harry goes to war

Fez · Post by **Fez** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:58 pm

should prince harry be allowed to go to war? he doesn't want to be left behind or treated differently than any other soldier, but if the sepertists of iraq find where he's stationed his comrades are going to be lying down their lives to protect him. but if he stays surely he is being protected because of his position and suggests the royals - a bunch of unelected spongers - are better than the rest of us.

then again, with william also training for duty, is there any way in hell he is going to be allowed to go anywhere a warzone as second in line for the throne, and obviously the most liked member of his family at the current time. and as it seems he is more than likely not going to be allowed anywhere near a country that knows what a gun even looks like, why the hell is he being allowed to waste tax payers money training to do something he will never be allowed a go at?

what say ye plebs of this forum?

Post by **johnriley1uk** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:34 pm

I think considering the obvious skills that so many of the royals have it's a bit churlish to criticise. They were born into a situation, and although in some ways it is a very comfortable one, they do also work (and play) hard and all the time under a spotlight.

I think if the people who ran the country had a little more of the stature of the royals (and I'm no royalist) then we might do a little better.

So I say less of the public schoolboy twits (stary eyes, wide smile) and a little more Royal Blood would do good rather than harm.

Frankly I don't want to go fighting in Iraq or anywhere else, so I'll leave that happily to Prince Harry. And that I don't feel I would want to criticise.

Now the policy that means we are sending anyone to Iraq is something else....

mr_e · Post by **mr_e** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:57 pm

The armed services just seem to be the done thing for the royal family, so I'm sure they're well aware of the risks. Maybe they view it as character-building. If one of them flew helicopters in the Falklands, I don't see why they wouldn't still go into active service. Hell, even Prince Charles was a fighter pilot, although he never saw much combat (1970s). They're a bit of a talented bunch on the quiet. Go the royals!

Post by **Mike** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 6:17 pm

I think we should consider what the effects of Harry being in a war zone. How are the terrorists and 'insurgents' (notice how they are never called the enemy any more) going to react. I can imagine that having a royal in the unit will increase the danger to each and every member of the unit. On the flip side of the coin it will also inspire the soldiers to work harder and better (hopefully!)

mr_e · Post by **mr_e** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 6:26 pm

It does lead me to wonder how easy Harry would be to trace. The only public knowledge is the general area his regiment is deployed to. I wonder if they'll give him a different name whilst in Iraq? Otherwise all it would take would be an overheard conversation and there would possibly be militias swarming all over the area.

Andy · Post by **Andy** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:16 pm

He should go.

If you think about it they will have planned well ahead for a situation like this. I don't think that they will have left anything to chance. If they thought that it was then surely they wouldn't have assigned him to a regiment.

Fez · Post by **Fez** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 2:28 am

very interesting gentlemen, especially how it raised the question of whether any of our troops should be over there in the first place no matter their social station. i was, and still am, against the war purely for the lie it took to get us involved and was heartened by the other news this week that 1600 soldiers are coming home. however, iraq is a mess that this country helped create and withdrawing completely and letting the civil war - which it surely is - continue unabaited would be unthinkable.

moving on, but with a linked idea this thread was partly generated for, how do we stand on the royal family in general? i noticed several words of support for them in the earlier messages and i must say i have nothing personal against them. however, they are unelected heads of state, completely sawn from the mechanics of how the country is run and exist in my opinion purely as a tourist trap. i stop way short of calling for the guillotine, but at the same time they should be removed as an outmoded, pointless money-pit for the british public.

Post by **Mike** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:19 am

There are a part of the history and rightly or wrongly an ingrained part of the british way of life. You think britain and I would imagine the Royal family would be one of the top things associated with us.

I think there are much greater money pits of public money being wasted. Such as paying children to go to school. I just think - Wanna learn, good free education. Don't wanna learn - bog off and go to work.

Post by **johnriley1uk** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:07 am

The Queen is Head of State and if the government of the day were to totally misbehave, such as for example deciding to make support of other parties illegal, then she can dissolve Parliament.

Tony Blair still has to have weekly meetings to report to her, and I'll bet it really, really sticks in his throat to do that.

Rather than remove the Royal Family I feel we should protect their position as final arbiter. Someone has to tell the children how to behave.

Andy · Post by **Andy** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 3:38 pm

Excuse me is this the same Royal Family that has one of its leading members, Prince Philip, openly being racist with comments about phone boxes? The same one in the mid 1980s when Philip told UK students to China to leave because they will get ''slitty eyes''? And on a trip to a nursing home, Philip asked a woman in a wheelchair whether people tripped over her. The same Royal Family where it allows the man to have a mistress? (Although hopefully William won't do this but you never know). The same family where Harry walked to a party in a Nazi uniform? The same Harry that was a heavy under-age drinker and sent to rehab? The same family that magically got a pretty average student in Charles on about 2/3 Cs at A-levels into Cambridge? Hmmm.. I wonder how that happened? There track-record is not wonderful it has to be admitted. Ok, we all make mistakes and have skeletons in our closets but these are not good episodes in their history if we are calling on them to be 'standard-bearers' for our next children.

