View Full Version : Prince not going to IRAQ
British Military: Prince Harry Won't Go to Iraq
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Prince Harry will not be sent to Iraq with his unit, Britain's top general said Wednesday.
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt said the threat to Harry and his regiment was too great.
"There have been a number of specific threats, some reported and some not reported which related directly to Prince Harry," Dannatt said. "These threats exposed him and those around him to a degree of risk I considered unacceptable."
Sky News' Tim Marshall reported that the reason for the decision was because "he is a magnet for jihadists."
Clarence House, the office of Harry's father, Prince Charles, issued a statement saying Harry was "very disappointed" but will not quit the army.
"He fully understands Gen. Dannatt's difficult decision and remains committed to his army career," the statement said. "Prince Harry's thoughts are with the rest of the battle group in Iraq."
The move represents a U-turn by defense chiefs who said last month that the third-in-line to the throne would be joining troops in the Gulf.
The Prince, who is 22, was to have been deployed with his Blues and Royals regiment in the coming weeks. He has always insisted he wanted to serve alongside his men wherever they were sent.
Harry would have been the first member of the British royal family to serve in a war zone since his uncle, Prince Andrew, flew as a helicopter pilot in the Falklands conflict with Argentina in 1982.
The younger son of Charles and the late Princess Diana, Harry has been a frequent face on the front of Britain's tabloid newspapers, which have constantly covered his party-going lifestyle at glitzy London nightclubs.
It sucks to be him. Dam if you, do dam if you don't. Only part I didn't like about it. He had to know he would be putting his own men at risk. There are Iraq civilians working on that base. There is absolutely no way to keep it secret.
The life those guys are born into has got to suck. It's one thing to be the kid of a US President. It eventually ends and you also had your life prior to being the Presidents kid. With them it's Birth to Death with no way out.
Unless this is part of a bigger plan
"men I would like to introduce PVT Harry..... I mean PVT Garry your new squad Grenadier"
82ndtrooper
05-16-2007, 13:52
It sucks to be him. Dam if you, do dam if you don't. Only part I didn't like about it. He had to know he would be putting his own men at risk. There are Iraq civilians working on that base. There is absolutely no way to keep it secret.
The life those guys are born into has got to suck. It's one thing to be the kid of a US President. It eventually ends and you also had your life prior to being the Presidents kid. With them it's Birth to Death with no way out.
Unless this is part of a bigger plan
"men I would like to introduce PVT Harry..... I mean PVT Garry your new squad Grenadier"
I have to say I agree. At the very least he was willing to go and didn't put up a fuss and wimper about going with his other soldier brothers. I dont doubt for a minute that being born into royalty in Great Britain has it's challenges, but I'm sure most of us would like to try it for a week or two at least.
I think every single terrorist in the area would have driven, flown, swam or crawled to the area. Anything Brit would have been hit in the hope of getting him.
Life sucks to be him but it's not worth the chance of a major boost to the terrorist's moral by killing him.
Pete
no boost in morale from killing him, but they will still get a boost + propaganda value out of the fact that he's now not going. from the perspective of the other guy its still good either way.
It sucks to be him. Dam if you, do dam if you don't. Only part I didn't like about it. He had to know he would be putting his own men at risk. There are Iraq civilians working on that base. There is absolutely no way to keep it secret.
The life those guys are born into has got to suck. It's one thing to be the kid of a US President. It eventually ends and you also had your life prior to being the Presidents kid. With them it's Birth to Death with no way out.
Unless this is part of a bigger plan
"men I would like to introduce PVT Harry..... I mean PVT Garry your new squad Grenadier"
Maybe the service branch be decided to volunteer with wasn't the best suited for someone as high profile as he. The Royal Airforce or Navy (like others of the Royal family who have served) would have been a better choice IMO. Serving on a ship or aircraft keeps Harry at a stand off distance, yet allows him to contribute to the best of his abilities supporting the fight.
I think it's admirable in this day and age for guy like him wanting to lead from the front, but there are practical limits of his contribution. No one can undo his high profile image (unless the Brits pull a rabbit out of their hats and conjure the spirit of Houdini to pull some tricks).
IMHO I would spread "disinformation" on the Prince's whereabouts to the "muj".
Perhaps use that to prep the battlefield so my side can kill large numbers of insurgents. Nothing wrong with using dirty tricks to kill the "muj".
Nothing wrong with using dirty tricks to kill the "muj".
Not just nothing wrong with this, but I would like to see some creativity along these lines. I think it is amazing that he woud like to go to Iraq. The only difference between him and a son/daughter of a president, he is serving.
If a son/daughter of any president served, I would start playing the lottery.
Weazle23
05-20-2007, 12:47
He'd be some nice bait for a big trap...
"There have been a number of specific threats, some reported and some not reported which related directly to Prince Harry," Dannatt said. "These threats exposed him and those around him to a degree of risk I considered unacceptable."
