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.