There's something RIGHT in the state of Denmark

[Lincsong]

fftopic: Let's not delve too far into the political here. I don't want this thread shut down.

 

[carebear]

fftopic: Let's not delve too far into the political here. I don't want this thread shut down.

Aye aye Cap'n.

 

[carebear]

Carebear, that makes sense. The comments over the Bush kids were the same, I gather, as might have been said of Tony Blair and whoever else: would they have been as much in favour of going to war if their own kids were going to be sent to fight. Certainly a idfferent consideration. It seems to me that for as long as the monarchy lasts, it makes sense that they be pressed into military service if they are going to be the (nominal) heads of regiments at a future date. Personally, though, I'd prefer it if it was all a bit more upfront that they were being trained to gain an insight into what their men would face rather than the hyperbole about "serving the country" when it's patently obvious they'll never be allowed in the way of any real harm. But hey.... I'm sure they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

I think it's important to iterate that the "not letting go into real harm" trope isn't new.

Napoleon IV died in Zululand and almost crippled the careers of Chelmsford and other senior officers as he wasn't supposed to be placed in danger... and he wasn't even technically a "Royal" any more.

His young man's enthusiasm and the lack of grown-up oversight let him get into trouble he couldn't get out of. One would expect any young officer to be as aggressive so it's easy to see how the safer technique for the Staff would be to keep them out of the war zone altogether.

Harry is/was in an light armored recon unit, their whole reason for being is to go looking for trouble and dance with it until support can come up. Given that his picture has been published everywhere, his unit was well-known and the vehicles are so labeled, figuring out which missile-magnets to attack wouldn't take much effort.

Still, I believe his determination to go was not mere window dressing but was genuine and laudatory.

 

[Edward]

Yes, I think (and with all due notice to the rules of the Lounge - thanks, Lincsong! ) you're right. I must bow to your superior knowledge on the military front - I don't know much about his posting. I don't doubt his enthusiasm, though. I should expect that the political toing and froing about his being sent out there (or not) must be very frustrating for him.

 

[HungaryTom]

Noblesse oblige

If there is a political problem to having an officer being sent overseas, then how is that officer a benefit to the service? One of the original justifications for noblemen serving automatically as officers was that of their divine right to command and rule added to their command authority and was a benefit to the fighting spirit of the regiment. It was thought common soldiers needed aristocratic officers in command positions.

But if the aristocrats are never sent into combat, what's the point? If they enlist as privates, what's the point? IMHO, the only point is that of PR, which is all that royalty is today for the most part. To look good for the masses.

Kingdom and aristocracy are the opposite of democracy – they are rooted in hierarchy. Their original purpose also. Besides their divine privileges they had also the obligations.

They had to lead their armies to the battle - NEVER as a private but as the chieftain.
There was no calculus allowed whether the enemy is stronger or the men around the king would be targeted more– which is obvious for elite guards units- they simply HAD to be there.

No show up was not an option even if the king was not an able commander – they had enough leaders to choose from the flock aristocrats or some good warlord who got to nobility anyway for that reason.

This is how ALL Central-Eastern European nations had lost their respective aristocracy, Kings, and also the senior priests in one or more decisive historic battle against Mongoleans or the Ottomans: Kulikovo, Muhi, Legnica, Kosovo polje, Varna, Mohács, etc.

Does anyone of you seriuously think that they could not do the maths and did not hear the news how their enemy has rolled up all the world before reaching their borders??? -Still they went.

But no mistake - even the winning warlord kings in history, like Alexander, Attila, Genghis, Batu, Tamerlan had to lead their armies – they were also not saved from battles, hardships of the campaign, follow-up diseases, and sometimes even early death.

Now the OXYMORON stuff with democratic kings, like the princess shooting for homeguard service…or the prince being fully trained for COMBAT not combat support or combat supply - not going to the declared war as originally announced…being commanded to halt by a commoner????

- Who decided to train him like that in the first place???? Did anyone think about the implications of tossing around a prince like that on the morale of the own side and of the enemy??? This was a lost battle without a shot being fired - and I even do not doubt that he would have gone.

Operetta.

 

["Doc" Devereux]

News just in...