I'll preface what I'm about to say with this statement. I admire the young man's decision to join a combat arms, boots on ground unit. Especially given his present stature. Now what I don't understand is the above statement, which I've quoted, and that I am about to make comments in regards to, in specifics to the young Prince's decision. When did they all of a sudden receive Intel, or come to the not so obvious conclusion, that the degree of risk would be unacceptable? How does one define, in regards to the current situation what is acceptable/unacceptable? One man, unknown to the world is walking down a road in theater and is killed, most likely along with fellow servicemen, by an IED or direct/indirect fire...unacceptable, YET accepted. Another young man, of the commonwealth, rides down the street (he's set to serve in a light mech. cavalry unit from what I hear) and may suffer the same fate...unacceptable AND unaccepted. Harsh reality is that the world isn't always fair and death does not discriminate.
This young man decides, during time of conflict to join the military. Furthermore, he joins a unit, that it is known will be deploying in direct support of and to carry out combat operations. I understand that his being there would have surely put the unit as well as his persons into a situation with escalated "degree of risk". Why let the young man join that unit in the first place, only to tell him he can't go because it's too dangerous. Is it so the young man gains the distinction of having said unit in his royal resume. Having been associated, and I dare speculate, possibly rating some of the same unit/personal serive awards that will surely be rated from the unit's participation in the conflict. History tends to repeat itself, with regards to the men of the royal family, and their service records and decorations from what I have been able to conclude via research. It's possible that, the afore mentioned was the REAL reason that he may/may not have been pressed into service in the first place. Knowing what the outcome would be from the onset and blowing smoke over the UK public with his going then not going stance. Make it appear he's ready and willing when you know good and well, that he'll never leave England's shores. Again, only a speculation.
I know I would be bummed though, and rightly so, if I had trained with and formed a brotherhood with my guys, waiting to get the call one day...only to be told I had to sit this one out. It's got to be a let down for the youngster and possibly damaging to his psychi...or maybe he doesn't give it much thought.
He is a man, and a 2nd Lt. at that. IMHO I don't feel coddling him is the correct thing to do. Albeit, I know there are surely "outside" influences in the matter, i.e.; Queen Bee and the hive.
I say, let the man serve his tour in country. As a Marine, I know our officers lead from the front and by example. I'm sure the same rings true in the Army's house or any other branch of service around the globe. I was lucky enough, while in the Marines, to have done a CAX with 45 CDO. I know from personal experience that their Officers lead by example as well. Of course, in a house of royalty, maybe you rate...well obviously you rate a different standard.
As far as what may/may not happen to the unit as a direct result of his being on the roster over there, I wonder what the outcome would be. We will never truly know. Glass half full/half empty type of situation? As one individual has said, it would be a big bait. I'd hate to think of someone being deployed in that manner though, and wouldn't want to condone that. QP's thoughts on that one?
This brings up an interesting topic now. If it were in your (SF's)house? Would SF preclude the CIC's son from service if he could prove worthy of passing all the pre-requisites? Would some of you personally want to take said baggage with you? I would think not, as it would compromise your missions and possibly make you ineffective...but that's just a guess from someone who doesn't work at your level. Seems if the individual proved himself, in the same manner in which those of whom he will operate with, then he's qualified. The rest would merely have political ramifications and decided as such in the end. Thoughts gentlemen?
I guess what I would have liked to have seen happen, was for the young man and Officer, to stand up on his own two feet on this one. Uphold the tradition of his unit and the Officers who have gone before him in service, to include those that made the ultimate sacrifice. TALK THE TALK, WALK THE WALK. As opposed to looking the part.
Obviously the young man is being "groomed" for a different kind of service. In the end, I'm curious to see what becomes of the situation later on down the road.
Airbornelawyer
05-21-2007, 00:47
Not just nothing wrong with this, but I would like to see some creativity along these lines. I think it is amazing that he woud like to go to Iraq. The only difference between him and a son/daughter of a president, he is serving.
If a son/daughter of any president served, I would start playing the lottery.
This is far from the only difference. The United States is a representative democracy, not a constitutional monarchy. Our Presidents are politicians elected for a term of service. Their families have no official role or status (except the First Lady, whose semi-official status has grown over the past few decades). Americans freely choose whether to serve in the armed forces of the United States, and their parents' ambitions for them or for themselves may be a factor in that choice, but it is not a requirement. The members of the royal family of the United Kingdom, by contrast, are all part of an institution of that state, one which imposes and expects certain obligations on them. One of these is service to the kingdom, usually in the British armed forces.
As an aside, though, another consideration to be taken in mind is that many U.S. presidents do not have children of military age when they serve in that office. The current president's two daughters are of military age, and it is their choice, not some obligation of state, how they live their lives. President Clinton had a minor child while in office, although Chelsea Clinton reached maturity late in her father's term. President George H.W. Bush's sons were all in their 30s and 40s when he served as president, though his eldest son did serve in the armed forces (about which much has been written, including much dishonestly so). When he was in the White House, President Reagan had one military-age son, about whom the less said the better.
Jack Carter enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1968 after failing to make much of college deferments (he was in three different colleges between 1965 and 1968). He served on the recovery and salvage ship USS Grapple, including service along the coast of Vietnam. Chip Carter, born in 1950, appears to have been a typical '60s child. Jeff Carter, born in 1952, doesn't appear to have served either.
