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.
That's why there is a line of succession to the throne. Not chaos at all, the list exists now.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.
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
he was in as much danger as any of the other pilots.
yes, and how many large scale wars have we had in the last 150 years ?
They "serve" in the forces, but they're kept well out of "harms way".
Bull. Shit.
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.When was the last one shot at?
The Duke of Kent, Prince George, died in a plane crash in 1942 - while on duty.
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.
He died in after his plain crashed in Caithness in bad weather, Tom.
Hardly "active duty". He was just unlucky...
just because you wish it wasnt true, doesnt make it so...
L2 know what "active service" means
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.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.
He died in after his plain crashed in Caithness in bad weather, Tom.
Hardly "active duty". He was just unlucky...
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.
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.
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.
and yet i dont see you volunteering ?
so keep your wrong opinions to yourself, silly cunt :/
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.
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.