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

[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"?

[texas*princess]

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]

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]

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]

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

[AlexMack]

Originally Posted by RACooper

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

Both a shame and a wonderful thing. On one hand, we won't get to see Harry function as a commander but on the other, sending those troops home is the best that could happen since the war started.
Hopefully Blair will inflate his popularity ratings before he leaves office.

[Tom Earp]

Originally Posted by centaur532

Both a shame and a wonderful thing. On one hand, we won't get to see Harry function as a commander but on the other, sending those troops home is the best that could happen since the war started.
Hopefully Blair will inflate his popularity ratings before he leaves office.

Actully Your Post Doesn't mean crap!

If He is gone, then He is gone!

If a Royal is in the line of fire is not your decission is it?

Why do you not join the fight and see if You wish to be in the line of fire!

Oh, Line of Fire is with real bullets coming at you or bombs going off that can blow your body into parts or have to go to rehab!

Granted the British Troops are there, they are in a much lower area of danger. Good for them!

Now, why do you not worry about The American Military that are getting killed?


Let us flee from Iraq, let the asses wipe them selves out!

So, that will not mean that We Infandels will not die from their swords or Bombs.

God, You are fantastic!

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Tom Earp]

The Photogs are going to go anywhere that they can get pixs, well maybe except to Iraq!

In the History of England if anyone knows, most if not all of the Princes headed militay of England into Battle along with The King.

The leaders of the Rhelm were the Leaders of all of the Country!

While We look at the British having a inept Govt. they probably look at ours the same way!

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by CutiePie2000

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

Combat camerpersons are way above the paparazzi
While I have posted somewhere in GC the number of reporters and camerapersons killed and wounded, I am just about sure that the number for paparazzi is "0".

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by jon1856

Combat camerpersons are way above the paparazzi
While I have posted somewhere in GC the number of reporters and camerapersons killed and wounded, I am just about sure that the number for paparazzi is "0".

While not the same, this is particularly true of the Military camerafolks.

The members of Combat Camera are the ones who have gone in with the first wave of invasions and shot the pictures of the Marines storming the beach.

They are remarkably brave as well as highly skilled.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by dekeguy

I don't think anyone of us ought to be in the stone casting business.

A great post from Dekeguy as usual.

Centaur, perhaps you should consider the above.