I know little about President Ford's children. Oldest son Michael Gerald Ford, born in 1950, would have been of age to serve in the Vietnam era, but he became an ordained minister. John Gardner Ford, born in 1952, also would have been old enough to be draft-eligible in the Vietnam era. The closest Steven Meigs Ford, who turned 18 after the war and the end of the draft, seems to have come to the Army was playing a fictional JSOC lieutenant colonel in "Black Hawk Down".
Presidents Nixon and Johnson each had two daughters, and President Truman one, at a time when military service by women was not common. President Kennedy's children were minors.
President Eisenhower's only son John was an infantry officer, a 1944 West Point graduate. He retired from active duty as a LTC and later advanced to brigadier general in the Army Reserve, and was later quoted as expressing annoyance that he did not get the same frontline assignments as his peers in WWII because of his father's prominence. However, in 1952 he deployed to Korea while his father was campaigning for the White House. Eisenhower served with the 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry and on the 3rd Infantry Division staff. From a 1957 Time profile: "In election year 1952, the growing spotlight on the Eisenhowers shone even to Korea. It took John a while to get used to what he called "notoriety." And Eighth Army brass, worrying over the possibility of his capture by the Communists, tried hard to keep his frontline whereabouts a secret."
James Roosevelt, eldest son of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was a Marine Corps officer and received the Navy Cross while serving with the 2nd Raider Battalion. He then went on to command the 4th Raider Battalion. He left active duty as a LTC in August 1945, but later rose to brigadier general in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve. FDR's second son, Elliott, commanded the 3rd Photographic Group, 90th Photographic Wing (Reconnaissance), and 325th Photographic Wing (Reconnaissance) between 1942 and 1945, and retired as a BG. Third son Franklin, Jr. was a U.S. Naval Reserve officer, serving on active duty from 1941-46, and receiving the Silver Star and Purple Heart. Youngest son John also served in the Navy, rising to lieutenant commander and serving on carriers in the Pacific.
Little information is available on Herbert Hoover's sons, but neither appears to have had military service. John Coolidge did not serve, and Calvin Coolidge, Jr. died at age 16. Warren G. Harding had no children. Woodrow Wilson had only daughters.
Robert A. Taft was rejected by the U.S. Army for poor eyesight in 1917. Charles Phelps Taft II served in the U.S. Army during World War I.
Theodore Roosevelt had four sons and two daughters. Eldest son Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. was commissioned in 1917 as a major of infantry. He earned the Distinguished Service Cross at Cantigny while serving with the 26th Infantry, 1st Division. He remained a reserve officer after the war, and was promoted to colonel in 1940. He returned to active duty in 1941 and served with the 1st Infantry Division in North Africa and Sicily. He served in Italy as liaison officer to the French Expeditionary Corps. On June 6, 1944, Brig. Gen. Roosevelt was assistant divisional commander of the 4th Infantry Division, landing on Utah Beach. For his actions that day he received a posthumous Medal of Honor. He died of a heart attack on July 12, 1944.
Second son Kermit served in the British Army before the U.S. entered World War I and earned the Military Cross. After U.S. entry, he became a Field Artillery officer. In 1940, he again served in the British Army until being medically discharged. Despite problems with alcoholism and depression, he was commissioned a major in the U.S. Army in 1942 and sent to Alaska. He committed suicide on June 4, 1943.
Third son Archibald was wounded in action in World War I while serving in the 1st Division. He returned to duty in World War II and commanded the 3rd Battalion of Oregon National Guard's 162nd Infantry in the New Guinea campaign. He was wounded again in that war. He received two Silver Stars and the French Croix de Guerre.
Quentin Roosevelt was killed in action on July 14, 1918 while flying with the 95th Aero Squadron.
Ethel Roosevelt Derby, Teddy Roosevelt's 2nd daughter, served as a nurse in France in World War I.
Airbornelawyer
05-21-2007, 00:49
Going further back...
William McKinley had two daughters who did not survive childhood.
Richard Folsom Cleveland served in the USMC in World War I. Francis Grover Cleveland, born in 1903, was too young for the war.
Benjamin Harrison's son Russell B. Harrison served in the Spanish-American War as a major and later lieutenant colonel.
Chester A. Arthur II doesn't appear to have done much of anything with his life.
James A. Garfield's sons were children during his brief presidency. I don't believe any later served in the armed forces.
Webb Hayes, second son of Rutherford B. Hayes, served with the 1st Ohio Cavalry in the Spanish-American War and was wounded in action. He then went to the Philippines and received the Medal of Honor as a lieutenant colonel with the 31st Infantry, U.S. Volunteers. He also served in the China Relief Expedition, as an observer in the Russo-Japanese War, and as a staff officer in World War I, retiring as a BG.
Frederick Dent Grant, eldest son of U.S. Grant, graduated from West Point in 1871, while his father was president, and was commissioned in the cavalry. He served in several campaigns in the Indian Wars, and left active duty in 1881. He became a brigadier general of U.S. Volunteers in 1898, serving in the Spanish-American War and Phillipine Insurrection. He was made a regular army brigadier general in 1901, and promoted to major general in 1906, serving in that rank until he died in 1912.
