Now that you mentioned it, that uniform looks very similar to the one that the AWBs in South Africa wear.

Here is their "flag":
http://atlasgeo.span.ch/fotw/images/z/za%7Dawb.gif

that's so stupid. its in poor taste to wear a nazi uniform if you're Joe Schmo from Anytown. Its in worse taste when you're a celebrity and all eyes will always be on you and your family.

I think Harry needs to grow up. He's third in line for the throne and needs to show some responsibility. It's great that he apologised, but ridiculous that he did it in the first place. Having gone to one of the most prestigious boys schools in the UK, he should have at least picked up on the fact that the Holocaust was a bad thing and it would be in poor taste to wear an SS outfit or swastika at any time.

Had he been any other rich young man at the party, it probably would have been overlooked. But fact is, that he's not. He's in the public eye, whether he wants to be or not. His brother William realises this, and went as a lion (as well as apologising publicly for Harry's choice of costume).

Apparently his wasn't the only bad taste at the party though, as some girls went in blackface. :eek: What makes these rich kids (because the majority of them certainly aren't acting like adults yet) think they can live without any sense of social decorum or decency is beyond me.

But on a positive note, both William and Harry volunteered for the British Red Cross this week to help the tsunami effort. And it's thought that Harry will be asked to take on more public responsibilities until he begins at Sandhurst (delayed his entry because of a knee injury).

Yes he was going in as an African soldier. He gave a very emotional speech detailing this and said that nobody should confuse his acts and intentions.

-Rudey
--Great job guys on the work by you GC guys

It was the A-Level tests that caused controversy, not his O levels. HUGE difference.

From what I heard, Prince Harry bought the costume from a costume shop and Prince William was with him. William is now taking partial responsibility for Harry's decision and will be with him when he visits Auschwitz.

Well it looks like Prince Harry will be spending a little time out of the spotlight... and getting some much needed structure and discpline. He's off to Sandhurst (after finally passing his computer competency test)...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4526077.stm

just as allegations that he cheated at Eton have begun to surface :rolleyes:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4529489.stm

Well I'm sure Sandhurst will "make him or break him", and if not Sandhurst the Sergeant Major surely will.

Rack 'em back, smack! Shoulders up, back and down! Cage those eyes! (Whoops! Wrong service academy... :D)

Most defintely...

The Academy Sergeant Major (AcSM) is the senior non-commissioned officer instructor at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. He holds the rank of Warrant Officer Class 1 and the second most senior NCO appointment in the whole British Army and is always a Guardsman.

"Prince Harry will call me sir. And I will call him sir. But he will be the one who means it, said Warrant Officer First Class Vince Gaunt."

Interestingly, warrant officers in the U.S. Army, Navy and Marines (there are no warrant officers in the Air Force) from grade W-2 to W-5 are commissioned, though they're still junior to the most junior 2LT/Ensign.

Isn't there a difference between a "Warrant" and a "Commission?" Or am I remembering incorrectly?

W-1s still receive warrants; W-2 and higher can be commissioned.

http://www.usawoa.org/WOHERITAGE/ArmyWOdefined.htm

It appears, at least according to the following, that the definitions may have changed over the past almost 40 years...

"1957



The first published definition for Army Warrant Officers was established in AR 611-112 and defined the warrant officer as follows:

"The warrant officer is a highly skilled technician who is provided to fill those positions above the enlisted level which are too specialized in scope to permit effective development and continued utilization of broadly trained, branch qualified commissioned officers."

(The above would seem to indicate differences between the two)



1985



In 1985 the Army developed a clear and concise definition of the Warrant Officer that encompassed all warrant officer specialties.

"An officer appointed by warrant by the Secretary of the Army, based upon a sound level of technical and tactical competence. The warrant officer is the highly specialized expert and trainer who, by gaining progressive levels of expertise and leadership, operates, maintains, administers, and manages the Army’s equipment, support activities, or technical systems for an entire career." (Para 1-7 DA Pamphlet 600-11)

(Same here)



1996



Department of the Army Pamphlet 600-11, Warrant Officer Professional Development, dated 30 December 1996, defines an Army Warrant Officer as:

"An officer appointed by warrant by the Secretary of the Army, based upon a sound level of technical and tactical competence. The warrant officer is the highly specialized expert and trainer who, by gaining progressive levels of expertise and leadership, operates, maintains, administers, and manages the Army’s equipment, support activities, or technical systems for an entire career." (Para 1-7 DA Pamphlet 600-11)



1999



Army Field Manual 22-100, Army Leadership, 31 August 1999, explains the role of Army Warrant Officers as:

"Warrant officers are highly specialized, single-track specialty officers who receive their authority from the Secretary of the Army upon their initial appointment. However, Title 10 U.S.C. authorizes the commissioning of warrant officers (WO1) upon promotion to chief warrant officer (CW2). These commissioned warrant officers are direct representatives of the President of the United States. They derive their authority from the same source as commissioned officers but remain specialists, in contrast to commissioned officers, who are generalists. Warrant officers can and do command detachments, units, activities, and vessels as well as lead, coach, train, and counsel subordinates. As leaders and technical experts, they provide valuable skills, guidance, and expertise to commanders and organizations in their particular field." (Para A-3, Field Manual 22-100)

(This is the first time the term "commissioning" is used, so while it's still not completely clear, we used to consider that the Warrant Officer received a "Warrant" not a "Commission." Perhaps that has been changed in the interim.)