It appears that Prince Harry has in fact been deployed in Afghanistan since December. Now that the news has been broken it looks like he'll have to come home for his own safety.

 

[Diamondback]

Typical media--"never pass up an opportunity to endanger those in the field..."

And since the UK has an "Official Secrets Act" 180 degrees from our Freedom of Information Act, whoever broke this one I'd say should be nailed under it.

 

[RIOT]

Yeah, you try and stay as far from the media during operations, and if they catch up, just kick in your acting skills. Here's more of Harry in the sandbox.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqJGb6GR1PY

Ghurka bodyguards?

 

[Edward]

I see from this morning's press, most of them (aside from the incredibly tasteless Sun headline (quell surprise) which celebrates his reported 30 kills) concentrate on the news that he is to return home.

I did find it rather sad to see him quoted in one headline as "this is the most normal I will ever be" - serving in such an active warzone. The price of (extreme) privilege, and all that.

 

[Feng_Li]

Typical media--"never pass up an opportunity to endanger those in the field..."

And since the UK has an "Official Secrets Act" 180 degrees from our Freedom of Information Act, whoever broke this one I'd say should be nailed under it.

The British press did not break the story, an American outlet did.

 

[carebear]

Apparently it was reported but mostly overlooked, by an Australian Woman's magazine before Drudge, who owes the Prince an apology and deserves a swift kick in the posterior, picked it up.

What possible good was done by not waiting until Cornet Wales (?) returned from his tour.

Let the man do his job and serve. :rage:

 

[Harp]

Ghurka bodyguards?

The Gees are great guys to hang around with off-duty too.

 

[carebear]

Not bodyguards. He was operating with their unit as an FO.

Crud. Everytime I check this thread I want to go kick Drudge square in his press privileges.

 

[Harp]

... I want to go kick Drudge square in his press privileges.

The Brass probably wanted to pull the kid out, and may have planted the story
towards that end ; just my humble assinthegrassgrunt opinion.

 

[carebear]

The Brass probably wanted to pull the kid out, and may have planted the story
towards that end ; just my humble assinthegrassgrunt opinion.

That doesn't fit the evidence.

 

[Story]

What possible good was done by not waiting until Cornet Wales (?) returned from his tour.

OPSEC - some folks never had it, never will.

 

[panamag8or]

Now the OXYMORON stuff with democratic kings, like the princess shooting for homeguard service…or the prince being fully trained for COMBAT not combat support or combat supply - not going to the declared war as originally announced…being commanded to halt by a commoner????

Now, that is an interesting point. Do the royals voluntarily give up some of their status when they enlist in the military?
How else do "commoners" or even mere Lords or Knights (if they are high up enough in the military) get away with ordering royalty to do some rather unpleasant things, like peel potatoes or do pushups?

 

[carebear]

Now, that is an interesting point. Do the royals voluntarily give up some of their status when they enlist in the military?
How else do "commoners" or even mere Lords or Knights (if they are high up enough in the military) get away with ordering royalty to do some rather unpleasant things, like peel potatoes or do pushups?

Yep, when you are in Service you are (in theory anyway) treated and addressed as your rank. Of course as an officer he wouldn't be doing any punitive PT or KP other than when he was in OCS and is theoretically senior to all the enlisted men.

He's not Prince Harry in uniform, just Cornet Wales (I think that's the last name he'd take?) or Mr. Wales in the Mess.

He's a 2nd Lt, thus subject to command from his senior officers and the "suggestions" of his Platoon Sgt.

 

[RIOT]

Ah, good ol' King of Battle, those FO's! Here's to them. :cheers1:

*should change the subject line to this thread to Royalty in the Military or other*

 

[Spitfire]

Ah, good ol' King of Battle, those FO's! Here's to them. :cheers1:

*should change the subject line to this thread to Royalty in the Military or other*

Good idear - I even had to go to the top of this thread, to see why it was called like it is. And I still do not believe we will ever see Princess Mary in that uniform again - or directing the parkinglot at the local fair, for that matter. (Which is what the HomeGuard mostly do around here)

But: My sincer respect to Prince Harry (Mr. Wales)