Andrew Johnson's eldest son Charles Johnson was an assistant surgeon of the Middle Tennessee Union Infantry, a Union loyalist unit. He was thrown from his horse and killed in 1863. Robert Johnson was colonel of the First Tennessee Union Cavalry. Andrew Johnson, Jr., born in 1852, was too young to serve in the Civil War.
Robert Todd Lincoln turned 18 in 1861, but went to Harvard while his father was sending other men's sons south to fight. Eventually, after dropping out of Harvard Law in 1865, he ended up as a captain on Grant's staff.
None of Franklin Pierce's children reached adulthood. Little is known of Millard Powers Fillmore, but he does not appear to have ever served in the armed forces.
Zachary Taylor's daughters all married military men, while his son Richard Taylor served on his father's staff in Mexico and was a lieutenant general in the Confederate Army.
James K. Polk had no children.
John Tyler had 15 children. Tazewell Tyler served as a Confederate Army surgeon. David Gardiner Tyler enlisted at age 16 in 1863 in the Confederate Army, serving as an enlisted soldier in the Rockbridge Artillery, 1st Virginia Battalion, Army of Northern Virginia. John Alexander Tyler, rejected by the army as too young, served in the Confederate Navy, and later served in the Prussian Army in the Franco-Prussian War. Lachlan Tyler entered the U.S. Navy as a surgeon in 1879.
William Henry Harrison had 10 children. Benjamin Harrison (uncle of President Benjamin Harrison) served in the Texas War of Independence. The other sons do not appear to have served.
Abraham Van Buren graduated from West Point in 1827. He served in the 1836 Seminole War, and resigned his commission in 1837 to work for his father when Martin Van Buren entered the White House. Abraham Van Buren was recalled to duty in 1846 and served in the Mexican War, where he was promoted to brevet lt. colonel. He retired from the U.S. Army in 1854. None of Martin Van Buren's other sons appear to have served.
Andrew Jackson had no children, but adopted (and renamed) his stepson, Andy Jr. who did not serve in the armed forces. Jackson's other adopted son, a Creek orphan, died at age 16. Jackson was also guardian to several other children of family and friends. Andrew Jackson Donelson graduated West Point in 1820 and served on Andrew Jackson's staff in the Seminole Wars. Daniel Smith Donelson was an 1825 West Point graduate and militia officer, who would serve as a brigadier general in the Confederate Army (and was posthumously promoted to major general). Edward Butler was also an 1820 West Point grad, and served on active duty until 1831. After service in the Louisiana militia, he returned to active duty as a colonel of the Third Dragoons in 1847.
None of John Quincy Adams' sons served. James Monroe's only son died at age 2. James Madison had no children of his own and his stepson, John Payne Todd, was an all-around loser. Thomas Jefferson had no sons.
John Adams' son John Quincy was too young to serve in the Revolution and was already a senior government official by the time of the War of 1812. His younger brothers do not seem to have amounted to much. They all came of age at a time when the U.S. did not really have a standing army, though they might have had militia service.
George Washington had no children. His stepson John Parke Custis did not serve in the armed forces, but was General Washington's civilian aide de camp in 1781.
Airbornelawyer
05-21-2007, 01:50
Looking forward,
Duncan Hunter's son Duncan Duane Hunter is a Marine Corps officer and veteran of OIF.
John Sidney McCain IV is currently a midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy, while his younger brother James enlisted in the Marine Corps last year.
Joe Biden's oldest son, the Attorney General of Delaware, is a JAG captain in the Delaware ARNG.
I'm not sure that any of that has any bearing on whether Hunter, McCain or Biden is better qualified for the presidency, or whether the other candidates are not.
I'm not sure that any of that has any bearing on whether Hunter, McCain or Biden is better qualified for the presidency, or whether the other candidates are not.
You're absolutely right. In the final analysis, it probably does not have any bearing on the whether one is more qualified then the other. However, I'm not sure that's the relevant issue at hand.
For me, it is frustrating at times to listen to politicians and pundits espousing on the war and what “we” should do, and the mistakes we have made, ad nauseum, when they have not served, have no loved ones who are serving, and although I can’t know for sure, probably would castigate their sons and daughters, if they made a decision to join the armed services. Yet without having any skin in the game, they spout their opinions loudly for all to hear and then safely drive home at night, while others carry the load.
There seems to be a disconnect, and realizing it’s a voluntary armed services doesn’t make it any easier. Recently there was an editorial reprinted in our local paper written by a veteran of the OIF. He said: America is not at war. The only Americans at war are the active military and their families. Most Americans are more concerned with who is going to win American Idol. This may overstate the current situation, but it hits close enough to the mark that it is disturbing. The author places a large part of the blame for this condition at the foot of the President for not having better communicated with the American public, in not making the war a more personal issue.
Personally, I think it’s more of an issue of volition. The volition of the American public at large and of the sons and daughters of the American Elite, if there is such a thing. Although it is difficult for me to adequately express my thoughts on the matter, in a representative democracy it seems unhealthy for some to bear the brunt of our current GWOT while most go about their business as if it did not exist.
