Discussion:
Was there really ever any chance of Prince Harry going to Iraq?
(too old to reply)
Spob
2007-06-22 02:54:49 UTC
Permalink
Or just a big show to help him save face?

What's the point of the princes going to a military academy when
they're never going to actually face mortal danger in combat?

Has any English king or successor to the throne in modern history
served in combat?
f***@verizon.net
2007-06-22 03:41:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spob
Or just a big show to help him save face?
We may never know.
Post by Spob
What's the point of the princes going to a military academy when
they're never going to actually face mortal danger in combat?
You mean like Prince Andrew?
Post by Spob
Has any English king or successor to the throne in modern history
served in combat?
Before Prince Andrew?
There was George IV - I believe he was in the Battle of Jutland.

SusanC
Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell
2007-06-22 04:46:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@verizon.net
Post by Spob
Or just a big show to help him save face?
We may never know.
Post by Spob
What's the point of the princes going to a military academy when
they're never going to actually face mortal danger in combat?
You mean like Prince Andrew?
Post by Spob
Has any English king or successor to the throne in modern history
served in combat?
Before Prince Andrew?
There was George IV - I believe he was in the Battle of Jutland.
SusanC
I think not - George IV died in 1830 and the Battle of Jutland was on 31 May
1916.
It's not what you've got......
2007-06-22 05:51:32 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 22, 2:46 pm, "Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell"
Post by Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell
Post by f***@verizon.net
Post by Spob
Or just a big show to help him save face?
We may never know.
Post by Spob
What's the point of the princes going to a military academy when
they're never going to actually face mortal danger in combat?
You mean like Prince Andrew?
Post by Spob
Has any English king or successor to the throne in modern history
served in combat?
Before Prince Andrew?
There was George IV - I believe he was in the Battle of Jutland.
SusanC
I think not - George IV died in 1830 and the Battle of Jutland was on 31 May
1916.
Hey cockhead why do you blokes always have to be so sarcastic. You
know full well that Susan meant George VI and not IV. As if you have
never committed a typo before !
William Reitwiesner
2007-06-22 09:56:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell
Post by f***@verizon.net
Post by Spob
Or just a big show to help him save face?
We may never know.
Post by Spob
What's the point of the princes going to a military academy when
they're never going to actually face mortal danger in combat?
You mean like Prince Andrew?
Post by Spob
Has any English king or successor to the throne in modern history
served in combat?
Before Prince Andrew?
There was George IV - I believe he was in the Battle of Jutland.
SusanC
I think not - George IV died in 1830 and the Battle of Jutland was on 31 May
1916.
in 1743, George II, in person, led the Army at the battle of Dettingen.
It's not what you've got......
2007-06-22 10:03:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Reitwiesner
Post by Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell
Post by f***@verizon.net
Post by Spob
Or just a big show to help him save face?
We may never know.
Post by Spob
What's the point of the princes going to a military academy when
they're never going to actually face mortal danger in combat?
You mean like Prince Andrew?
Post by Spob
Has any English king or successor to the throne in modern history
served in combat?
Before Prince Andrew?
There was George IV - I believe he was in the Battle of Jutland.
SusanC
I think not - George IV died in 1830 and the Battle of Jutland was on 31 May
1916.
in 1743, George II, in person, led the Army at the battle of Dettingen.
And was the last to do so.
Spob
2007-06-22 06:33:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@verizon.net
There was George IV - I believe he was in the Battle of Jutland.
George IV of England? Unlikely since he died in 1830.
It's not what you've got......
2007-06-22 07:07:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spob
Post by f***@verizon.net
There was George IV - I believe he was in the Battle of Jutland.
George IV of England? Unlikely since he died in 1830.
Spob my old mate don't you read the previous posts...or is it your
intention to stick the boot in ?
Spob
2007-06-22 11:14:52 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 22, 3:07 am, "It's not what you've got......"
Post by It's not what you've got......
Post by Spob
Post by f***@verizon.net
There was George IV - I believe he was in the Battle of Jutland.
George IV of England? Unlikely since he died in 1830.
Spob my old mate don't you read the previous posts...or is it your
intention to stick the boot in ?
??

At the time aside from my initial post - which I assure you I was
acquainted with - there was only the post I referred to.
f***@verizon.net
2007-06-22 15:58:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spob
Post by f***@verizon.net
There was George IV - I believe he was in the Battle of Jutland.
George IV of England? Unlikely since he died in 1830.
How the heck did I transpose the numbers?
Apologies.

SusanC
William Black
2007-06-22 08:11:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@verizon.net
Post by Spob
Or just a big show to help him save face?
We may never know.
Post by Spob
What's the point of the princes going to a military academy when
they're never going to actually face mortal danger in combat?
You mean like Prince Andrew?
Post by Spob
Has any English king or successor to the throne in modern history
served in combat?
Before Prince Andrew?
There was George IV - I believe he was in the Battle of Jutland.
VI...
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
f***@verizon.net
2007-06-22 15:59:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@verizon.net
Before Prince Andrew?
There was George IV - I believe he was in the Battle of Jutland.
VI...
Yes - at least people could figure it out by the reference.

SusanC
Joseph McMillan
2007-06-22 12:49:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@verizon.net
Post by Spob
Has any English king or successor to the throne in modern history
served in combat?
Before Prince Andrew?
There was George IV - I believe he was in the Battle of Jutland.
As others have already pointed out, not George IV (and obviously not
at Jutland), but his younger brother, the future William IV, did spend
12 years on active service in the Royal Navy. He saw action at Cape
St. Vincent in 1780 as a midshipman and was also at least in a combat
theater of operations in New York during the latter stages of the
American Revolution.

Joseph McMillan
It's not what you've got......
2007-06-22 05:53:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spob
Or just a big show to help him save face?
What's the point of the princes going to a military academy when
they're never going to actually face mortal danger in combat?
Has any English king or successor to the throne in modern history
served in combat?
There was fuck all chance of Harry going to Iraq. More's the pity in
my opinion as I thought the ginger nut would give a good showing of
himself, and it would be a wonderful opportunity for him to spread his
wings if you know what I mean. The world has moved on, in the wrong
direction of course since the Falklands and certainly since the Battle
of Jutland, where both second sons of the reigning monarch fought.
FriarTuck
2007-06-22 08:49:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spob
Or just a big show to help him save face?
What's the point of the princes going to a military academy when
they're never going to actually face mortal danger in combat?
Has any English king or successor to the throne in modern history
served in combat?
King George watched some new tanks on the testing ground in England once...
William Black
2007-06-22 09:10:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by FriarTuck
Post by Spob
Or just a big show to help him save face?
What's the point of the princes going to a military academy when
they're never going to actually face mortal danger in combat?
Has any English king or successor to the throne in modern history
served in combat?
King George watched some new tanks on the testing ground in England once...
And his son, also called George and also later the king, got shot at the
Battle of Jutland during the same war.

I'm sure you mean well, but trying to make aristocrats and royalty into
cowards doesn't work.

They may be stupid and ignorant and elitist and parasitic and greedy and all
the rest of it but they are certainly not cowards.
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
FriarTuck
2007-06-22 09:27:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Post by Spob
Or just a big show to help him save face?
What's the point of the princes going to a military academy when
they're never going to actually face mortal danger in combat?
Has any English king or successor to the throne in modern history
served in combat?
King George watched some new tanks on the testing ground in England once...
And his son, also called George and also later the king, got shot at the
Battle of Jutland during the same war.
he probably forgot to put the safety catch on...
Post by William Black
I'm sure you mean well, but trying to make aristocrats and royalty into
cowards doesn't work.
They may be stupid and ignorant and elitist and parasitic and greedy and all
the rest of it but they are certainly not cowards.
I never made them out to be cowards... I would not call them cowards, it
is simply a statistical fact that if you stay out of the firing line you
are less likely to get shot...

Plus of course the propaganda value to the other side of having killed the
opponents figurehead and the possible decrease in morale on your side,
though actually it might have raised a cheer amongst some... ;)
FriarTuck
2007-06-22 09:39:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
And his son, also called George and also later the king, got shot at the
Battle of Jutland during the same war.
He was at the time, of course "the spare" not "the heir"....
FriarTuck
2007-06-22 09:53:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
And his son, also called George and also later the king, got shot at the
Battle of Jutland during the same war.
He was at the time, of course "the spare" not "the heir"....
How on earth do you get shot in a sea battle? Were they all standing
their with cutlasses in their teeth and grappling irons and pistols at the
ready preparing to board or something?
William Black
2007-06-22 10:06:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by FriarTuck
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
And his son, also called George and also later the king, got shot at the
Battle of Jutland during the same war.
He was at the time, of course "the spare" not "the heir"....
How on earth do you get shot in a sea battle? Were they all standing
their with cutlasses in their teeth and grappling irons and pistols at the
ready preparing to board or something?
Bloody great big exploding things turn up now and again and go BANG next to
you...

