Would you send Prince William to the Falklands

[Hawkwind]

His trip to Brazil will be more dangerous!

 

[Scouse]

Rescue pilot sent over the desert to rescue someone and all it takes in a RGP to knock him out of the sky. That's one man not exactly impossible. Unlikely but knowing he could be the pilot helicopters become a more attractive target.

You keep thinking that they'd ever put him in harms way. But they wouldn't. The only rescue missions he goes on are for the cameras...

 

[Hawkwind]

You cannot "give up" a claim to the throne. To do so would throw the hereditary monarchy into chaos, and likely end it.

That's why there is a line of succession to the throne. Not chaos at all, the list exists now.

http://www.britroyals.com/succession.htm

The fact that Charles has already waived his rights to the throne so he could marry the catholic pitbull has not changed much.

 

[Tom]

Congratulations on completely missing the point.

 

[DaGaffer]

That's why there is a line of succession to the throne. Not chaos at all, the list exists now.

http://www.britroyals.com/succession.htm

The fact that Charles has already waived his rights to the throne so he could marry the catholic pitbull has not changed much.

No he hasn't. She's divorced, not catholic, which they weasled around constitutionally as everyone agreed there would be no issue from their union. Charles is still first in line and has given no indication he'll step aside in favour of his son. There isn't even a constitutional way to do that (currently Charles would have aceed to the throne, then abdicate, he can't just say "oh, you have the gig Bill, I cba".)

 

[Mabs]

You keep thinking that they'd ever put him in harms way. But they wouldn't. The only rescue missions he goes on are for the cameras...

yes cos there is no precedent of royal family members being put in harms way.. oh wait

 

[Scouse]

yes cos there is no precedent of royal family members being put in harms way.. oh wait

When was the last one shot at?

 

[Mabs]

i dont know, i dont keep tabs
but i know andrew was "in harms way" when he served in the falklands last time
mountbatten served in the navy, as did prince phillip. and no, neither of them was in line for the throne, but both were family members, and bear in mind, as pointed out, charles is actually next in line, so the princes are hardly next to go

 

[Scouse]

Lol Mabs

Last english king to die in battle? Richard III in 1485. Last time a king personally lead his army into battle? George II in 1743.

We don't put them in harms way. They don't want to be in harms way. Andrew certainly wasn't - he was a helicopter pilot too. It's bullshit PR to make them seem like "men of the people" when they're anything but...

Add to that, it would be idiotic to put a royal in harms way. Massively massively stupid. Imagine the PR coup.

Worst we'll ever see is one'll get minor wounds one day during a victorious battle. And that'll be when England is under real threat of becoming a republic...

 

[Mabs]

oh yea, and the current queen served as an ambulance driver in the last war, something she wasnt required to do, putting herself in "harms way"

so , whats your point scouse?

 

[Mabs]

yes, and how many large scale wars have we had in the last 150 years ?

last time an army was led by a king ? whats that got to do with anything ? people dont "lead" them any more, they are too large. thats an offshoot of a change in tactics and warfare. technically the queen "leads" all the UK forces, but shes not out in front on a horse, cos people dont do that any more.

andrew was a pilot, yes, but he was a serving naval officer. he was in as much danger as any of the other pilots.

 

[Scouse]

They "serve" in the forces, but they're kept well out of "harms way".

he was in as much danger as any of the other pilots.

Bull. Shit.


Edit: How can I miss the obvious staring at me in the face?!

yes, and how many large scale wars have we had in the last 150 years ?

Ummm. Errrr. Let me think....

Rofflecopter!

 

[DaGaffer]

They "serve" in the forces, but they're kept well out of "harms way".



Bull. Shit.

Sorry Scouse, you're talking shite. He was based on The Invincible during the Falklands War, the primary target for the whole Argentine air force and navy. He was as much in harm's way as any man on that ship. He flew the first rescue flight on The Atlantic Conveyor, and he actually flew anti-Excocet decoy missions, which is about as "in harm's way" as you can get for an RN pilot. He may be a bit of golf-playing tool these days, but he did a real job when he was in the navy.

 

[soze]

When was the last one shot at?

Harry was behind enemy lines in Afgan was he not? He was not the tip of the spear and all that but he was hardly curled up in a base.

 

[Tom]

The Duke of Kent, Prince George, died in a plane crash in 1942 - while on duty.

 

[Scouse]

Yeah right Gaff. Considering Prince Harry's deployment to Afghanistan in 2007 was cancelled because it was "too dangerous"

/Scouse scuppers own argument by posting link to anti-royal website he just found, but interesting slant anyway.


Lets face it, why would we let them face the same dangers as average joe?

We don't... Simple.