When I feel frustrated about this particular subject, I always remember Shakespeare’s lines from Henry the V:
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires:
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England:
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more, methinks, would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man's company
In the final analysis, there’s some solace in his words. I also find solace in the Prince’s desire to join in the fray regardless of his station in life or the form of his government. I feel less comfortable in a world that denies him this opportunity because it may afford the enemy an opportunity. There’s something innately unseemly about this logic.
The Reaper
05-21-2007, 07:56
Looking forward,
Duncan Hunter's son Duncan Duane Hunter is a Marine Corps officer and veteran of OIF.
John Sidney McCain IV is currently a midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy, while his younger brother James enlisted in the Marine Corps last year.
Joe Biden's oldest son, the Attorney General of Delaware, is a JAG captain in the Delaware ARNG.
I'm not sure that any of that has any bearing on whether Hunter, McCain or Biden is better qualified for the presidency, or whether the other candidates are not.
AL:
I have to tell you, whether I agree with you or not, I always enjoy reading your posts and invariably learn from them.
You have a real talent.
TR
As I remember it (correct me if I am wrong), The royals spend time serving in all of the military services in GB.
Royal Navy
Royal Airforce
Royal Army...
It just happened to be that his current service time and his training was as a tank commander in an Armored Battallion.
I am wrong in this?
My question still remains unanswered...
If this situation were to occur in your guys' (SF's) house, what would your opinions be? All politics aside.
If someone of this stature, either a monarchy heir-apparent OR a President's son was to enlist in the Army during the present day conflict, volunteer for SF, pass ALL the requirements of his own ability and will, and earn that Beret.
Furthermore, knowing that upon graduating to a unit he would probably be operational not too far down the road (don't know what your work-ups to deployment are like so I'm not going to guess) and deploying with you guys of "common" status, and I use the term in a manner as to contrast your view in the eyes of the world when compared to a royal, etc...as a whole, not my own mind you, as we all know you're common men whom posses uncommon skill sets.
With that said, here is a man who has sweat, bled, possibly cried, ached, burned, froze, starved, and done all of the other things that many of you have done to gain entrance into your small Brotherhood.
Do you take your Brother into country with you, allow him to do his job, the same job you once lusted after?
Do you tell your Brother, "Sorry man, you gotta sit this one out. It's just not safe for you or us.", in an already unsafe Profession?
If you let him participate, good to go, end of discussion.
If you don't let him go or LIMIT what he will do, then I ask you, why allow him entrance into your Brotherhood in the first place?
I'm curious as to how a QP would think along them lines there...
The Reaper
05-21-2007, 10:16
I think the Secret Service would say, "No" and keep them assigned outside the combat zone.
I would appreciate the offer to serve, and decline it. We are not fighting a conventional war or enemy. The terrorists do not have the huevos to fight with honor, but prefer to be cowardly little criminals, killing civilians indiscriminately and kidnapping for profit. No Geneva Convention this time.
The known presence of a celebrity in a unit would bring more casualties to everyone else as the bad guys sought to make a politicl statement and to either capture or kill him, making life for everyone riskier.
Let him serve in the Air Force, or the Navy, where the risks generally are much lower. The alternative would be to find a way to let him serve in theater as long as he can without being noticed. As soon as the first report came out of his presence, he would be on the next thing smoking out of theater.
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR
Airbornelawyer
05-21-2007, 19:10
As I noted in my first post, John S.D. Eisenhower, as an infantry lieutenant just out of West Point (their class graduated on D-Day, June 6, 1944), would have fully expected to be assigned to a combat division by late 1944, in a job - infantry platoon leader - which traditionally has one of the highest mortality rates. Instead, due to fears that his capture or death might be used by the Germans for propaganda purposes, he was kept away from the front lines. He later expressed anger and shame at this special treatment. And in his case his father was merely Supreme Allied Commander, a few notches down from the POTUS. I think for the son of a career soldier following in his father's footsteps, the costs would be even greater than for a noble or politician serving out of a sense of noblesse oblige.
But the propaganda concerns were real. Jr. Lt. Yakov Iosifovich Dzhugashvili, son of Josef Stalin, was captured by the Germans near Vitebsk in July 1941, and the Germans got some propaganda value out of him during his captivity before his death under mysterious circumstances in April 1943 (electrified on a camp fence, either by suicide or murder).
Back to more background, which mainly paints a picture of how different society was back then and goes to some of what dennisw is saying a few posts above. I already mentioned FDR's sons roles in the war. Henry B. Wallace, son of Vice President Wallace, served briefly in the Navy from 1944 to 1945. Secretary of State Cordell Hull had no children. Nor did Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr.'s son Robert served as a destroyer officer for the entire war (and is currently the New York County DA). Navy Secretary Frank Knox only had a daughter, actress Elyse Knox, but she did her part as a pinup girl.
On the British side:
Field Marshal Sir Alan Francis Brooke, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, had a son, Thomas, serving as a lieutenant with the Royal Artillery. He might have been kept from frontline assignments because of his father's prominence too. Field Marshal Montgomery's son David was too young to serve in the war.