The aforementioned 'bloody great big exploding things' are shot out by a big
hollow tube mounted on a ship, you know, the floaty things that do sea
battles.

The resultant mess is usually discarded...
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
FriarTuck
2007-06-22 10:20:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
And his son, also called George and also later the king, got shot at the
Battle of Jutland during the same war.
He was at the time, of course "the spare" not "the heir"....
How on earth do you get shot in a sea battle? Were they all standing
their with cutlasses in their teeth and grappling irons and pistols at the
ready preparing to board or something?
Bloody great big exploding things turn up now and again and go BANG next to
you...
The aforementioned 'bloody great big exploding things' are shot out by a big
hollow tube mounted on a ship, you know, the floaty things that do sea
battles.
The resultant mess is usually discarded...
Well thats not being shot is it... Thats being injured by shrapnel...
or for the unlucky... being blown to tiny little pieces... for for the
even more unlucky being fatally wounded and taking a long time to
die... And what was it? a little cut on his hand?
FriarTuck
2007-06-22 10:24:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
And his son, also called George and also later the king, got shot at the
Battle of Jutland during the same war.
He was at the time, of course "the spare" not "the heir"....
How on earth do you get shot in a sea battle? Were they all standing
their with cutlasses in their teeth and grappling irons and pistols at the
ready preparing to board or something?
Bloody great big exploding things turn up now and again and go BANG next to
you...
The aforementioned 'bloody great big exploding things' are shot out by a big
hollow tube mounted on a ship, you know, the floaty things that do sea
battles.
The resultant mess is usually discarded...
Well thats not being shot is it... Thats being injured by shrapnel...
or for the unlucky... being blown to tiny little pieces... for for the
even more unlucky being fatally wounded and taking a long time to
die... And what was it? a little cut on his hand?
perhaps, as google is your friend, you might find me a reference to his
injury at the battle of jutland... I cant find any....
FriarTuck
2007-06-22 10:27:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by FriarTuck
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
And his son, also called George and also later the king, got shot at the
Battle of Jutland during the same war.
He was at the time, of course "the spare" not "the heir"....
How on earth do you get shot in a sea battle? Were they all standing
their with cutlasses in their teeth and grappling irons and pistols at the
ready preparing to board or something?
Bloody great big exploding things turn up now and again and go BANG next to
you...
The aforementioned 'bloody great big exploding things' are shot out by a big
hollow tube mounted on a ship, you know, the floaty things that do sea
battles.
The resultant mess is usually discarded...
Well thats not being shot is it... Thats being injured by shrapnel...
or for the unlucky... being blown to tiny little pieces... for for the
even more unlucky being fatally wounded and taking a long time to
die... And what was it? a little cut on his hand?
perhaps, as google is your friend, you might find me a reference to his
injury at the battle of jutland... I cant find any....
are you sure you are not confusing the ship King George V with the person...?
William Black
2007-06-22 10:47:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by FriarTuck
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
And his son, also called George and also later the king, got shot
at
the
Battle of Jutland during the same war.
He was at the time, of course "the spare" not "the heir"....
How on earth do you get shot in a sea battle? Were they all standing
their with cutlasses in their teeth and grappling irons and pistols at the
ready preparing to board or something?
Bloody great big exploding things turn up now and again and go BANG next to
you...
The aforementioned 'bloody great big exploding things' are shot out by a big
hollow tube mounted on a ship, you know, the floaty things that do sea
battles.
The resultant mess is usually discarded...
Well thats not being shot is it... Thats being injured by shrapnel...
or for the unlucky... being blown to tiny little pieces... for for the
even more unlucky being fatally wounded and taking a long time to
die... And what was it? a little cut on his hand?
perhaps, as google is your friend, you might find me a reference to his
injury at the battle of jutland... I cant find any....
Is English not your first language or something?

I said 'shot at'.
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
FriarTuck
2007-06-22 11:12:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
And his son, also called George and also later the king, got shot
at
the
Battle of Jutland during the same war.
He was at the time, of course "the spare" not "the heir"....
How on earth do you get shot in a sea battle? Were they all standing
their with cutlasses in their teeth and grappling irons and pistols at the
ready preparing to board or something?
Bloody great big exploding things turn up now and again and go BANG next to
you...
The aforementioned 'bloody great big exploding things' are shot out by a big
hollow tube mounted on a ship, you know, the floaty things that do sea
battles.
The resultant mess is usually discarded...
Well thats not being shot is it... Thats being injured by shrapnel...
or for the unlucky... being blown to tiny little pieces... for for the
even more unlucky being fatally wounded and taking a long time to
die... And what was it? a little cut on his hand?
perhaps, as google is your friend, you might find me a reference to his
injury at the battle of jutland... I cant find any....
Is English not your first language or something?
I said 'shot at'.
You are a campbell... you said...
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
"also called George and also later the king, got shot at the
Battle of Jutland"
you did not say "shot at, at the battle of jutland" which is what I think
you are trying to say you said", but then your first language appears to
be doublespeak....
FriarTuck
2007-06-22 11:13:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
And his son, also called George and also later the king, got shot
at
the
Battle of Jutland during the same war.
He was at the time, of course "the spare" not "the heir"....
How on earth do you get shot in a sea battle? Were they all standing
their with cutlasses in their teeth and grappling irons and pistols at the
ready preparing to board or something?
Bloody great big exploding things turn up now and again and go BANG next to
you...
The aforementioned 'bloody great big exploding things' are shot out by a big
hollow tube mounted on a ship, you know, the floaty things that do sea
battles.
The resultant mess is usually discarded...
Well thats not being shot is it... Thats being injured by shrapnel...
or for the unlucky... being blown to tiny little pieces... for for the
even more unlucky being fatally wounded and taking a long time to
die... And what was it? a little cut on his hand?
perhaps, as google is your friend, you might find me a reference to his
injury at the battle of jutland... I cant find any....
Is English not your first language or something?
I said 'shot at'.
You are a campbell... you said...
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
"also called George and also later the king, got shot at the
Battle of Jutland"
you did not say "shot at, at the battle of jutland" which is what I think
you are trying to say you said", but then your first language appears to
be doublespeak....
plus of course the correct term would be "shelled" not shot at, you...
William Black
2007-06-22 11:49:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by FriarTuck
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
And his son, also called George and also later the king, got shot
at
the
Battle of Jutland during the same war.
He was at the time, of course "the spare" not "the heir"....
How on earth do you get shot in a sea battle? Were they all standing
their with cutlasses in their teeth and grappling irons and pistols
at
the
ready preparing to board or something?
Bloody great big exploding things turn up now and again and go BANG
next
to
you...
The aforementioned 'bloody great big exploding things' are shot out
by a
big
hollow tube mounted on a ship, you know, the floaty things that do sea
battles.
The resultant mess is usually discarded...
Well thats not being shot is it... Thats being injured by shrapnel...
or for the unlucky... being blown to tiny little pieces... for for the
even more unlucky being fatally wounded and taking a long time to
die... And what was it? a little cut on his hand?
perhaps, as google is your friend, you might find me a reference to his
injury at the battle of jutland... I cant find any....
Is English not your first language or something?
I said 'shot at'.
You are a campbell... you said...
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
"also called George and also later the king, got shot at the
Battle of Jutland"
you did not say "shot at, at the battle of jutland" which is what I think
you are trying to say you said", but then your first language appears to
be doublespeak....
plus of course the correct term would be "shelled" not shot at, you...
OK then, he was shelled at the Battle of Jutland...

So, at last, you do accept he was both at the battle and that large
exploding things were bursting in his general area.

Let us go forward from there.