No matter what you say my views will not change on my negative feelings for the royal family. I know that history is important and I know they do some wonderful work for their charities, etc, but I still feel they are a source of embarrasssment. We should keep them but we should not have them as important as they are. I agree they are a money-pit and I agree with Mike's view that there are other money-pits that are arguably worse. But that is for another thread.

With regards to the war in Iraq - would we feel this animosity if Blair had been honest about the fact that he wanted to get rid of Saddam and Westernise the country? There would have been protests but would there have been this pure hatrid that is felt for Blair at the moment? I don't think so.

Post by **johnriley1uk** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:47 pm

Yes, this is the same family, and all the things you point out are quite fair comments. Presuming of course that they have been accurately reported in the press, on whom we rely for much of our perception.

To be fair, we could equally point our finger at Number 10, where Lifestyle Gurus influence behind the scenes and criminals organise property purchases, or so we are led to believe. And how much do they have in mortgages, all set up for a future nest egg, when ordinary people can struggle to pay their energy bills?

The best we can hope for is a stand-off in these various factions and power struggles, and the Royal Family at least do have an ultimate veto if things should ever go so far that something had to be done. Whether or not they would be able to do anything at that point is open to question.

As regards Iraq, I just think it had nothing whatsoever to do with us. No state has the right to decide any other state needs putting into a different sort of order.

Fez · Post by **Fez** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 10:33 am

the final veto for many poor political decisions falls to the house of lords and despite the fact they are at present an unelected house, they have done a crediable job on many important issues in recent years. the queen having a final say is ridiculous because no political move is ever going to get so far if it is so wrong, i doubt she's that in touch with the public to see sense where everyone else has failed, and to be blunt there would be rioting in the streets if the government tried to push through an idea that was so unpopular. remember the poll tax riots?

and that's aside from the fact this is supposed to be a democracy and the idea a figure head of a dying tradition can still force her own will on the public flies in the face of rational thinking. as for the royal family being kept on as a part of living history, do you realise how obsurd it is firstly waste money on keeping alive something that has lost all propose to a modern society, and secondly to ask these people to keep this archaic fantasy going? yes, the royal family is an indelable part of british history, but so was slavery and no one seems too keen to keep that old chestnut circulating.

mr_e · Post by **mr_e** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 12:57 pm

Technically, the monarch does still have the power to dissolve parliament, but I don't think this is ever going to happen. They'd probably ignore her. Also, as undemocratic as the House of Lords is, they do a pretty good job of things, and some of the law lords really know their stuff.

In terms of money-pits, I suspect the royal family bring quite a lot of tourists into the capital, so I wouldn't be so quick to call them on that one. It may be possible someone's done a study on it that we can dig up online? They have made some adjustments, such as the Queen now paying taxes, so it's not all bad. Plus most of them work pretty hard in terms of travelling and minor diplomacy. Okay, maybe Prince Phillip shouldn't be allowed out, but the rest are by and large fine.

Post by **Mike** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 5:07 pm

Well she could probably dissolve parliament after all isn't she the overall head of the military too? In some cases it might be interesting to see it try, though the civil war would be very dangerous.

Don't forget that there are other (than the Royals) rich privileged people making absolute asses of themselves too. Such as a certain ms Hilton, ms Spears, Mel Gibson, Kate Moss, okay people think they are stupid, daft and on occasion really rude. I am neither for or against the institution but you have to give it to them, they have managed to stay as figure heads despite many other countries scrapping their royalty.

Andy · Post by **Andy** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:43 pm

I don't think the royals should be scrapped totally, I just feel that we should considerably lessen their influence and income that they have. They piss me off really. Japan (I think and I may be wrong but it is in that area) have a good idea where they have effectively left one family in one palace, say Buckingham, and then told the others to go and get a job. Their influence on society is minimal, the disruption and embarrassment they cause is minimal and the government gets on with it.

With regards to them bringing in tourists I can see that point. The point I can not see is the fact that they have various ''houses'' (huge mansions) for winter and summer retreats etc. The various visits to other countries at our expense for needless ventures. The fact that Edward's company is so shockingly shite and so badly in debt that he would have been declared bankrupt years ago but he isn't, he's just bailed out by us.

Don't get me started on the unfairness of mortgages. All I will say is that the average person can borrow up to 6 six times their salary whilst Blair can borrow 25 times. That stinks. Don't give me the lines that he'll be able to pay it because he is a one-off case, I know he will through public speaking tours. It is the principle behind it that angers me.