We all know Wikipediment has got things wrong in the past. I lived near Portland all through the Falklands conflict and I know he spent less than a month away from there because I knew one of the police officers whose job it was to guard him there. In the whole of the conflict, he was 'off duty' only twice.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Midchuck
Date: 17 May 07 - 11:44 AM

Richard Lionheart took his chances, and the Muslims killed him, nicht var? Has the royal line lost its nerve?

Peter (iggerant American)

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: artbrooks
Date: 17 May 07 - 12:02 PM

Actually, Richard I was killed by the French (he himself was much more French than English) while trying to suppress a revolt by one of his vessels. The man who shot the crossbow bolt that resulted in his death (an infectious wound) was later flayed.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 May 07 - 12:07 PM

I thought King Richard died back home in England? Or in Europe somewhere... Are you sure it was the Muslims who killed him?

Anyway, here's a great solution to the problem of exposing Prince Harry to the danger of being popped off by a Jihadist:

Do what Saddam did. Field a large number of body doubles of the Prince to lead the enemy astray. With 50 or so Prince Harry lookalikes stationed all over Iraq, those Muslims won't have a clue which one is the real Prince Harry, and it will draw the blighters out and expose them to British counterfire!

This is obviously the way to go. I'm surprised no one else has thought of it.   ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 17 May 07 - 05:49 PM

Richard I, aka 'Coeur de Lion' aka 'Lionheart' spent about 6 months of his reign in England, the other 9 1/2 years he was in France and on crusade to the Holy Land. He died in France, near Limoges.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 May 07 - 06:28 PM

"vessel" or "vassal"?

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: pirandello
Date: 17 May 07 - 06:53 PM

I don't believe Harry would 'draw fire' more than any other soldier in Iraq; they're all targets, officers are not obviously officers for a very good reason and in uniform, helmet and scarf he'd look pretty much like any other soldier.
I believe he is genuinely disappointed at his commanding officer's decision-which is highly unlikely to have been the CO's alone; family and government will have had an input here.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: artbrooks
Date: 17 May 07 - 07:29 PM

Wassail, Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Beer
Date: 17 May 07 - 08:26 PM

A difficult decision was made and a correct one in my humble opinion. Can't say I'm up to any in depth discussion on the Monarchy because it never was my thing. But it's a very old institution and one even in these trouble time that I do respect.
Georgiansilver, I think your right. And Big Mick couldn't agree with you more.
Beer (adrien)

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 May 07 - 11:46 PM

"Actually, Richard I was killed by the French (he himself was much more French than English) while trying to suppress a revolt by one of his vessels wassails."

Ah. I see.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Peace
Date: 18 May 07 - 12:45 AM

Death Of A King

"For such a brave and noble man, King Richard's death came about in a rather strange way. In Chalus, Aquitaine, a peasant plowing his fields came upon a treasure. This treasure consisted of some gold statues and coins. The feudal lord claimed the treasure from his vassal, Richard in turn claimed the treasure from the lord, who refused. This prompted Richard to siege the village.

During the siege Richard was riding close to the castle without the protection of full armor. He spotted an archer with bow in hand on the wall aiming a shot at him. It is said Richard paused to applaud the Bowman. He was struck in the shoulder with the arrow and refused treatment for his wound. Infection set in and Richard the Lionheart died on April the 6th 1199. He was buried in the Fontvraud Abbey in Anjou France."

from the www.

From Wikipaedia

Reign 6 July 1189 – 6 April 1199
Coronation 3 September 1189
Born 8 September 1157
Beaumont Palace, Oxford
Died 6 April 1199 (aged 41)
Châlus, in Limousin
Buried Fontevraud Abbey, Fontevraud-l'Abbaye, France
Predecessor Henry II
Successor John
Consort Berengaria of Navarre
(c. 1165/1170 – 1230)
Issue Died without legitimate posterity
Royal House Plantagenet
Father Henry II (1133–1189)
Mother Eleanor of Aquitaine (1124–1204)

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 18 May 07 - 02:57 AM

Buried Fontevraud Abbey, Fontevraud-l'Abbaye, France


Only a bit of him is buried there.. his brains and his heart went to two other locations so he's got more than one tomb.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Peace
Date: 18 May 07 - 03:04 AM

Absent again.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 May 07 - 03:17 AM

Liz, Andrew was on Invincible, as also was Brian Hanrahan the BBC correspondent.
Would he not have noticed if Andrew had disappeared for weeks?

