Britain's Prince Harry May Command Troops In Iraq...

LaneSig · #1 02-18-2007, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Harry is much more likely to see combat than William. You'd think William would be guarded even more carefully (and perhaps kept closer to home) The whole heir and a spare sort of thing. I'm blanking on the rest of the royal family.

Who are Charles' siblings? Just Prince Andrew? (Should say Harry and Will die or something, who follows Charles to the throne?)

Queen Elizabeth II's children in birth order

Charles (1948)
Anne (1950)
Andrew (1960)
Edward (1964)

Charles's sons, William and Harry, are 2nd and 3rd succession to the throne. Anne has two children, Peter and Zara. Her her discretion, neither carry a royal title. I am not sure if they are in succession to the throne. Andrew has two daughters by his marriage to Sarah Ferguson, Beatrice and Eugenie, both of whom carry the title of Princess. Edward has one child, a daughter named Louise, given the title of "Lady".

Drolefille · #2 02-18-2007, 08:15 PM

So succession is Charles, William, Harry, Andrew, Edward, Anne, and then the daughters? I guess I could look this up

CutiePie2000 · #3 02-18-2007, 10:17 PM

I think so, but I'm not a Royal Family'ologist. I wonder if QEII will bypass Prince Charles and give the crown to Prince William. Plop...put the crown on his forehead!

Can you imagine? LOL
Would that even be "allowed"?

texas*princess · #4 02-19-2007, 09:55 PM

He's going to Iraq...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe...raq/index.html

I'm not really trying to 'play favorites" because he's a prince and all, but I really don't think it's a good idea... I think it will do more harm than good by sending him to Iraq b/c that has 'prisoner video' tattooed all over it. I think he's going to be a prime target for those crazies who kidnap and torture people. I'm sure the 'insurgents' would try to "use him as an example" for anyone helping the allied forces (i.e. The U.S.)

Drolefille · #5 02-19-2007, 11:23 PM

I'd think it would only piss the British off. It'd be like our reaction to 9/11. As I said before, some shit you do not want.

Ahh that article clarifies that William isn't eligible for combat service. Makes sense

RACooper · #6 02-20-2007, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I'd think it would only piss the British off. It'd be like our reaction to 9/11. As I said before, some shit you do not want.

I don't think it'd be quite the level of the 9/11 reaction, but there'd be a outpouring of outrage and anger over his death to be sure..

As for some shit you don't want - the IRA was well aware of that and off'ed a cell that was planning to kill the Queen Mum back in the 80s... now that would have resulted in something like or greater than the 9/11 reaction since she was seen as the kindly old grandmother by most of the population (and dearly loved by the military, especially the Scottish units).

RACooper · #7 02-21-2007, 03:43 PM

Well another wrinkle/twist to the story of Prince Harry deploying to Iraq has been Blair's announcement of a British troop withdrawal from Iraq starting next week... so it looks like if Harry goes he'll be part of a much reduced force, and perhaps even there for the final withdrawal of British combat forces from Iraq (a Royal to witness the final hand-over?)

Blair announces major withdrawal of British troops from Iraq
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/07022...d/britain_iraq

#8 02-27-2007, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CutiePie2000

I think so, but I'm not a Royal Family'ologist. I wonder if QEII will bypass Prince Charles and give the crown to Prince William. Plop...put the crown on his forehead!

Can you imagine? LOL
Would that even be "allowed"?

Please don't think that I really know what I'm talking about on this subject, but isn't the Queen (or King) supposed to be the defender of the faith? If that's the case, then Charles shouldn't be king because he had an affair. Since Prince William is hot and perfect he should get the crown next. And because he didn't have an affair and seems to be in love. Don't mind the first reason.

AlexMack · #9 02-28-2007, 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ErinKathleenNJ

Please don't think that I really know what I'm talking about on this subject, but isn't the Queen (or King) supposed to be the defender of the faith? If that's the case, then Charles shouldn't be king because he had an affair. Since Prince William is hot and perfect he should get the crown next. And because he didn't have an affair and seems to be in love. Don't mind the first reason.

Eh...I've never heard the Sovereign described as the defender, merely the head of the Church of England. Frankly, Charles should never have married Diana. He and Camilla should have been together from the start.
Also remember that affairs, like all sin, are forgivable. I don't see a particular reason to burden William with such a responsibility so early in his life, like his grandmother.

dekeguy · #10 02-28-2007, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by centaur532

Eh...I've never heard the Sovereign described as the defender, merely the head of the Church of England. Frankly, Charles should never have married Diana. He and Camilla should have been together from the start.
Also remember that affairs, like all sin, are forgivable. I don't see a particular reason to burden William with such a responsibility so early in his life, like his grandmother.

Good Morning,
Actually, Her Majesty is styled, inter alia, as "Defender of the Faith". Its a title that goes back to Henry VIII, ironically, granted by the Pope and never recinded. Look at a British coin and you will see the letters around the Queen's head "Elizabeth II, DG, REG, FD". These stand for Elizabeth II, Deo Gratias, Regina, Fideii Defensor which in English mean Elizabeth II, By the Grace of God, Queen, Defender of the Faith.
As to the business of HRH the Prince of Wales's indiscretion, I agree absolutely with your point. As I recall, Our Saviour paid the freight for all our indiscretions making forgiveness and redemption available as a free gift to any and all who accept His gift. I also recall that He said, "Let the one among you who is without sin cast the first stone".
I don't think anyone of us ought to be in the stone casting business. I sure as hell don't qualify, and if I did I'd be a pretty poor excuse for a Christian if I were to start chucking stones at anyone for their sins.
Anyway, the order of succession is not discretionary and absent a major change to the Constitution of the UK (yes, there really is one, its just not the same as what most people think of in terms of a specific document called a "constitution") when Her Majesty dies (once annointed there is no retirement or resignation provision in the Coronation Oath) the next in line automatically becomes the soverign. Between succession and annointing there is a narrow window to opt out but this is, shall we say, unusual.
As to HRH Prince Harry, he is a serving officer and his regiment is going in harm's way. Where else should he be except at the head of his troops. That he is a Royal is all the more reason for him to win his spurs. God willing he and his men will come back in one piece, but if not he will not be the first royal to fall while doing his job and leading his men.
Perhaps you might have seen the obituary published in the Times every year on the anniversary of the Battle of Hastings:
"Harold, King of England, on the field of battle, in defence of the realm".

CutiePie2000 · #11 03-01-2007, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dekeguy

Perhaps you might have seen the obituary published in the Times every year on the anniversary of the Battle of Hastings: "Harold, King of England, on the field of battle, in defence of the realm".

Yeah, but Harold didn't have the paparazzi following him around.