Prince Harry

Difficult one.

Not sure what message it sends out to other families, other soldiers, the so-called insurgency and the GP here. The 'spare to the throne' was felt sufficiently dispendable or safe enough? to send to fight the Argentines, and although I'm not up on the precise 'body count' I seem to think more military personnel were killed in a shorter period of time in 1982, than the last few years in Iraq. Well I've got 255 in my mind for the Falklands, and seem to think the current figure is something like 130 in Iraq? It's not as if the Royal Family has a tradition thus, but I also can't help thinking that it would spark an upsurge, and unecessarily expose too many British servicemen as attention was diverted from other regions into Basra.

Perhaps they could have flown a royal standard on the bonnet of his Scimitar? It's difficult to see where he goes from here now shrug:: I really don't see how he can be expected to lead his men again, or why they should show him any respect given that they're going to return as more experienced soldiers than he (those that get back in one piece). I suspect he'll have to resign his commission.

It's tantamount to an admission that we can't guarantee protection of our servicemen with an acceptable boundaries I suppose, and is also admitting that one life is considered more valuable than another. It half reminds me of a Blackadder line before the battle of Bosworth where the term "arrow fodder" was used to describe those felt dispendable.

I actually have a lot of sympathy for all involved, as I'm not sure I'd like to have made this judgement call one tiny bit
 
And tonight's Star Prize goes to......... Bobbyjo! A well-hazarded and not at all cynical summation, young man! :D
 
I don't think they can hold in contempt what they believe doesn't exist to start with, Colin... ! There's a long poll on Virgin's home page, with most contributors (the spelling! The grammar! The apostrophe abuse!) agreeing that he shouldn't go, on the grounds that he'd attract unwelcome attention to his own troops. One chap made a sensible enough suggestion that he and his crew could have been lined up for other duties some place else, though, where perhaps the targetting mightn't have been quite so likely to be determined. It's no good pointing out that Prince Andy flew in the Falklands conflict, since the Argentinians hadn't vowed to specifically try to kill him. They needed to keep him going so their officers could be invited over to play polo at Cowdray, let's face it!
 
Originally posted by krizon@May 17 2007, 09:31 AM
It's no good pointing out that Prince Andy flew in the Falklands conflict, since the Argentinians hadn't vowed to specifically try to kill him.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you'll find they did, it's just that the specificity of the threat wasn't credible. Quite apart from anything he was flying Sea Kings outside of the Argentine air range as they didn't have mid air re-fuelling capacity. Picking off a helicopter thus and then capturing the pilot would have been pretty close to impossible on a shoot, snatch, and escape kind of mission.

In any event, as only one of two aircraft carriers (I use the term loosely as 'Invincible' was strictly speaking anti-submarine cruiser according to NATO) his ship would have been a legitimate military target in its own right irrespective of his presence on it, and had the Argies been able to launch their entire air-force against them ,they might easily have over-loaded the British anti-aircraft missile umbrella and stopped the TF in its tracks. Hence why they were seldom brought within range of the mainland. It would have required an operation flying out of Stanley, or a naval engagement, conceivably a Super Etendard with the addtional range that a 'fire and forget' cruise missile like Exocet offered, could have posed a threat, which why he flew decoy missions, (though I'm seriously struggling to believe this was anything other than propoganda) as the radar signature of a carrier set against that posed by a helicopter would hardly fool the on board computer in target assignation.

As regards sending him elsewhere, it's difficult to know where you could send him that wouldn't look transparent. A light armoured division like the Blues and Royals have a legitimate role in Iraq (militarily speaking) and it would be pointless to train a brigade, equip them thus, and then tie the whole lot down rounding up sheep in the Falklands, on the strength of one of the number presenting a prestige target.

I just hope the young mans got the sense to stay out of night-clubs for the next few months
 
Warbler, you've just talked yourself into why killing Prince Andrew was always a non-starter, apart from the obvious, long-standing Argentinian friendships at high levels, socially, with the royal family. There were, however, no threats issued and I'm quite sure that the Argentinians NEVER had that remit on the books. We would have heard about it, one way or the other, by now. The Prince et al were working against an elected government's formal military, not against a ragtag of assorted factions driven mostly by mutual hatred, but happy to include the killing of infidel 'invaders' when opportunity presents.
 