Major Randolph Churchill, son of the Prime Minister, infiltrated into Yugoslavia in 1944 on a liaison mission to Tito's headquarters, and was nearly captured or killed during a German anti-partisan operation.
Anthony Eden, who was Foreign Secretary and Leader of the House of Commons during the war, had a son Simon Gascoyn Eden who was killed in action in Burma in 1945.
HRH Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark served in the Royal Navy and, surviving the war, married Princess Elizabeth of the United Kingdom. His grandson's experience started this thread.
Alexander Arthur Ramsay, only son of HRH Princess Patricia of Connaught and great-grandson of Queen Victoria, lost a leg in North Africa in 1943 while serving with the Grenadier Guards. Prince Hubertus of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, another great-grandson of Queen Victoria, was killed in action on the Russian Front on 26 November 1943. Prince Friedrich Josias of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was serving in German operations in Arabia and the Causasus at the time, and succeeding to the head of the house of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, was transferred to staff duty, serving as an aide to Erwin Rommel and then to the German commander in Denmark.
And having transitioned to the Germans through the Saxe-Coburg connection, it is worth mentioning: Prince Oskar of Prussia, eldest son of Kaiser Wilhelm II's fifth son, was killed in action in Poland in 1939. Prince Wilhelm of Prussia, eldest son of Crown Prince Wilhelm, Kaiser Wilhelm II's eldest son and heir to the German and Prussian thrones, was killed in action in on 26 May 1940 in Nivelles, France.
Nazi Germany, of course, was not a monarchy and members of the various royal houses deposed in 1918 had no legal standing any different than any other citizen of the Reich, but there was still a lot of nostalgia for the Empire. Prince Wilhelm's funeral was a huge affair, despite efforts by German propaganda chief Goebbels to downplay it. As a result, Hitler instituted a policy which removed members of the former ruling houses of Germany's states from frontline service. Still, scores of members of lesser nobility - princes of mediatized houses, counts, barons, etc. - were killed in action over the course of the war.
In our post-World War II era, such total commitment of society to war is rare, and this readiness to sacrifice is the exception to the rule among many prominent families - in democracies like the U.S. as well as in monarchies. Prince Andrew's service in the Falklands War is the most well-known example.
Prince François of France, son of the Bourbon pretender to the French throne, was killed in action in Algeria in 1960 while serving with the 7e Bataillon de Chasseurs Alpins. But again, like Prince Wilhelm in Nazi Germany, he had no official status in Republican France.
Prince Ludwig Ferdinand of Prussia, the heir to a German throne that will never come around, was killed in a training accident in 1977 while an officer in the Bundeswehr. His son Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia, current head of the House of Hohenzollern, is a reserve captain in the Bundeswehr.
Airbornelawyer
05-21-2007, 19:24
As I remember it (correct me if I am wrong), The royals spend time serving in all of the military services in GB.
Royal Navy
Royal Airforce
Royal Army...
It just happened to be that his current service time and his training was as a tank commander in an Armored Battallion.
I am wrong in this?
They do not. They will choose a branch and serve in it, if at all. Charles and Andrew followed in their father's footsteps into the Royal Navy, while their younger brother washed out of the Royal Marines.
Senior princes may hold honorary appointments in all the services, and are often colonels in chief to a variety of regiments. Prince Charles is a Vice Admiral, Royal Navy, a Lieutenant General of the British Army and an Air Marshal of the RAF.
Prince Edward, having resigned his Royal Marine commission, holds no rank except Personal Aide de Camp to Her Majesty the Queen. He is honorary colonel of four regiments - 2 British and 2 Canadian - though.
HRH The Duke of Kent served from 1955 to 1976 as an Army officer, mainly with the Royal Scots Greys, and was appointed a Field Marshal in 1993.
HRH The Duke of Gloucester never served.
x-factor
05-21-2007, 20:38
Just to add a little bit to AL's very thorough run down...
- Prince Andrew was a helicopter pilot who flew combat missions off of the HMS Invincible during the Falklands war. If I recall right, the Argentine leadership promised to capture him and parade him through the capital. Not the same as Harry, but there are some parallels: both were "spares" not "heirs" and both were threatened by name. Obviously though, there is a major difference between their modes of service.
- Queen Elizabeth (the current queen, Harry's grandmother) was trained as a driver in the Auxiliary Territorial Service (equivalent of the National Guard in a civil defense role) during WWII. She was the first female member of the royal family to serve in the military.
- My wife (Elizabethan age scholar that she is) would have me add also that Elizabeth I did take the field with her men at Tilbury to meet the Spanish army that never landed because the Armada was defeated at sea. Still, she was there only in a ceremonial role, not in operational command.
- Prince William (Harry's brother and next in line after his father Charles) graduated Sandhurst and is in the same regiment as Harry, though he's still in training. If I'm not mistaken because he's in direct line of succession he's legally barred from serving in a combat zone.
Edward is also honourary colonel to the RNZ Signals Reg I understand.
That is what HISTORY says, thank you by the way, I found that information very interesting as it was not previously known to me.
I was wondering what the opinions of SF were, as originally stated in my post. Incidently, I just read your profile and noticed you are SF, my previous comment wasn't meant to mean I otherwise. I'm just curious as to opinion as opposed to citing history.