Andrew has very little chance of becoming king so this looks like being the
last time for a considerable period that any king or queen was ever shot at,
well, except that the current queen's home was bombed when she was a child,
but I've no idea where she was at the time...
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
FriarTuck
2007-06-22 11:52:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
And his son, also called George and also later the king, got shot
at
the
Battle of Jutland during the same war.
He was at the time, of course "the spare" not "the heir"....
How on earth do you get shot in a sea battle? Were they all standing
their with cutlasses in their teeth and grappling irons and pistols
at
the
ready preparing to board or something?
Bloody great big exploding things turn up now and again and go BANG
next
to
you...
The aforementioned 'bloody great big exploding things' are shot out
by a
big
hollow tube mounted on a ship, you know, the floaty things that do sea
battles.
The resultant mess is usually discarded...
Well thats not being shot is it... Thats being injured by shrapnel...
or for the unlucky... being blown to tiny little pieces... for for the
even more unlucky being fatally wounded and taking a long time to
die... And what was it? a little cut on his hand?
perhaps, as google is your friend, you might find me a reference to his
injury at the battle of jutland... I cant find any....
Is English not your first language or something?
I said 'shot at'.
You are a campbell... you said...
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
"also called George and also later the king, got shot at the
Battle of Jutland"
you did not say "shot at, at the battle of jutland" which is what I think
you are trying to say you said", but then your first language appears to
be doublespeak....
plus of course the correct term would be "shelled" not shot at, you...
OK then, he was shelled at the Battle of Jutland...
So, at last, you do accept he was both at the battle and that large
exploding things were bursting in his general area.
Let us go forward from there.
Andrew has very little chance of becoming king so this looks like being the
last time for a considerable period that any king or queen was ever shot at,
well, except that the current queen's home was bombed when she was a child,
but I've no idea where she was at the time...
In the luxury bomb shelter I would imagine, if she was not at one of the
other palaces.... or canada.....

Lets hope this is the last monarch we have full stop, then Mr.
Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg can go if he wants.

Better still would be for these last two fiasco's our government got us
into were our last forays into war for a very long time.
William Black
2007-06-22 12:08:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by FriarTuck
Lets hope this is the last monarch we have full stop, then Mr.
Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg can go if he wants.
I used to think that.

And then someone whispered two little words in my ear...

'President Thatcher'.
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
FriarTuck
2007-06-22 12:10:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Lets hope this is the last monarch we have full stop, then Mr.
Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg can go if he wants.
I used to think that.
And then someone whispered two little words in my ear...
'President Thatcher'.
We dont need a president either, just a national council of
representatives, don't want two conflicting bodies like the yanks have
got, fuck parliament and all its pomp, ceremony and shite....

Rework local councils get rid of all the merchants mates and bingo a
better system.
William Black
2007-06-22 12:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Lets hope this is the last monarch we have full stop, then Mr.
Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg can go if he wants.
I used to think that.
And then someone whispered two little words in my ear...
'President Thatcher'.
We dont need a president either, just a national council of
representatives, don't want two conflicting bodies like the yanks have
got, fuck parliament and all its pomp, ceremony and shite....
We do need someone to stand on the podium and do the boring stuff like open
big hspitals and bridges.
Post by FriarTuck
Rework local councils get rid of all the merchants mates and bingo a
better system.
So 'Anarcho Syndicalism' is the way to go.

Well, maybe, if we can work out a way to stop people just pinching stuff...
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
FriarTuck
2007-06-22 12:19:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Lets hope this is the last monarch we have full stop, then Mr.
Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg can go if he wants.
I used to think that.
And then someone whispered two little words in my ear...
'President Thatcher'.
We dont need a president either, just a national council of
representatives, don't want two conflicting bodies like the yanks have
got, fuck parliament and all its pomp, ceremony and shite....
We do need someone to stand on the podium and do the boring stuff like open
big hspitals and bridges.
Got jade off big brother for that ;)
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Rework local councils get rid of all the merchants mates and bingo a
better system.
So 'Anarcho Syndicalism' is the way to go.
Well, maybe, if we can work out a way to stop people just pinching stuff...
The people doing the most pinching of stuff are the merchants and the
merchants mates in govt and councils, I would get rid of them first thing,
the police will deal with the rest, time would tell if a better world is
directly proportional to crime rates....
Thored
2007-06-22 16:21:05 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:19:16 GMT, FriarTuck
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Lets hope this is the last monarch we have full stop, then Mr.
Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg can go if he wants.
I used to think that.
And then someone whispered two little words in my ear...
'President Thatcher'.
We dont need a president either, just a national council of
representatives, don't want two conflicting bodies like the yanks have
got, fuck parliament and all its pomp, ceremony and shite....
We do need someone to stand on the podium and do the boring stuff like open
big hspitals and bridges.
Got jade off big brother for that ;)
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Rework local councils get rid of all the merchants mates and bingo a
better system.
So 'Anarcho Syndicalism' is the way to go.
Well, maybe, if we can work out a way to stop people just pinching stuff...
The people doing the most pinching of stuff are the merchants and the
merchants mates in govt and councils, I would get rid of them first thing,
the police will deal with the rest,
Police?
Biggest set of crooks and thugs in the country. Before anything else
we need limits set on their powers and them answerable to the people.

A little exercise for you. Go and find out who is actually in control
of the police in your area. You will be surprised and dumbfounded at
the answer and will never trust the bastards again.
Post by FriarTuck
? time would tell if a better world is
directly proportional to crime rates....
Define crime.

I understand there are now another 3000 ways you can get into prison
FriarTuck
2007-06-22 16:32:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thored
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:19:16 GMT, FriarTuck
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Lets hope this is the last monarch we have full stop, then Mr.
Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg can go if he wants.
I used to think that.
And then someone whispered two little words in my ear...
'President Thatcher'.
We dont need a president either, just a national council of
representatives, don't want two conflicting bodies like the yanks have
got, fuck parliament and all its pomp, ceremony and shite....
We do need someone to stand on the podium and do the boring stuff like open
big hspitals and bridges.
Got jade off big brother for that ;)
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Rework local councils get rid of all the merchants mates and bingo a
better system.
So 'Anarcho Syndicalism' is the way to go.
Well, maybe, if we can work out a way to stop people just pinching stuff...
The people doing the most pinching of stuff are the merchants and the
merchants mates in govt and councils, I would get rid of them first thing,
the police will deal with the rest,
Police?
Biggest set of crooks and thugs in the country. Before anything else
we need limits set on their powers and them answerable to the people.
I agree some serious checks need to be put on that mob... I envisaged a
new police force modelled more on Ital Ites community policeman P.C.
Ganga... (If you are old enough you might remember three of a kind... :))
Post by Thored
A little exercise for you. Go and find out who is actually in control
of the police in your area. You will be surprised and dumbfounded at
the answer and will never trust the bastards again.
I always though it was the Chief Constable reporting to Councillors, but I
suspect a lot of input from down the lodge....
Post by Thored
Post by FriarTuck
? time would tell if a better world is
directly proportional to crime rates....
Define crime.
I understand there are now another 3000 ways you can get into prison
Aye... definitely directly related to the number of "criminals"....

Some redefinition of crime and punishment is required.... not the way tptb
are doing it either....
William Black
2007-06-22 18:29:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
We do need someone to stand on the podium and do the boring stuff like open
big hspitals and bridges.
Got jade off big brother for that ;)
Ok then, we need someone who can be trusted not to get pissed and either
fall over or fondle a Lady Mayor's arse before they get out of sight of the
cameras.
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
Well, maybe, if we can work out a way to stop people just pinching stuff...
The people doing the most pinching of stuff are the merchants and the
merchants mates in govt and councils, I would get rid of them first thing,
the police will deal with the rest, time would tell if a better world is
directly proportional to crime rates....
The old Soviets tried that.

It didn't do any good either.

Everybody steals from the local council if they can.

That's why honest people won't have anything to do with it...
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
FriarTuck
2007-06-22 19:14:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
We do need someone to stand on the podium and do the boring stuff like open
big hspitals and bridges.
Got jade off big brother for that ;)
Ok then, we need someone who can be trusted not to get pissed and either
fall over or fondle a Lady Mayor's arse before they get out of sight of the
cameras.
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
Well, maybe, if we can work out a way to stop people just pinching stuff...
The people doing the most pinching of stuff are the merchants and the
merchants mates in govt and councils, I would get rid of them first thing,
the police will deal with the rest, time would tell if a better world is
directly proportional to crime rates....
The old Soviets tried that.
I don't mean get rid of the merchants but sever their inside connections
to the council...
Post by William Black
It didn't do any good either.
Everybody steals from the local council if they can.
That's why honest people won't have anything to do with it...
Well something should be done about it... council tax costs me a small
fortune each year...
William Black
2007-06-22 19:20:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by FriarTuck
Well something should be done about it... council tax costs me a small
fortune each year...
You and me both mate.

I'm sure HMG is open to constructive suggestions...

