Prince Harry is the Real Deal

It's always been my impression that both William and Harry are exceptionally fine young men by any standard. They've both gone out of their way to serve their country and humanity.

-Rich
 
Yes, they represent their family pretty well. Even Harry's escapades in Vegas were a bit over played. I am not necessarily endorsing the behavior, but at that age, given the opportunity, few guys wouldn't have indulged a bit. Of course, now that I am older and wiser...
 
I'm certainly no royalist, but both of them seem to have grown up to be fine men.
 
Let's not forget that William is a SAR pilot based in Wales. That is, until the squadron is stood down when England replaces SAR with Bristow, a private company.
 
Hey, Uncle Andrew did alright too, flying helicopters as exocet bait in the Falklands. Though perhaps Fergie wasn't his finest hour.
 
Unfortunately, the Royal family has a much better track record for service to the UK than does any ruling American family to the US...at least since WWII.

Regarding Harry. I always thought his first tour as a Scout PL was a sham photo op until my most recent tour when I became friends with a British officer from the same regiment as Harry. I asked about Harry's service and he very offhandedly affirmed that yes, he was leading a platoon, he was fighting the war one day at a time like everyone else. That was impressive to me because I know what that means in places like Helmand and Kandahar.

In a tongue in cheek manner...it is clear that he is a soldiers soldier. Two trips to the US, first pre-deployment for the hookers, second, post deployment for the memorial.

Here is the British reporting.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...competing-Paralympic-style-Warrior-Games.html
 
Mach.12 said:
Unfortunately, the Royal family has a much better track record for service to the UK than does any ruling American family to the US...at least since WWII.
Click to expand...
That the young sons of royals serve in the military is a long-standing British tradition. Not just sons, in the modern day...Princess Elizabeth was an Ambulance driver and mechanic in the women's army auxiliary during WWII. The second and later sons often served much of their lives in the British Army or Royal Navy. This is in keeping with aristocratic tradition in England: the first son inherits, the second son joins the military, and the third son the clergy. The last is not a good option when Daddy is, essentially, the pope.

Not saying their service was "normal" (lots of plum jobs and command posts early in life) but it wasn't unusual for them to be in what Bill Mauldin called, "the fraternal order of them what has been shot at." Some of them did well, some of them didn't.

They were subject to the military chain of command and couldn't override those of higher rank. They were basically, just another officer.

This might be the primary attraction, and the reason many of them stay in for full careers: The lure of something like a normal life. Days centered on military camaraderie rather than royal protocol; friends that call you by your first name or a nickname and demand you take your turn and buy the next round.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
That the young sons of royals serve in the military is a long-standing British tradition. Not just sons, in the modern day...Princess Elizabeth was an Ambulance driver and mechanic in the women's army auxiliary during WWII. The second and later sons often served much of their lives in the British Army or Royal Navy. This is in keeping with aristocratic tradition in England: the first son inherits, the second son joins the military, and the third son the clergy. The last is not a good option when Daddy is, essentially, the pope.

Not saying their service was "normal" (lots of plum jobs and command posts early in life) but it wasn't unusual for them to be in what Bill Mauldin called, "the fraternal order of them what has been shot at." Some of them did well, some of them didn't.

They were subject to the military chain of command and couldn't override those of higher rank. They were basically, just another officer.

This might be the primary attraction, and the reason many of them stay in for full careers: The lure of something like a normal life. Days centered on military camaraderie rather than royal protocol; friends that call you by your first name or a nickname and demand you take your turn and buy the next round.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...


Wow...great history lesson! I wonder if it would change the decision cycle of committing to war if we had something similar in the US where members of the elite or federal political class established a tradition of putting some skin in the game.
 
Mach.12 said:
Wow...great history lesson! I wonder if it would change the decision cycle of committing to war if we had something similar in the US where members of the elite or federal political class established a tradition of putting some skin in the game.
Click to expand...

You do realize that the UK is no longer a monarchy. The royals have very little influence over how the country is run.
 
John221us said:
You do realize that the UK is no longer a monarchy. The royals have very little influence over how the country is run.
Click to expand...

Ok...I guess this is one of those incorrect but well sourced Wikipedia entries. Maybe she isn't involved in the details, but I'm pretty sure that when the Queen picks up the phone, it gets answered on the other end...and they don't take a message.