Now, I heard TR's opinion on the matter. Since I haven't heard that of any other QP's, shall I infer that he speaks for his community as a whole? Not that I think that, I don't want to put words in the man's mouth.
Now, if I had to be a betting man, which I'm not, I would have to say that TR's response, while his own, is based on a mindset that he posses. Which is most likely the mindset of other QP's. So from that, I would conclude that he does, in a round-a-bout manner speak for QP's in general.
Would that be a safe and accurate assumption TR?
The Reaper
05-22-2007, 12:26
I don't purport to speak for anybody but myself, my opinions are my own.
I also try not to make any more assumptions than are absolutely necessary.
AL gave you a great history lesson, I hope that you were not being sarcastic in your response.
My understanding is that the Secret Service detail for the sitting President and his family gets to make the calls on security matters.
It is my belief, as stated, that they would not permit a member of the First Family to be assigned to a combat zone where assassinations and kidnappings are rampant.
If a sitting POTUS had a son who was already SF qualified, or who wanted to go SF, they might allow him to go through the Q Course, but I doubt that he would be allowed to serve in a combat zone for any appreciable time till the POTUS was out of office. Callous as it is to say, the family of a former POTUS has no real exploitable value (other than the media) for coercion. That is not true of the family members of a sitting President. IMHO, I would rather go to combat short-handed than to have a big bulls-eye painted on us for the media and the enemy that a celebrity like that would bring. The problem is that we never have a POTUS for more than eight years. A royal is royal for life.
Yes, it would suck to have gone through that training, only to be sidelined, and yes, I think it is very honorable and noble for the VIP to want to go with his troops. That is the right thing for him to say, and denying him is the right thing for the government to do. IMHO, if the prince wanted to see action, he should have gone into another branch that had less personal risk. Like the Navy or the Air Force.
Why is this of such burning personal interest to you? Are you some sort of royal watcher?
TR
TR: My response to AL was genuine and in no way meant as sarcastic. I am also aware that "you don't purport to speak for anybody but myself, my opinions are my own." and you "also try not to make any more assumptions than are absolutely necessary."
That said I appreciate your input on the situation. I was more or less interested in the SF mans thinking on the topic. Your response was along the lines of what I thought it would be, before I even asked. Again, I didn't want to speculate though.
Rather interested in hearing things from the source as opposed to the trickle at the end of the creek.
As for the royals...not a fan of that family.
AL: Thanks again for the information. As I said, allot of things I never knew until that post.
.... I was more or less interested in the SF mans thinking on the topic. Your response was along the lines of what I thought it would be, before I .....
You try and get the job, every job, done to the best of your abilities. You deal with all problems that come your way. You work your ass off to bring everybody home, but it doesn't always work out that way.
But, very important, you don't drag problems into the job that don't have to be there. Wheels up, head in the game.
Pete
x-factor
05-22-2007, 15:58
I wonder if, hypothetically, it might be easier if the Prince was in the SAS.
In a small unconventional unit (if he grew a beard and went by a cover name, for example) with strong OPSEC, he'd potentially be much harder to identify and target. I don't know how the SAS operates at the team level, but if he was on an assault element (or somekind of CRE equivalent?) that only left the base on planned raids (wearing balaclavas) the enemy might not ever even know he was in country.
Of course, putting a prince into the SAS in the first place is a whole different question. Then again, King Abdullah of Jordan was an active special operations soldier (though I don't think he ever saw combat) when he was a prince so its not entirely without precedent.
Just thinking out loud, certainly the QPs would know better here...
I think it's great that the British Army managed to sneek him over. I think it's great Prince Harry wanted to go that badly. I think it is absolutely horrifying that someone basically bought and sold him.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23391374/
And people wonder why the President or any other high profile individuals aren't pushing their kids up to be in the military. Go figure. At this rate it'd be signing their death warrant.
People suck.
rubberneck
02-28-2008, 12:18
And people wonder why the President or any other high profile individuals aren't pushing their kids up to be in the military. Go figure. At this rate it'd be signing their death warrant.
People suck.
John McCain has a son in Iraq and another at the Naval Academy. My hat is off to the Prince for serving when he didn't have to.
John McCain has a son in Iraq and another at the Naval Academy. My hat is off to the Prince for serving when he didn't have to.
And I think the only reason that the media hasn't "outed" them is that it would cast a too positive light on the McCains. On the other hand - I'm very glad for his sons that they are able to serve in some privacy for the sake of their security and the security of their unit.
rubberneck
02-28-2008, 12:28
And I think the only reason that the media hasn't "outed" them is that it would cast a too positive light on the McCains. On the other hand - I'm very glad for his sons that they are able to serve in some privacy for the sake of their security and the security of their unit.
Shar, I don't know the McCain's personally. The only reason why I know that Senator McCain has a son in Iraq is through the media. It may not be on the front page of the NY Times but it has been reported or "outed" if you will.
Shar, I don't know the McCain's personally. The only reason why I know that Senator McCain has a son in Iraq is through the media. It may not be on the front page of the NY Times but it has been reported or "outed" if you will.