'Shoot all the bastards and let me run it' would probably not be considered
a constructive suggestion.
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
FriarTuck
2007-06-22 22:08:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Well something should be done about it... council tax costs me a small
fortune each year...
You and me both mate.
I'm sure HMG is open to constructive suggestions...
I think like your "can I have that in writing" suggestion, it paints a
rosy picture but is essentially bullshit...
Post by William Black
'Shoot all the bastards and let me run it' would probably not be considered
a constructive suggestion.
I never suggested such a thing.
William Black
2007-06-22 22:40:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Well something should be done about it... council tax costs me a small
fortune each year...
You and me both mate.
I'm sure HMG is open to constructive suggestions...
I think like your "can I have that in writing" suggestion, it paints a
rosy picture but is essentially bullshit...
Ever tried?

My experience, and it has only happened twice so far, is that the
government of the day is delighted if people actually take some sort of
interest.

As a general rule there are organisations that are asked by HMG for their
view. It's not hard to get into a position in one of these where you are
one of the people being asked, especially if you have time on your hands in
'office hours'.

If you are a member of one of the two major political parties it's even
easier, but you do have to be a member of a major political party...
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
'Shoot all the bastards and let me run it' would probably not be considered
a constructive suggestion.
I never suggested such a thing.
FriarTuck
2007-06-22 22:44:41 UTC
Permalink
HMG
Fuck HMG... it should be the peoples government not one of the holders of
the biggest stock portfolios in the world.....
CJ Buyers
2007-06-23 06:33:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by FriarTuck
HMG
Fuck HMG... it should be the peoples government not one of the holders of
the biggest stock portfolios in the world.....
Who are these "people" exactly?

Those who take part in a "people's" quiz, perhaps?
FriarTuck
2007-06-23 09:22:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by FriarTuck
HMG
Fuck HMG... it should be the peoples government not one of the holders of
the biggest stock portfolios in the world.....
Who are these "people" exactly?
Those who take part in a "people's" quiz, perhaps?
What on earth is a "people's" quiz?
CJ Buyers
2007-06-24 05:49:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by FriarTuck
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by FriarTuck
HMG
Fuck HMG... it should be the peoples government not one of the holders of
the biggest stock portfolios in the world.....
Who are these "people" exactly?
Those who take part in a "people's" quiz, perhaps?
What on earth is a "people's" quiz?
A quiz which has the word "people's" before it.
FriarTuck
2007-06-24 12:59:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by FriarTuck
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by FriarTuck
HMG
Fuck HMG... it should be the peoples government not one of the holders of
the biggest stock portfolios in the world.....
Who are these "people" exactly?
Those who take part in a "people's" quiz, perhaps?
What on earth is a "people's" quiz?
A quiz which has the word "people's" before it.
Maybe an election is a peoples quiz, but they don't have the decency to
give people a box that lets them express the opinion "fuck politicians we
want no government! - Fuck government shysters!"
f***@verizon.net
2007-06-22 16:04:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Lets hope this is the last monarch we have full stop, then Mr.
Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg can go if he wants.
Why is it that legal name changes do not apply to royals?
Rather discriminatory, that....
Post by William Black
I used to think that.
And then someone whispered two little words in my ear...
'President Thatcher'.
Or, to stretch the point even further, "President Bush...."

SusanC
William Black
2007-06-22 10:49:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
Bloody great big exploding things turn up now and again and go BANG next to
you...
The aforementioned 'bloody great big exploding things' are shot out by a big
hollow tube mounted on a ship, you know, the floaty things that do sea
battles.
The resultant mess is usually discarded...
Well thats not being shot is it... Thats being injured by shrapnel...
or for the unlucky... being blown to tiny little pieces...
1. Shrapnel shells were never used by ships in WWI

2. Shrapnel don't blow 'the unlucky ones' to tiny little pieces

But keep plugging away, I've nothing much else to do today...
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
FriarTuck
2007-06-22 11:21:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
Bloody great big exploding things turn up now and again and go BANG next to
you...
The aforementioned 'bloody great big exploding things' are shot out by a big
hollow tube mounted on a ship, you know, the floaty things that do
sea battles.
The resultant mess is usually discarded...
Well thats not being shot is it... Thats being injured by shrapnel...
or for the unlucky... being blown to tiny little pieces...
1. Shrapnel shells were never used by ships in WWI
2. Shrapnel don't blow 'the unlucky ones' to tiny little pieces
But keep plugging away, I've nothing much else to do today...
Shrapnel is any part of a shell splinter, while there can be specific
"shrapnel" devices and shells like claymores (which are mines I know), any
shell when exploding produces shrapnel to a greater or lesser extent...
William Black
2007-06-22 11:46:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
Bloody great big exploding things turn up now and again and go BANG next to
you...
The aforementioned 'bloody great big exploding things' are shot out by a big
hollow tube mounted on a ship, you know, the floaty things that do
sea battles.
The resultant mess is usually discarded...
Well thats not being shot is it... Thats being injured by shrapnel...
or for the unlucky... being blown to tiny little pieces...
1. Shrapnel shells were never used by ships in WWI
2. Shrapnel don't blow 'the unlucky ones' to tiny little pieces
But keep plugging away, I've nothing much else to do today...
Shrapnel is any part of a shell splinter, while there can be specific
"shrapnel" devices and shells like claymores (which are mines I know), any
shell when exploding produces shrapnel to a greater or lesser extent...
Well no.

A 'Shrapnel shell' is a specific device that spreads iron balls about the
place at very high speed.

What you are talking about are 'shell splinters'.
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
FriarTuck
2007-06-22 11:48:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
Bloody great big exploding things turn up now and again and go BANG next to
you...
The aforementioned 'bloody great big exploding things' are shot out by a big
hollow tube mounted on a ship, you know, the floaty things that do
sea battles.
The resultant mess is usually discarded...
Well thats not being shot is it... Thats being injured by shrapnel...
or for the unlucky... being blown to tiny little pieces...
1. Shrapnel shells were never used by ships in WWI
2. Shrapnel don't blow 'the unlucky ones' to tiny little pieces
But keep plugging away, I've nothing much else to do today...
Shrapnel is any part of a shell splinter, while there can be specific
"shrapnel" devices and shells like claymores (which are mines I know), any
shell when exploding produces shrapnel to a greater or lesser extent...
Well no.
A 'Shrapnel shell' is a specific device that spreads iron balls about the
place at very high speed.
What you are talking about are 'shell splinters'.
I suggest you go and buy an Oxford English Dictionary and spend a
bit of your time reading it before you come round here claiming to
be an expert on the English language.
CJ Buyers
2007-06-25 06:08:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
Bloody great big exploding things turn up now and again and go BANG next to
you...
The aforementioned 'bloody great big exploding things' are shot out by a big
hollow tube mounted on a ship, you know, the floaty things that do
sea battles.
The resultant mess is usually discarded...
Well thats not being shot is it... Thats being injured by shrapnel...
or for the unlucky... being blown to tiny little pieces...
1. Shrapnel shells were never used by ships in WWI
2. Shrapnel don't blow 'the unlucky ones' to tiny little pieces
But keep plugging away, I've nothing much else to do today...
Shrapnel is any part of a shell splinter, while there can be specific
"shrapnel" devices and shells like claymores (which are mines I know), any
shell when exploding produces shrapnel to a greater or lesser extent...
Well no.
A 'Shrapnel shell' is a specific device that spreads iron balls about the
place at very high speed.
What you are talking about are 'shell splinters'.
No, that isn't "shrapnel". That is a "Shrapnel SHELL"
FriarTuck
2007-06-25 12:44:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
Bloody great big exploding things turn up now and again and go BANG next to
you...
The aforementioned 'bloody great big exploding things' are shot out by a big
hollow tube mounted on a ship, you know, the floaty things that do
sea battles.
The resultant mess is usually discarded...
Well thats not being shot is it... Thats being injured by shrapnel...
or for the unlucky... being blown to tiny little pieces...
1. Shrapnel shells were never used by ships in WWI
2. Shrapnel don't blow 'the unlucky ones' to tiny little pieces
But keep plugging away, I've nothing much else to do today...
Shrapnel is any part of a shell splinter, while there can be specific
"shrapnel" devices and shells like claymores (which are mines I know), any
shell when exploding produces shrapnel to a greater or lesser extent...
Well no.
A 'Shrapnel shell' is a specific device that spreads iron balls about the
place at very high speed.
What you are talking about are 'shell splinters'.
No, that isn't "shrapnel". That is a "Shrapnel SHELL"
Well he is right and wrong, Shrapnel shells invented by Mr. Shrapnel, but
he must have got the idea from seeing people have limbs removed by flying
splinters, put 2 & 2 together and....