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Teribus
Date: 18 May 07 - 06:18 AM

"Edward decided he really didn't want to be a Marine and so left with a storm of jeers, catcalling and insults from the press." - LtS

Nothing could have been further from the truth Liz - While at CTCRM Lympstone, Edward could not complete the training, although he did try his damndest to. The CO of Lympstone at the time was put under enormous pressure to allow him to "Pass for Duty" on the understanding that he (Edward) would then resign his Commission. The CO refused to bow to this pressure as it would create a precedent and reflect badly on the standards required.

Andrew did serve onboard Illustrious during the Falklands War, at least according to his fellow FAA pilots.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: GUEST
Date: 18 May 07 - 08:05 PM

Let me see if I have this right---dear Harry is the same person that dressed as Hitler, is a party sort of guy---or is it sot of fellow and he might be a target.

Let me now sort this out. Only he is a target? The other "paupers" as opposed to "princes" are not?   

Gad, what would dear old Harry (Henry V) think---you know the fellow---"..once more unto the breach"   Avoiding an X rated comment I think that there is only one breach that this Harry ever tried to breach.

Black Adder could have done more---bless the crown for protecting what should have been the re-incarnation of Harry V ( but, then again, it was not St Crispins Day---so why fight with him)


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: GUEST
Date: 18 May 07 - 08:08 PM

Oops I lost my cookie. Will see Doctor tomorrow

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: danensis
Date: 19 May 07 - 11:45 AM

The only reason the British hang on to the Saxe-Coburg-Gothe mob is as a permanent reminder of the dangers of inbreeding,

John

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 19 May 07 - 01:01 PM

And I guess you have something better to hang on to?????

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 May 07 - 01:20 PM

Bill Hahn,
He is not the only target. That is the point.
The extra insurgent attention he will attract puts his comrades at a disproportionate risk.
The odds against a British soldier being killed on a tour is around a thousand to one. They accept that. It is Tommy's lot.
harry's presence may take heat off others, but draws in activists from other British areas, US areas and abroad pushing up the chances of getting killed to unacceptable levels.
I do not know why it took so long for them to work that out.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Peace
Date: 19 May 07 - 02:17 PM

This thread wants--it seems--to single out the guy because his superiors made a decision. Folks, ya don't find too many political leaders or capitalists or generals on the front lines. The day we have that, you'll see a very quick end to warfare.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 19 May 07 - 04:42 PM

Peace: Exactly. I recall the scene in the Michael Moore filmwhere he approaches a congressman and asks about sending his son to Iraq. Congressman did a great job of getting the hell out of there and not making a statement.   

I forget the song that talks about this---I believe it was by Pete Seeger or Tom Paxton---sending the bankers, politician, etc to war.

As to the comment re: Prince Harry---I guess Henry V should have stayed home as well. Look the risks he put Fluellen and all those poor children in. Seems to me that everyone is a target in Iraq and Afghanistan who is from the West.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 May 07 - 08:47 PM

Don't be disingenuous Bill.

Obviously every soldier is a target in any war, in a general sort of way.

What is being pointed out here is that no ordinary soldier is SPECIFICALLY singled out by an enemy. Who lives or dies is almost always a matter of chance.

There are, however, some individuals whose deaths would constitute a propaganda victory for the enemy. Such individuals are singled out for special attention, rendering their situation many times more dangerous, and of course having the same effect on all of those in close proximity.

That concept should be fairly easy to grasp (the army eventually figured it out, so intelligent people should not find it too difficult), and explains the decision of Harry's superiors.

A rare example of military intelligence!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 19 May 07 - 09:06 PM

"Folks, ya don't find too many political leaders or capitalists or generals on the front lines. The day we have that, you'll see a very quick end to warfare."

I won't argue with many, but John McCain's son has been in Iraq now for quite some time. It's interesting that up until about 100 years ago, it was customary for the sons of powerful families to serve in the military. Lincoln's son was a Union Cavalry Captain, Theodore Roosevelt served on the front lines, as did his son I believe. John Kennedy's PT boat was sunk by a Japanese cruiser, and his elder brother Joe was killed in action. For better or worse, many congressmen, mayors, senators etc raised their own companies in the Civil War and served at the head of them. As far as I know, such duty by the entitled did little to end mankind's tendencies toward war.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry - Royals can't be shot at
From: Peace
Date: 19 May 07 - 09:17 PM

I am aware that there are some who serve. There are many more who don't. And they protect their kids. As to it not ending warfare, you just named a half dozen people in an army that's had millions.