I know it's been in the news, but it hasn't gotten NEAR the attention that Chelsea's hair has gotten. Not that I'm complaining - I think it's better for the soldiers.
"Outed" was probably overstating it - I'm still ticked about Prince Harry being outed.
And think of the grief that Bush got for his twins NOT being in the military. I just think there is a double standard. They'll report when they think it's convenient or flashy.
...And think of the grief that Bush got for his twins NOT being in the military. I just think there is a double standard. They'll report when they think it's convenient or flashy.
Shar, you have to remember that every time the MSM goes to print a story about politicians they ask "Who will it help and who will it hurt."
They slant and run the story based on the answer.
President Bush - no kids in the military - Bad.
Mac - kids in the military - shhhhhhhh.
I'm a Democrat and wearing my boys combat boots, he's in Iraq you know - "Isn't this guy wonderful, great man, such a nice family, son in Iraq, oh, by the way he is a Democrat." Anybody want to try and guess his name?
I believe Joe Biden has a son in Iraq. I dont know if I heard this on the news or not. Getting old is a terrible thing. I dont have "all"sheimers yet, just "parts"heimers.
If it's Biden you are referring to, I don't think he's gone yet. But there's a whole lot of noise about it and has been for quite some time - so you'd think he'd have been gone by now. Granted - this is a double whammy because he's the AG of Delaware. It didn't stop his dad from talking about it CONSTANTLY during his short-lived campaign. Something McCain doesn't feel the need to do.
Beau Biden's Guard unit soon may be deployed
Members, including attorney general, could be sent to Iraq
By ADAM TAYLOR, The News Journal
Posted Saturday, February 23, 2008
Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden's Army National Guard unit has received "alert orders" for possible deployment to Iraq. (Buy photo)
The News Journal/FRED COMEGYS
Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden's National Guard unit has received its "alert order" for possible deployment and the unit's 100 members are now training for their mission, which will probably be to Iraq, the guard said Friday.
The Feb. 1 alert order is the latest step toward Biden's deployment, which would result in the Delaware Department of Justice being without its top law enforcement officer for up to a year.
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080223/NEWS/802230339/1006/NEWS
Let's not forget that while John McCain was a P.O.W. in North Vietnam, his father was a four star Admiral in charge of the Pacific.
and
Another notable soldier was General of the Armies John J. Pershing's grandson, 2LT Pershing who was killed on operations with the 25th Infantry Division while serving as a new Platoon Leader in the 101st Airborne Division.
Mike
rubberneck
02-28-2008, 18:36
I'm a Democrat and wearing my boys combat boots, he's in Iraq you know - "Isn't this guy wonderful, great man, such a nice family, son in Iraq, oh, by the way he is a Democrat." Anybody want to try and guess his name?
Senator "I wanna punch the President in the face" Webb.
Is that Jim (gun legislation is for the common folk not me) Webb?
texasjack
02-29-2008, 11:42
As of yesterday I heard that Prince Harry will be deployed to afghanistan. Just caught a part of the report on TV so I don't have alot of details.
As of yesterday I heard that Prince Harry will be deployed to afghanistan. Just caught a part of the report on TV so I don't have alot of details.
texasjack - never volunteer for point.
As of yesterday I heard that Prince Harry will be deployed to afghanistan. Just caught a part of the report on TV so I don't have alot of details.
As of this morning they have decided to REDEPLOY Prince William, now that his serving in Afghanistan has been put out to the general public. The powers that be have decided it is too dangerous for him, and his unit for him to remain.
Truly pathetic that this could not have been kept under wraps. It seems the British Press knew about the deployment, but agreed to keep it under wraps until he returned. Apparently a German and Australian newpaper ran the original story, and our own sorry good for nothing Matt Drudge posted it on his website. Way to go guys!!! I hope you are proud.
... Apparently a German and Australian newpaper ran the original story, and our own sorry good for nothing Matt Drudge posted it on his website. Way to go guys!!! I hope you are proud.
Or did Drudge save the young prince's life? Two ways to think on things.
The original story was in an Australian paper about a month ago. Austrailia has a large Muslim population. Could the word be filtering through the net and into his area? Could the local bad guys have been gathering intel for a strike?
We'll never know.
Still amazed at how long they kept the lid on.
Drudge is Drudge. You love it when he breaks something your way and hate him when he breaks it "Their" way.
Have to agree with Pete. I really believe that there is an underlying story here. We'll probably never know.
The Reaper
02-29-2008, 17:55
Truly pathetic that this could not have been kept under wraps. It seems the British Press knew about the deployment, but agreed to keep it under wraps until he returned. Apparently a German and Australian newpaper ran the original story, and our own sorry good for nothing Matt Drudge posted it on his website. Way to go guys!!! I hope you are proud.
Drudge didn't make this story up, or break it.
He gets his news from other sources, and links to their sites.
While I would have preferred that he kept this to himself, I have no issues with his journalism.
TR
Shar, I don't know the McCain's personally. The only reason why I know that Senator McCain has a son in Iraq is through the media. It may not be on the front page of the NY Times but it has been reported or "outed" if you will.
First I heard of it, good for McCain not using it to his Political advantage.