So splinters/fragments are also named after him....
Yeah Right
2007-06-25 06:59:16 UTC
Permalink
On , , Fri, 22 Jun 2007 09:53:32 GMT, Re: Was there really ever
any chance of Prince Harry going to Iraq?, FriarTuck
Post by FriarTuck
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
And his son, also called George and also later the king, got shot at the
Battle of Jutland during the same war.
He was at the time, of course "the spare" not "the heir"....
How on earth do you get shot in a sea battle?
Ask Nelson. He was picked off by a sharpshooter.
FriarTuck
2007-06-25 12:42:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yeah Right
On , , Fri, 22 Jun 2007 09:53:32 GMT, Re: Was there really ever
any chance of Prince Harry going to Iraq?, FriarTuck
Post by FriarTuck
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
And his son, also called George and also later the king, got shot at the
Battle of Jutland during the same war.
He was at the time, of course "the spare" not "the heir"....
How on earth do you get shot in a sea battle?
Ask Nelson. He was picked off by a sharpshooter.
Errr... Jutland <> Trafalgar

Trafalgar fine, they may well have had cutlasses in their teeth, pistols
and grappling irons... Jutland they engaged at a mile distance....
William Black
2007-06-25 12:46:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by FriarTuck
Post by Yeah Right
On , , Fri, 22 Jun 2007 09:53:32 GMT, Re: Was there really ever
any chance of Prince Harry going to Iraq?, FriarTuck
Post by FriarTuck
Post by FriarTuck
Post by William Black
And his son, also called George and also later the king, got shot at the
Battle of Jutland during the same war.
He was at the time, of course "the spare" not "the heir"....
How on earth do you get shot in a sea battle?
Ask Nelson. He was picked off by a sharpshooter.
Errr... Jutland <> Trafalgar
Trafalgar fine, they may well have had cutlasses in their teeth, pistols
and grappling irons... Jutland they engaged at a mile distance....
A touch more than that.

In fact I don't think they ever got that close...
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
David Martel
2007-06-23 19:13:46 UTC
Permalink
Tuck,
Post by FriarTuck
Plus of course the propaganda value to the other side of having killed the
opponents figurehead and the possible decrease in morale on your side,
though actually it might have raised a cheer amongst some... ;)
That's what I found so odd about this incident, Prince Harry is not a
figurehead; he's a young royal who is rather distantly in line for the
throne. The UK does not lack for royals and there is law concerning
succession. His death or injury might have been a major news event but I
doubt the empire would have crumbled. I suspect that not sending him with
his unit has destroyed his chances for a career.

Dave M.
Magda
2007-06-23 19:19:12 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 19:13:46 GMT, in alt.gossip.celebrities, "David Martel"
<***@earthlink.net> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:

... Tuck,
...
...
... > Plus of course the propaganda value to the other side of having killed the
... > opponents figurehead and the possible decrease in morale on your side,
... > though actually it might have raised a cheer amongst some... ;)
...
...
... That's what I found so odd about this incident, Prince Harry is not a
... figurehead; he's a young royal who is rather distantly in line for the
... throne.

He is number 3.

The UK does not lack for royals and there is law concerning
... succession. His death or injury might have been a major news event but I
... doubt the empire would have crumbled. I suspect that not sending him with
... his unit has destroyed his chances for a career.
...
... Dave M.
...
William Black
2007-06-23 19:34:54 UTC
Permalink
"David Martel" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:Khefi.325$***@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

I suspect that not sending him with
Post by David Martel
his unit has destroyed his chances for a career.
Interesting idea.

Someone sees him as a threat?

Perhaps his family influence is seen by some as a means by which he would
get extra promotion?

Didn't work for Andrew...
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
FriarTuck
2007-06-24 00:23:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Martel
Tuck,
Post by FriarTuck
Plus of course the propaganda value to the other side of having killed the
opponents figurehead and the possible decrease in morale on your side,
though actually it might have raised a cheer amongst some... ;)
That's what I found so odd about this incident, Prince Harry is not a
figurehead; he's a young royal who is rather distantly in line for the
throne. The UK does not lack for royals and there is law concerning
succession. His death or injury might have been a major news event but I
doubt the empire would have crumbled. I suspect that not sending him with
his unit has destroyed his chances for a career.
Dave M.
Well I disagree, I think he would have been a target myself, and not
having a career in the army, thats a bonus if you ask me.

There is lots of philosophy and medical evidence to show that war can
screw you up mentally big time.

But then to some that is their attitude, do as I say or you die... Well
fuck that type of person, they should die.
It's not what you've got......
2007-06-24 02:39:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by FriarTuck
Post by David Martel
Tuck,
Post by FriarTuck
Plus of course the propaganda value to the other side of having killed the
opponents figurehead and the possible decrease in morale on your side,
though actually it might have raised a cheer amongst some... ;)
That's what I found so odd about this incident, Prince Harry is not a
figurehead; he's a young royal who is rather distantly in line for the
throne. The UK does not lack for royals and there is law concerning
succession. His death or injury might have been a major news event but I
doubt the empire would have crumbled. I suspect that not sending him with
his unit has destroyed his chances for a career.
Dave M.
Well I disagree, I think he would have been a target myself, and not
having a career in the army, thats a bonus if you ask me.
There is lots of philosophy and medical evidence to show that war can
screw you up mentally big time.
But then to some that is their attitude, do as I say or you die... Well
fuck that type of person, they should die.
How can Harry rejoin his men after their return from Basra and look
them in the eye ? He is now a dead duck in terms of his military
career. Does he want a desk job ?
David Martel
2007-06-24 18:56:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by It's not what you've got......
How can Harry rejoin his men after their return from Basra and look
them in the eye ? He is now a dead duck in terms of his military
career. Does he want a desk job ?
This is what I think also. Prince Harry will not command the respect of
combat troops now. And he's overtrained to run a motor pool. They've killed
his career. I hope he does not try to "prove" himself by silly and risky
behavior.

Dave M.
Jan Böhme
2007-06-24 07:21:55 UTC
Permalink
Candide
2007-06-24 08:29:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Martel
That's what I found so odd about this incident, Prince Harry is not a
figurehead; he's a young royal who is rather distantly in line for the
throne.
He's not all that distantly in line. If Prince William dies before
begetting children, he will eventually be King if he survuves him.
But I think there is three different things at play here. One is that
the general level of risk-aversiveness has increased since the
Falkland war. Another is the increased importance of media spin. And
the third is that, in this particular theatre of war, the most dreaded
option is to be taken prisoner by an armed group which doesn't
recognise the Geneva Convention.
Post by David Martel
I suspect that not sending him with
his unit has destroyed his chances for a career.
You're most probably right.

Jan Böhme



In this post 9/11/01 world, and all that has happened since including
the Iraq war, it was highly unlikely PH was going anywhere near Iraq, it
was folly for anyone to think otherwise/propose such an idea. From the
moment the thing was proposed one can almost rest assured plans were
being drawn up to not only capture PH, but his savage, long torture then
eventual killing; all taken down on video and distributed to the world.
PH would have probably only been killed out right, say via sniper fire
or bombing if all attempts to get at him failed.

Keeping the above in mind it would mean every time PH left base it would
require an entire regiment if not more as body guards. Such movements in
of themselves would signal a very high personage even to the most
illiterate of persons. The other alternative, to send the PH out as a
regular solider would have been just too great a risk and you can be
sure no one in HM services would sign off on that idea. Which leaves
sending the prince to Iraq, but confining him to HQ, well behind lines,
in a secure area and even then perhaps always with bodyguards. Hardly
the military life PH envisioned.

