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

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.