 

[Scouse]

The Duke of Kent, Prince George, died in a plane crash in 1942 - while on duty.

He died in after his plain crashed in Caithness in bad weather, Tom.

Hardly "active duty". He was just unlucky...

 

[Mabs]

Yeah right Gaff. Considering Prince Harry's deployment to Afghanistan in 2007 was cancelled because it was "too dangerous"

/Scouse scuppers own argument by posting link to anti-royal website he just found, but interesting slant anyway.


Lets face it, why would we let them face the same dangers as average joe?

We don't... Simple.

just because you wish it wasnt true, doesnt make it so...

 

[Mabs]

He died in after his plain crashed in Caithness in bad weather, Tom.

Hardly "active duty". He was just unlucky...

L2 know what "active service" means

 

[Scouse]

just because you wish it wasnt true, doesnt make it so...

Notice I posted two stories from the press confirming it was "too dangerous"? I noticed that you didn't.

Just because you wish it to be true, doesn't mean it is.

L2 know what "active service" means

Lol. I could tool around in a plane, or get posted to the main base in afghanistan, and never see anyone who would so much as fire a pea-shooter at me.

Just like Harry. What a hero he is. Just like all the other heroes. Royals - they're just so....heroic.

 

[soze]

Lol. I could tool around in a plane, or get posted to the main base in afghanistan, and never see anyone who would so much as fire a pea-shooter at me.

Just like Harry.

Harry went out on Foot Patrol and other missions though. He may not have been kicking down door with the SAS but he was hardly hiding in the main base.

 

[Scouse]

Harry went out on Foot Patrol and other missions though. He may not have been kicking down door with the SAS but he was hardly hiding in the main base.

True. They've got video evidence of the whole thing too. From the journos who went with him

 

[Tom]

He died in after his plain crashed in Caithness in bad weather, Tom.

Hardly "active duty". He was just unlucky...

So? His service cost him his life. Maybe some of those serving in Afghanistan, who've died in helicopter accidents, or car crashes, shouldn't receive any honours.

 

[Mabs]

Lol. I could tool around in a plane, or get posted to the main base in afghanistan, and never see anyone who would so much as fire a pea-shooter at me.

Just like Harry. What a hero he is. Just like all the other heroes. Royals - they're just so....heroic.

and yet i dont see you volunteering ? so keep your wrong opinions to yourself, silly cunt :/

 

[Scouse]

So? His service cost him his life. Maybe some of those serving in Afghanistan, who've died in helicopter accidents, or car crashes, shouldn't receive any honours.

You're deliberately distorting the argument and you know it:

Caithness, Scotland

I'm not saying we don't send the royals to war zones. I'm saying they're not put in harms way.

Time to step out of the thread if it's getting this wanky.

 

[Embattle]

Yeah right Gaff. Considering Prince Harry's deployment to Afghanistan in 2007 was cancelled because it was "too dangerous"

/Scouse scuppers own argument by posting link to anti-royal website he just found, but interesting slant anyway.


Lets face it, why would we let them face the same dangers as average joe?

We don't... Simple.

My understanding was it was down to some media organisation releasing information about it and thus put him in more danger and those around him at higher risk.

 

[Scouse]

and yet i dont see you volunteering ?

Why would I volunteer to tool around the world killing people in countries I don't think we've any business being in in the first place?

so keep your wrong opinions to yourself, silly cunt :/

Go wash the sand out of your mimsy...

My understanding was it was down to some media organisation releasing information about it and thus put him in more danger and those around him at higher risk.

Read the link Emb. Different slant, is all...

 

[Tom]

You're deliberately distorting the argument and you know it:

Caithness, Scotland

I'm not saying we don't send the royals to war zones. I'm saying they're not put in harms way.

Time to step out of the thread if it's getting this wanky.

I'm distorting nothing. He was employed in the military, he was on duty, and died in an accident. I'm sorry if you think that his death was worth less than a squaddie in the line of fire, but the bloke's still dead.

 

[Scouse]

I'm distorting nothing. He was employed in the military, he was on duty, and died in an accident. I'm sorry if you think that his death was worth less than a squaddie in the line of fire, but the bloke's still dead.

Weak, Tom. Thanks for not attempting to bother acknowledging the (obvious) argument I'm making.

By your rationale, if he was posted to a hotel in Monaco and an earthquake happened to kill him then he's died in an accident on active duty.

Yeah. That's exactly the same as posting someone to a war zone where there's a chance of actual fighting happening....

 

[Mabs]

the argument you appear to be making is:

you only "count" as being in danger if you are shot/blown up, the rest are just "skiving"


as i said, youre a cunt
so stick that in your "mimsy"