Then there is the knowledge that you (PH that is), is putting your
entire regiment and or mission at risk because of your being a potential
target. While not a military person, do know that sort of thing simply
isn't something one wants to put one's men through.
DB.
2007-06-24 09:55:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Candide
In this post 9/11/01 world, and all that has happened since
including
the Iraq war, it was highly unlikely PH was going anywhere near Iraq, it
was folly for anyone to think otherwise/propose such an idea. From the
moment the thing was proposed one can almost rest assured plans were
being drawn up to not only capture PH, but his savage, long torture then
eventual killing; all taken down on video and distributed to the world.
PH would have probably only been killed out right, say via sniper fire
or bombing if all attempts to get at him failed.
Keeping the above in mind it would mean every time PH left base it would
require an entire regiment if not more as body guards. Such
movements in
of themselves would signal a very high personage even to the most
illiterate of persons. The other alternative, to send the PH out as a
regular solider would have been just too great a risk and you can be
sure no one in HM services would sign off on that idea. Which leaves
sending the prince to Iraq, but confining him to HQ, well behind lines,
in a secure area and even then perhaps always with bodyguards.
Hardly
the military life PH envisioned.
Then there is the knowledge that you (PH that is), is putting your
entire regiment and or mission at risk because of your being a
potential
target. While not a military person, do know that sort of thing simply
isn't something one wants to put one's men through.
I'm totally astonished that this situation was not foreseen and
considered by the 'brains' at Buck House and Downing St. years ago
when career options for Princes Harry and Andrew were being
considered. Army involvement in recent years (and probably in future
years) has not been of the 'battlefield' nature of WW1, WW2 or the
Falklands with the anonymity of trench (or open-plain) warfare
conducted under the Geneva Conventions. Rather it has been
'peacekeeping' amid terrorists (N. Ireland, Iraq, Abyssinia, etc.)
where these Princes could, and obviously would, be targeted.
It is difficult to imagine what careers (other than the Services)
these two young men might have taken up, but neither the RN nor the
RAF would have exposed them to being individually targeted - as does
the Army.
--
DB.
DB.
2007-06-24 10:00:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by DB.
Post by Candide
In this post 9/11/01 world, and all that has happened since
including
the Iraq war, it was highly unlikely PH was going anywhere near Iraq, it
was folly for anyone to think otherwise/propose such an idea. From the
moment the thing was proposed one can almost rest assured plans were
being drawn up to not only capture PH, but his savage, long torture then
eventual killing; all taken down on video and distributed to the world.
PH would have probably only been killed out right, say via sniper fire
or bombing if all attempts to get at him failed.
Keeping the above in mind it would mean every time PH left base it would
require an entire regiment if not more as body guards. Such
movements in
of themselves would signal a very high personage even to the most
illiterate of persons. The other alternative, to send the PH out as a
regular solider would have been just too great a risk and you can be
sure no one in HM services would sign off on that idea. Which
leaves
sending the prince to Iraq, but confining him to HQ, well behind lines,
in a secure area and even then perhaps always with bodyguards. Hardly
the military life PH envisioned.
Then there is the knowledge that you (PH that is), is putting your
entire regiment and or mission at risk because of your being a potential
target. While not a military person, do know that sort of thing simply
isn't something one wants to put one's men through.
I'm totally astonished that this situation was not foreseen and
considered by the 'brains' at Buck House and Downing St. years ago
when career options for Princes Harry and Andrew were being
considered. Army involvement in recent years (and probably in
future
years) has not been of the 'battlefield' nature of WW1, WW2 or the
Falklands with the anonymity of trench (or open-plain) warfare
conducted under the Geneva Conventions. Rather it has been
'peacekeeping' amid terrorists (N. Ireland, Iraq, Abyssinia, etc.)
where these Princes could, and obviously would, be targeted.
It is difficult to imagine what careers (other than the Services)
these two young men might have taken up, but neither the RN nor the
RAF would have exposed them to being individually targeted - as does
the Army.
--
DB.
Correction - Line 3: for 'Andrew' read 'William'. Sorry!
--
DB.
FriarTuck
2007-06-24 15:31:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Candide
the most dreaded
option is to be taken prisoner by an armed group which doesn't
recognise the Geneva Convention.
like the yanks.... :(
David Martel
2007-06-24 18:56:44 UTC
Permalink
Jan,

For Prince Harry to become King, Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles, and
Prince William would all have to die. They are all currently healthy. I
think therefore his chances of becoming King are slim. In the last 200 years
has any prince succeeded in this fashion? Sorry, I regard him as distantly
in line.
Because of the laws of succession. if Prince Harry dies someone else will
move up, the UK does not lack for royals. I bear the young man no ill will
but he is not and will most likely remain unimportant to the UK. I'm sure he
is important to family and friends.

Dave M.
Jim McQuiggin
2007-06-24 19:07:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Martel
Jan,
For Prince Harry to become King, Queen Elizabeth, Prince
Charles, and
Prince William would all have to die. They are all currently
healthy. I think therefore his chances of becoming King are slim.
In the last 200 years has any prince succeeded in this fashion?
Sorry, I regard him as distantly in line.
Because of the laws of succession. if Prince Harry dies someone else will
move up, the UK does not lack for royals. I bear the young man no
ill will but he is not and will most likely remain unimportant to
the UK. I'm sure he is important to family and friends.
Dave M.
King George V and King George VI were both second sons. Queen Victoria
was the daughter of a fourth son. The line can shorten quickly.

Jim
Magda
2007-06-24 19:12:21 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:56:44 GMT, in alt.gossip.celebrities, "David Martel"
<***@earthlink.net> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:

... Jan,
...
... For Prince Harry to become King, Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles, and
... Prince William would all have to die.

Elizabeth and Charles are not immortals, and William can fail to produce children. Not
that impossible.
yD
2007-06-24 22:06:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Magda
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:56:44 GMT, in alt.gossip.celebrities, "David Martel"
... Jan,
...
... For Prince Harry to become King, Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles, and
... Prince William would all have to die.
Elizabeth and Charles are not immortals, and William can fail to produce children. Not
that impossible.
And if Harry's not available, there's Andrew, his children, then
Edward and his child. There's always someone to take the throne.
yD
allan connochie
2007-06-24 23:04:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by yD
Post by Magda
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:56:44 GMT, in alt.gossip.celebrities, "David Martel"
... Jan,
...
... For Prince Harry to become King, Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles, and
... Prince William would all have to die.
Elizabeth and Charles are not immortals, and William can fail to produce children. Not
that impossible.
And if Harry's not available, there's Andrew, his children, then
Edward and his child. There's always someone to take the throne.
yD
Different times nowadays of course. One can imagine one of the Queen's brood
or their offspring taking the throne but beyond that it gets more difficult.
There are real ardent monarchists and real ardent republicans in the UK but
most folk will generally be less bothered about the monarchy one way or the
other. There is an 'always been' syndrom though where the thought of one of
the well known immediate family taking over is somehow familiarly
comfortable. Let's say the entire immediate family are somehow gone then the
situation changes. If some relatively unknown figure was suddenly presented
as the new unelected Head of State then the chances of the monarchy ending
or at least being radically altered would greatly increase.

Allan
m***@yahoo.com
2007-06-25 02:27:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by yD
And if Harry's not available, there's Andrew, his children, then
Edward and his child. There's always someone to take the throne.
Sure, hasn't everyone seen King Ralph?
Magda
2007-06-25 04:48:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 15:06:54 -0700, in alt.gossip.celebrities, yD <***@aol.com>
arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:

... On Jun 24, 12:12?pm, Magda <***@de> wrote:
... > On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:56:44 GMT, in alt.gossip.celebrities, "David Martel"
... > <***@earthlink.net> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:
... >
... > ... Jan,
... > ...
... > ... For Prince Harry to become King, Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles, and
... > ... Prince William would all have to die.
... >
... > Elizabeth and Charles are not immortals, and William can fail to produce children. Not
... > that impossible.
...
... And if Harry's not available, there's Andrew, his children, then
... Edward and his child. There's always someone to take the throne.
... yD

Did you forget Anne and her children on some purpose? No Salic Law in England!
yD
2007-06-25 13:26:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Magda
... > On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:56:44 GMT, in alt.gossip.celebrities, "David Martel"
... >
... > ... Jan,
... > ...
... > ... For Prince Harry to become King, Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles, and
... > ... Prince William would all have to die.
... >
... > Elizabeth and Charles are not immortals, and William can fail to produce children. Not
... > that impossible.
...
... And if Harry's not available, there's Andrew, his children, then
... Edward and his child. There's always someone to take the throne.
... yD
Did you forget Anne and her children on some purpose? No Salic Law in England!
No, I didn't forget her or her children, but before here, let's see
Charles, William (no Harry), Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, Edward, Louise
-- Anne would be 8th, gotta stop somewhere :)
yD
Magda
2007-06-25 16:38:36 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 06:26:56 -0700, in alt.gossip.celebrities, yD <***@aol.com>
arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:

... On Jun 24, 9:48?pm, Magda <***@de> wrote:
... > On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 15:06:54 -0700, in alt.gossip.celebrities, yD <***@aol.com>
... > arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:
... >
... > ... On Jun 24, 12:12?pm, Magda <***@de> wrote:
... > ... > On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:56:44 GMT, in alt.gossip.celebrities, "David Martel"
... > ... > <***@earthlink.net> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:
... > ... >
... > ... > ... Jan,
... > ... > ...
... > ... > ... For Prince Harry to become King, Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles, and
... > ... > ... Prince William would all have to die.
... > ... >
... > ... > Elizabeth and Charles are not immortals, and William can fail to produce children. Not
... > ... > that impossible.
... > ...
... > ... And if Harry's not available, there's Andrew, his children, then
... > ... Edward and his child. There's always someone to take the throne.
... > ... yD
... >
... > Did you forget Anne and her children on some purpose? No Salic Law in England!
...
... No, I didn't forget her or her children, but before here, let's see
... Charles, William (no Harry), Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, Edward, Louise
... -- Anne would be 8th, gotta stop somewhere :)