Originally posted by krizon@May 17 2007, 02:26 PM
There were, however, no threats issued and I'm quite sure that the Argentinians NEVER had that remit on the books.
Click to expand...
I haven't got time to play through Google, any more than I can guarantee it would be there, but I'd be pretty damn certain there were (from memory), albeit they were issued through bravado and propoganda and no one took much notice of it, given that the ship was a much bigger target. In fact the more i think about it, I'm certain there were, I've half a recollection of the words used too. Leave it with me, though I'm not in contact with any RN personnel circa Falklands anymore, but a form of words is lodged in my mental memory bank :nuts:
 
Whatever you find, Warbler, in your mad quest to be right :P it won't come as a promise to try to kill. There may well be some knockabout stuff from the Argentinian press, but I will put an entire £1 :eek: in a charity box tomorrow if you find that either the Argentinian Government or its Navy issued threats to kill a son of our Queen.
 
The decision was always a no-brainer.

The army spokespeople have rightly removed the royal element from the equation. One quote I heard was that they also prevented certain 'ordinary' soldiers from serving in N Ireland because they and their colleagues would be specifically targeted for various reasons but on account of the presence of the one person.

Look at it from the other side too. Once the coalition leaders identified key players on the other side and presented them to the media as face cards in a pack, they (the coalition) set out tracking them down. The insurgents would do exactly the same thing in tracking down our wee ginger snap.

My first reaction at the anouncement was that Harry would be cracking open some champers and partying :nuts:

As for his origins, he's ugly enough to be royalty but the resemblance to Hewitt is persuasive. However, there have been a few foties of him in his combats and from a number of angles he does look like our Chuck. All in all, he's a poor little sod.
 
You mightn't like royalty, DO, but that's an unkind jibe. Since when did royalty have to be different to most of US? I think the British are, on the whole, a fairly plain lot, so why should they have to be pin-up material? Princess Margaret was a beautiful young woman by anyone's standards, Elizabeth was less glam but certainly attractive, Prince Philip was extremely handsome, Lord Mountbatten and his wife were a distinctively attractive couple, Prince William is certainly well-crafted, and Princess Marina was a classical beauty.

Age fades everyone's looks, but I think if you put them up against whatever an 'average family' is, they don't deserve your kick in the ribs. It's such old hat about Harry/Hewitt, though I know you persist with the observation whenever he's mentioned. If you take a look at the Althorpes, he's very much like his mother's brother. Neither of whom were unappreciated cosmetically.
 
Personally speaking - I htink Harry is a lot more attractive than Wills - Wills is far too clean cut and pointy faces...

(off to the tower now.....)
 
I also meant to add, wasn't there a persistent rumour about who Andrew's real father is/was?

Maybe I should have put a couple merlinesque smilies on to my 'jibe' about royal ugliness as it was no more than the kind of throwaway line used in the extended Orchid household to describe anyone we don't have much time for, eg

"Of course he'll sign for Rangers. Look how ugly he is."
"Of course, ET is a Man U fan. He looks like one," etc.

Philip, Charles, Anne, Zara, Harry... season ticket holders.
 
Oi!!!! I'll be hearing no word against Zara!! So in love with the girl she may even be able to persuade me to turn dyke.....
 
Originally posted by Shadow Leader@May 19 2007, 09:52 PM
Oi!!!! I'll be hearing no word against Zara!! So in love with the girl she may even be able to persuade me to turn dyke.....
Click to expand...
Though Her Royal Highness is still indifferent............
 
Originally posted by Shadow Leader@May 19 2007, 07:52 PM
Oi!!!! I'll be hearing no word against Zara!! So in love with the girl she may even be able to persuade me to turn dyke.....
Click to expand...
God forbid that Phil Waters finds this thread norty
 
:laughing: :laughing: He'll get back to Dom, just as soon as he's finished phoning his 11,864th irate customer...
 
Erm, no Colin - men!!! :laughing:

Had one keep ringing me last night on being told "no Ted, I'm off to bed now...!!"
 
Originally posted by krizon@May 20 2007, 10:21 AM
:laughing: :laughing: He'll get back to Dom, just as soon as he's finished phoning his 11,864th irate customer...
Click to expand...
The mental image of Dom and Zara involved in some kind of alternative tryst, would surely be too much for him :D Strathclyde fire brigade on stand by to hose him down I fear
 
Back
Top