Having worked with about a dozen UK officers, I'll tell you, the crown still has significant power, regardless of officially granted authority.

"The UK's form of government is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system and its capital city is London. It consists of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.[9] The latter three have devolved administrations,[10] each with varying powers,[11][12] based in their capital cities, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast respectively. Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man are Crown dependencies and are not part of the UK.[13] The United Kingdom has fourteen British Overseas Territories.[14] These are remnants of the British Empire which, at its height in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, encompassed almost a quarter of the world's land surface and was the largest empire in history. British influence can be observed in the language, culture and legal systems of many of its former colonies."
 
Last edited:
John221us said:
Mach.12 said:
Wow...great history lesson! I wonder if it would change the decision cycle of committing to war if we had something similar in the US where members of the elite or federal political class established a tradition of putting some skin in the game.
Click to expand...
You do realize that the UK is no longer a monarchy. The royals have very little influence over how the country is run.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, true, but: For many of the folks in the UK, the royal family is the biggest symbol for Britain. The loss of such a symbol is devastating...look at the death of Princess Diana, for an example. Loss of a serving royal in combat would make it very difficult to maintain public support for a war in Afghanistan. The Brits have shed a lot of blood there, in the past 170 years....

British royals have three basic rights: The right to be informed, the right to advise, and the right to be seen. With just that, they have a lot of power, whether formal or not. It should be noted that British soldiers and airmen, upon joining the service, swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen, not to the Prime Minister or Parliament. If the Queen said publicly, "Bring our troops home," the troops may not directly obey, but public opinion may result in their return.

Agree with the wish that our politicians had some "skin" in the results of military policy decisions. A few do, of course. Sadly, though, we've gone hard-over in the other direction, in being a combat veteran is now a liability when going for high office.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Last edited:
Good to know. I had always believed that he was much more than a photo op.


Mach.12 said:
Unfortunately, the Royal family has a much better track record for service to the UK than does any ruling American family to the US...at least since WWII.

Regarding Harry. I always thought his first tour as a Scout PL was a sham photo op until my most recent tour when I became friends with a British officer from the same regiment as Harry. I asked about Harry's service and he very offhandedly affirmed that yes, he was leading a platoon, he was fighting the war one day at a time like everyone else. That was impressive to me because I know what that means in places like Helmand and Kandahar.

In a tongue in cheek manner...it is clear that he is a soldiers soldier. Two trips to the US, first pre-deployment for the hookers, second, post deployment for the memorial.

Here is the British reporting.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...competing-Paralympic-style-Warrior-Games.html
Click to expand...
 
I think you accurately summed it up.

wanttaja said:
Absolutely, true, but: For many of the folks in the UK, the royal family is the biggest symbol for Britain. The loss of such a symbol is devastating...look at the death of Princess Diana, for an example. Loss of a serving royal in combat would make it very difficult to maintain public support for a war in Afghanistan. The Brits have shed a lot of blood there, in the past 170 years....

British royals have three basic rights: The right to be informed, the right to advise, and the right to be seen. With just that, they have a lot of power, whether formal or not. It should be noted that British soldiers and airmen, upon joining the service, swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen, not to the Prime Minister or Parliament. If the Queen said publicly, "Bring our troops home," the troops may not directly obey, but public opinion may result in their return.

Agree with the wish that our politicians had some "skin" in the results of military policy decisions. A few do, of course. Sadly, though, we've gone hard-over in the other direction, in being a combat veteran is now a liability when going for high office.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
 
Sadly, it's getting to the point here in the good ol' US of A where a veteran is more likely to be seen as a political threat than as qualified for public service. I know we do have quite a few vets in D.C., but the typical veteran who holds his oath to defend the Constitution of the USA very dear, is likely to have values not exactly in line with the party currently power in the White House and in the Senate.

There are way too many folks in this country who think ill of our fighting men and women. Those people, including Harry and his British comrades are heroes regardless of whether one agrees with the war they are fighting.

I'm not a military man, but if you join up knowing you may be placed in harms way in defense of your country or to defend the ideals of freedom and liberty, you are a hero in my book.
 
While it's true the Her Majesty does not exercise the powers of her office very often, those powers remain rather considerable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top