Beatrice, Eugenie and Louise are girls - boys first!
yD
2007-06-25 17:29:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Magda
... >
... > ... > On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:56:44 GMT, in alt.gossip.celebrities, "David Martel"
... > ... >
... > ... > ... Jan,
... > ... > ...
... > ... > ... For Prince Harry to become King, Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles, and
... > ... > ... Prince William would all have to die.
... > ... >
... > ... > Elizabeth and Charles are not immortals, and William can fail to produce children. Not
... > ... > that impossible.
... > ...
... > ... And if Harry's not available, there's Andrew, his children, then
... > ... Edward and his child. There's always someone to take the throne.
... > ... yD
... >
... > Did you forget Anne and her children on some purpose? No Salic Law in England!
...
... No, I didn't forget her or her children, but before here, let's see
... Charles, William (no Harry), Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, Edward, Louise
... -- Anne would be 8th, gotta stop somewhere :)
Beatrice, Eugenie and Louise are girls - boys first!
No -- I think if Andrew was King and died, Beatrice would take the
throne as his oldest child. If William and Harry had been girls they
would be 2nd & 3rd in line, as they are now.
yD

Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell
2007-06-24 20:29:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Martel
Jan,
For Prince Harry to become King, Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles, and
Prince William would all have to die. They are all currently healthy. I
think therefore his chances of becoming King are slim. In the last 200
years has any prince succeeded in this fashion? Sorry, I regard him as
distantly in line.
Because of the laws of succession. if Prince Harry dies someone else
will move up, the UK does not lack for royals. I bear the young man no ill
will but he is not and will most likely remain unimportant to the UK. I'm
sure he is important to family and friends.
Dave M.
Yes - we went over this not to long ago.

Look at 1817 - George III on The Throne; his eldest son future George IV;
his daughter - a pregnant Princess Charlotte; her uncle Frederick Duke of
York; his brother William Duke of Clarence. By 1830 all, including the
child being carried by Charlotte, had died and Clarence was William IV.

-- Stephen J Stillwell jr
Stan Brown
2007-06-24 20:46:24 UTC
Permalink
Sun, 24 Jun 2007 13:29:39 -0700 from Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell
Post by David Martel
Jan,
For Prince Harry to become King, Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles, and
Prince William would all have to die. They are all currently healthy. I
think therefore his chances of becoming King are slim. In the last 200
years has any prince succeeded in this fashion?
Yes - we went over this not too long ago.
Look at 1817 - George III on The Throne; his eldest son future George IV;
his daughter - a pregnant Princess Charlotte; her uncle Frederick Duke of
York; his brother William Duke of Clarence. By 1830 all, including the
child being carried by Charlotte, had died and Clarence was William IV.
In addition, we have Victoria, her eldest son the Prince of Wales,
his eldest son the Duke of Clarence and second son the Duke of York.
The last-named stood in exactly the same relation to Victoria that
Harry today does to the present Queen. That man, the Duke of York,
did become King as George V.

The cases aren't exactly parallel because Edward VII did reign for
ten years. But Harry's chance of being King is not all that "slim" --
if the monarchy survives.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
allan connochie
2007-06-24 22:58:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Martel
Jan,
For Prince Harry to become King, Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles, and
Prince William would all have to die. They are all currently healthy. I
think therefore his chances of becoming King are slim. In the last 200
years has any prince succeeded in this fashion? Sorry, I regard him as
distantly in line.
Third in line isn't distant. It is ridiculous to suggest it is. The Queen
and Charles are both because of their ages likely to die before Harry.
Basically if something happened to William then Harry is a likely future
monarch.
Post by David Martel
Because of the laws of succession. if Prince Harry dies someone else
will move up, the UK does not lack for royals. I bear the young man no ill
will but he is not and will most likely remain unimportant to the UK. I'm
sure he is important to family and friends.
That is silly again. In the UK, for those who care, and there still are a
lot who do for some reason, it matters very much that those in succession
are well known figures. When you get down to say 10th in line then you are
hitting slightly more obscure people. The idea that Harry is generally
unimportant is way off the mark.

Allan
David Martel
2007-06-25 16:47:05 UTC
Permalink
My apologies for my poor wording. I meant to ask whether anyone had risen
from 3rd in line to a crown in a short period of time, a day, a week, a
month, even a year.
I'm sure that there have been analogous situations in naval warfare where
a very junior ensign quite suddenly becomes the acting captain of a vessel.


Dave M.
Spob
2007-06-22 11:43:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
And his son, also called George and also later the king, got shot at the
Battle of Jutland during the same war.
I'm sure you mean well, but trying to make aristocrats and royalty into
cowards doesn't work.
They may be stupid and ignorant and elitist and parasitic and greedy and all
the rest of it but they are certainly not cowards.
So you knew all of them well enough to know the level of their valor,
eh?

Seems hard to gauge when virtually none of them have been engaged in
front line action, though they've certainly had some spiffy-looking
portraits painted of them in uniform.
Post by William Black
From what I've read, unclear how much actual peril Andrew's "missions"
put him in.
I'm sure they made for some great photo-ops though.
William Black
2007-06-22 12:11:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spob
Post by William Black
And his son, also called George and also later the king, got shot at the
Battle of Jutland during the same war.
I'm sure you mean well, but trying to make aristocrats and royalty into
cowards doesn't work.
They may be stupid and ignorant and elitist and parasitic and greedy and all
the rest of it but they are certainly not cowards.
So you knew all of them well enough to know the level of their valor,
eh?
The empirical evidence seems to indicate that they're not cowards.
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
FriarTuck
2007-06-22 12:22:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Spob
Post by William Black
And his son, also called George and also later the king, got shot at the
Battle of Jutland during the same war.
I'm sure you mean well, but trying to make aristocrats and royalty into
cowards doesn't work.
They may be stupid and ignorant and elitist and parasitic and greedy and all
the rest of it but they are certainly not cowards.
So you knew all of them well enough to know the level of their valor,
eh?
The empirical evidence seems to indicate that they're not cowards.
because they realise cowardice is a faux word invented by their kind....
f***@verizon.net
2007-06-22 16:02:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spob
Post by William Black
From what I've read, unclear how much actual peril Andrew's "missions"
put him in.
I'm sure they made for some great photo-ops though.
I'm betting one of the reasons Prince Harry was *not* sent to Iraq
was all the trouble that happened just because of Prince Andrew
in the Falklands. The Argentinians were known to have targeted him
("This one's for you, Andrew!") and he ended up getting escorted on
his missions. IOW, even *greater* peril than for other soldiers.

SusanC
Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell
2007-06-22 17:33:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@verizon.net
Post by Spob
Post by William Black
From what I've read, unclear how much actual peril Andrew's "missions"
put him in.
I'm sure they made for some great photo-ops though.
I'm betting one of the reasons Prince Harry was *not* sent to Iraq
was all the trouble that happened just because of Prince Andrew
in the Falklands. The Argentinians were known to have targeted him
("This one's for you, Andrew!") and he ended up getting escorted on
his missions. IOW, even *greater* peril than for other soldiers.
SusanC
Exactly how was Andrew "escorted?" He flew a heliocopter that was
deliberately made an alternative target (for heat-seeking missiles) to the
ship he was protecting.
Spob
2007-06-23 00:18:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@verizon.net
I'm betting one of the reasons Prince Harry was *not* sent to Iraq
was all the trouble that happened just because of Prince Andrew
in the Falklands. The Argentinians were known to have targeted him
("This one's for you, Andrew!") and he ended up getting escorted on
his missions. IOW, even *greater* peril than for other soldiers.
And how exactly would they have id'd him? Did he have a Royal Coat of
Arms and "Prince Andrew" emblazoned in foot-high white letters on the
side of his chopper?
Dolemite
2007-06-22 20:58:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spob
Or just a big show to help him save face?
What's the point of the princes going to a military academy when
they're never going to actually face mortal danger in combat?
Has any English king or successor to the throne in modern history
served in combat?
Prince Andrew flew helicopters in combat during the Falklands war.

So much for your point eh?
Spob
2007-06-23 00:15:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dolemite
Prince Andrew flew helicopters in combat during the Falklands war.
So much for your point eh?
I know he flew helicopters in a combat theater, which is not
necessarily the same thing as having flown helicopters in combat.

The question is whether Andrew's missions were calculated to put on a
big show about him being "at war" while putting him in the least
possible actual peril or was he given no special consideration?

