A Royal who's true Blue
Babble on.
With props to The Armorer - and a stern look to CaptH, who continues to tip disproportionately south - we learn that Prince Harry will deploy next year as a troop commander with the Blues and Royals to Iraq.
After all the scandals and disappointments the Windsors have given us over the past decade or two, this is heartening:
"There's no way I'm going to put myself through Sandhurst and then sit on my arse back home while my boys are out fighting for their country," [Prince Harry] has said.
Service. It's key to true leadership, and I'm glad to hear that Harry has adopted the ethos as his own.
Babble off.
posted by Babbling Brooks @ 3:18 p.m.
7 comments
7 Comments:
Harry. A Troop Commander. I'm willing to bet there's a few nervous Blues and Royals in Iraq today. My, how quickly these royals rise through the ranks.
I'm not questioning the skills he learned, but I wouldn't want a beer-swilling, pot-smoking nazi-armband wearing royal commanding me. Harry might want to help out, but he might end up doing far more harm than good. Just wait 'til he tries to funnel from a jerrican of fuel. Yeesh.
I wonder how his new unit will receive him when he's over there? I have a hard time believing the rank and file are going to consider him one of their own. He's got his work cut out for him.
Dante, you might have missed it, but Harry's going to graduate from Sandhurst as the equivalent of a 2Lt, same as we do over here. He's not rising through the ranks any more quickly than any other officer candidate.
And it seems those in charge of his training in the UK think a little more highly of him than you do:
Instructors at Sandhurst have been impressed by Prince Harry's approach. "He is going to be a real asset to the Army," a senior officer said. "It would be a real shame if the Palace or MoD did not allow him to go on operations because he is a cracking officer."
I'd suggest that they might be in a better position to judge than you or I.
What I'd be more concerned about are two words: target and hostage. It's not quite like his uncle Andrew in the Falklands, 20 years ago, because a Royal Navy helo pilot would only have become a prisoner of war. A capture by Iraqi insurgents would be a blockbuster in terms of propaganda value (which, given the anti-West slant of MSM, would only be amplified).
Outstanding, and good for Prince Harry. Nice to see he hasn't forgotten the English royals' warrior roots.
It's kind of a shame that George II was the last British monarch to lead troops into battle. They should do that sort of thing more often.
It's kind of a shame that George II was the last British monarch to lead troops into battle. They should do that sort of thing more often.
On a mythic, larger-than-life level, I'd agree with you.
From a practical standpoint, how would a Head of State be subject to the civilian control - of the PM and Parliament in this case - he technically outranks in the constitutional order?
It's a sticky problem. Better for sitting monarchs to sit, and let other royals fight, I think.
I think the constitutional level of each royal personally, including the monarch, has a divided aspect of the personal and that of the office so that just as the monarch has subjected themselves to the legislature for governance he or she could also do so in matters military.
Members of the Royal family served (and died) in the Second World War.
It's happened before, it can happen again.
Post a Comment
<< Home