"In combat" means people are shooting at you. Any documentation
demonstrating this was ever the case? I don't want to take anything
away from him and will gladly salute him if he was the real deal, but
"if" is the crucial word.

Bob Hope, who was technically "too old" for active duty in WWII - by 1
year - was "in combat zones" doing his "see what a patriot I am" dog
and pony show but he certainly wasn't in combat. Jimmy Stewart,
another American actor only 4 years younger than Hope who was at first
rejected as 4-F, said like hell - fought it - and got in and flew
genuine combat missions. Big difference.
CJ Buyers
2007-06-23 06:28:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spob
I don't want to take anything
away from him ...
Who are you trying to kid? That is exactly your motivation.

The Prince flew missions over then occupied territory, including San
Carlos Bay, and his helicopter was shot at.

If, on the other hand, you have any evidence that he was on some
concert party entertaining the troops like Bob Hope, as you try to
insinuate, you are free to present it. Of course, you do not, and
cannot.
Spob
2007-06-23 09:33:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by Spob
I don't want to take anything
away from him ...
Who are you trying to kid? That is exactly your motivation.
Horseshit. The truth is the truth. Either he was given special status/
treatment because of being a member of the world's most famous welfare
family or he wasn't.

Our current president has done his best to hide that he was obviously
given special status during Vietnam and clearly kept as far away from
harm's way as possible. Now, Vietnam was a travesty and it's possible
that his father - who was a WWII combat veteran - didn't feel it was a
just war and not one he felt good about sacrificing his son to and
just didn't feel he could come out and say so. But they've never come
out and said that - they've merely dodged around the facts.
Post by CJ Buyers
The Prince flew missions over then occupied territory, including San
Carlos Bay, and his helicopter was shot at.
Citations? It can be dificult to get the truth when military
commanders can be somewhat susceptible to political pressure. American
military and political officials have lied plenty about wartime
events.

Even if he did, the fact remains that instances of successors to the
British throne seeing combat in modern times have been rare. There's a
strange British psychology that sees the royals as "special" or
"better than". How much concern was there over Joe Bloke the soldier
vs how much attention was paid to Andrew at the time? Or concern over
the royals during WWII vs the "commoners", many of whom were killed?

It's even been said it's "unlikely" - translation: impossible - that
William will ever see combat duty due to his being the immediate
successor to the throne. I.e. - like many royals before him, his
attending Sandhurst is all a bunch of show.
Yeah Right
2007-06-25 07:06:29 UTC
Permalink
On , , Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:15:40 -0700, Re: Was there really ever
any chance of Prince Harry going to Iraq?, Spob
Post by Spob
Jimmy Stewart,
another American actor only 4 years younger than Hope who was at first
rejected as 4-F, said like hell - fought it - and got in and flew
genuine combat missions.
Combat missions where you fly at 30,000 feet and drop bombs?
Post by Spob
Big difference.
Big difference.
Thored
2007-06-23 14:44:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dolemite
Post by Spob
Or just a big show to help him save face?
What's the point of the princes going to a military academy when
they're never going to actually face mortal danger in combat?
Has any English king or successor to the throne in modern history
served in combat?
Prince Andrew flew helicopters in combat during the Falklands war.
So much for your point eh?
Not actually combat but not many women did anyway

http://tinyurl.com/2zbk5z and scroll down

Loading Image...
Mark, Devon
2007-06-24 05:54:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spob
Or just a big show to help him save face?
What's the point of the princes going to a military academy when
they're never going to actually face mortal danger in combat?
Has any English king or successor to the throne in modern history
served in combat?
For him to have gone would have been complete madness.
yD
2007-06-24 15:30:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spob
Or just a big show to help him save face?
What's the point of the princes going to a military academy when
they're never going to actually face mortal danger in combat?
It'd do Charles's reputation a lot of good if Harry was sent to either
Iraq or Afghanistan. He could quote his grandmother about looking the
British people in the eye (after Buckingham Palace had been bombed in
WWII). I certainly think it won't help the British Government boost
morale about being in Iraq if he is 'excused'. It's not like the line
of succession ends with him.
yD
Post by Spob
Has any English king or successor to the throne in modern history
served in combat?
D***@aol.com
2007-06-25 00:18:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by yD
Post by Spob
Or just a big show to help him save face?
What's the point of the princes going to a military academy when
they're never going to actually face mortal danger in combat?
It'd do Charles's reputation a lot of good if Harry was sent to either
Iraq or Afghanistan. He could quote his grandmother about looking the
British people in the eye (after Buckingham Palace had been bombed in
WWII). I certainly think it won't help the British Government boost
morale about being in Iraq if he is 'excused'. It's not like the line
of succession ends with him.
yD
Post by Spob
Has any English king or successor to the throne in modern history
served in combat?-
I do not understand why any troops are being sent over, they are
supposed to be deploying the troops. Haven't enough young people died
for a fraudulent war (a war we were Lied into based on fabricated Lies
perpetuated by the malicious, borderline-retarded, and extremely
incompetent, Bush administration, a war for oil money to line their
own Republican pockets).

Doesn't make much sense why there was any talk of Harry, or any other
soldier, being sent to their death in a fraudulent war.
m***@yahoo.com
2007-06-25 02:31:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by D***@aol.com
perpetuated by the malicious, borderline-retarded, and extremely
incompetent, Bush administration,
It's not true that he's borderline retarded...
i***@yahoo.com
2007-06-24 18:58:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spob
Or just a big show to help him save face?
What's the point of the princes going to a military academy when
they're never going to actually face mortal danger in combat?
Has any English king or successor to the throne in modern history
served in combat?
NO! It was nevah under consideration, despite the melodramatics
presented by the Brit royalty and countrymen!
allan connochie
2007-06-24 23:11:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@yahoo.com
Post by Spob
Or just a big show to help him save face?
What's the point of the princes going to a military academy when
they're never going to actually face mortal danger in combat?
Has any English king or successor to the throne in modern history
served in combat?
NO! It was nevah under consideration, despite the melodramatics
presented by the Brit royalty and countrymen!
Mind you the last English king "as in someone being king of a Kingdom called
England" was William of Orange who died more than 300 years ago.


Allan
yD
2007-06-25 13:20:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by allan connochie
Post by i***@yahoo.com
Post by Spob
Or just a big show to help him save face?
What's the point of the princes going to a military academy when
they're never going to actually face mortal danger in combat?
Has any English king or successor to the throne in modern history
served in combat?
NO! It was nevah under consideration, despite the melodramatics
presented by the Brit royalty and countrymen!
Mind you the last English king "as in someone being king of a Kingdom called
England" was William of Orange who died more than 300 years ago.
Allan
But still venerated in at least one part of the United Kingdom. His
victories are celebrated every year. And the tricentenial was a big
deal.
yD
i***@yahoo.com
2007-06-25 17:26:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by yD
Post by allan connochie
Post by i***@yahoo.com
Post by Spob
Or just a big show to help him save face?
What's the point of the princes going to a military academy when
they're never going to actually face mortal danger in combat?
Has any English king or successor to the throne in modern history
served in combat?
NO! It was nevah under consideration, despite the melodramatics
presented by the Brit royalty and countrymen!
Mind you the last English king "as in someone being king of a Kingdom called
England" was William of Orange who died more than 300 years ago.
Allan
But still venerated in at least one part of the United Kingdom. His
victories are celebrated every year. And the tricentenial was a big
deal.
yD
As was the visit by Queenie Pie to Jamestown, Va. in recognition of
the 400th anniversary celebration. Yeah.......1607, supposedly
civilized settlers from England come to America and shortly thereafter
start the execution of the Indians whose land it was before the hoity-
toity interlopers arrived.

may the Lord have mercy on your soul, as well as the soul of the evil
child of excess, your Queen!
i***@yahoo.com
2007-06-25 17:22:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by allan connochie
Post by i***@yahoo.com
Post by Spob
Or just a big show to help him save face?
What's the point of the princes going to a military academy when
they're never going to actually face mortal danger in combat?
Has any English king or successor to the throne in modern history
served in combat?
NO! It was nevah under consideration, despite the melodramatics
presented by the Brit royalty and countrymen!
Mind you the last English king "as in someone being king of a Kingdom called
England" was William of Orange who died more than 300 years ago.
Allan
Don't come knocking on my door Allan. It appears you might be hoity-
toity, if not a hoity-toity brit. the fella who posted before me
mentioned the term 'King'. I used the term 'Royalty'....big
difference there fella.

maybe you need to return to 4th grade and go thru the reading
comprehension class yet again

*SPANK!*

come on back if you fancy more torture Allan
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...