[Windswept]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe....ap/index.html

LONDON, England (AP) -- Prince Harry will be serving as a soldier in Iraq by the end of the month, a British newspaper reported Saturday. Defense Secretary Des Browne is expected to announce February 26 that the prince, who is third in line to the throne, will be deployed along with his regiment near Basra in southern Iraq, The Daily Mirror newspaper reported, citing an unnamed senior military official. The 22-year-old prince, known as Troop Commander Wales by his regiment -- the Blues and Royals -- has trained to command 11 soldiers and four Scimitar tanks. Prince William, training as a troop leader within the Blues and Royals, cannot be deployed to war zones because he is second in line to the British crown. Harry, who graduated last year from Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, said in a 2005 interview that he was keen to fight for his country. "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," he said. In joining the military, Harry followed a royal tradition: Charles was a pilot with the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy and Harry's grandfather, Prince Philip, had a distinguished career in the Royal Navy. Harry's uncle, Prince Andrew, was a Royal Navy pilot and served in the Falklands war against Argentina.

Pretty interesting, I thought. I'm impressed, actually, that a prince would be allowed to go to a hellhole like Iraq, where it's just a matter of luck 'whose' vehicle gets blown to fiery shreds by an IED.

Well, Harry is a soldier with *red hair*. Difficult to tell a redhaired soldier to stay home and knit tea cozies. (Difficult to tell redhaired guys pretty much 'anything'. haha *cough* )

I wonder if we'd still be IN this war if Bush's daughters were scheduled to be deployed to Iraq? I doubt it very seriously.

[spikeh]

I'm hoping they'll kill him off. I hate the way the class system is perpetuated by the Royal Family existing.

[Fahrenheit]

....where he will have an armed guard of about 50 soldiers 24 hours a day, and theres no fucking way he will be allowed within a mile of any frontline action.

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by spikeh I'm hoping they'll kill him off. I hate the way the class system is perpetuated by the Royal Family existing.

But even 'without' the royal family, you'd still have the class barriers perpetuated by your *public (private) school* system, right?

Just 'my' take on it, anyway.

[rasmits]

At least the royal family is putting their money where their mouth is.

It makes me mad when Bush talks about "sacrifices". What sacrifices has Bush made? Send the Bush daughters to Iraq, if they're so confident in their mission.

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by Farenheit ....where he will have an armed guard of about 50 soldiers 24 hours a day, and theres no fucking way he will be allowed within a mile of any frontline action.

But my impression is that most allied soldiers are killed and maimed simply by driving down the road - not by 'frontline' action. Right?

[Fahrenheit]

Yeh. So he won't be even allowed out of the Basra Safe Zone. My guess is that he will do lots of Barrack training, and meet other soldiers for moral support, then go out on a few organised drives through very safe areas.

The insurgents will be all over him otherwise. Can you imagine what he is worth captured??

[spikeh]

Originally Posted by Windswept But even 'without' the royal family, you'd still have the class barriers perpetuated by your *public (private) school* system, right? Just 'my' take on it, anyway.

That's another debate for another time, but I don't think that necessarily enforces class barriers. It just means that if you have money you can get a better education (quite rightly). I know plenty of people who went to private school who aren't 'upper-class'. A lot of things perpetuate the barriers, the existence of two levels of education / health care is perhaps one of them, but I wouldn't say it's a major one. I go to a University full of 'old money' and the only common denominator between them all is that they are rich, largely conservative politically and generally in support of the Royal Family (perhaps due to the fact that women outnumber men almost 2 to 1, and the majority of my friends are hoping to marry one of the Princes).

The Royal Family are a bunch of preening tossers who serve no purpose other than giving the illusion of a successful tourist attraction (as if people would stop visiting a country because they abandoned the Monarchy ... happened to France, I suppose ... *not*) and in reality cost us a whole heap of money that could be spent elsewhere. Like ammunition for the firing squad I'd hand-pick to cleanse the earth of Prince Philip.

Originally Posted by Farenheit The insurgents will be all over him otherwise. Can you imagine what he is worth captured??

They'd publicly say that they won't treat him any differently to any other soldier, but mount a seriously full-proof rescue attempt behind the scenes, would be my guess. They couldn't deal with it any other way.

[psmith2.0]

Funny what a few years does, getting one through that "awkward teen" phase.

The older one (William?) was always the heartthrob, the one you'd see in magazines and with girls going bonkers. I guess in his teens and early 20's he had a good look. Harry always looked like a muppet with a scrunchy face. The "less attractive son of Di"...

Fast-forward a few years, and William is looking more like an effeminate version of his old man every day, while the younger one has turned out pretty okay.

I still say he looks like Dale Earnhardt, Jr.*, but that's better than looking like Prince Charles I guess.








* Much like those infamous Lincoln/JFK similarities, consider the following:
- Both come from very famous fathers
- They drive expensive vehicles that require skill and training
- Both have been known to partake of the drink
- In the spotlight more than ever, these past five years
- Make a certain type of girl swoon and act all silly in their presence, for basically the same reason (fame/money)
- The very mention of their name draws praise or outrage, depending on your views on the royal family and NASCAR
- Most importantly, both have probably gotten laid more in the past year than I have in my entire life

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by spikeh That's another debate for another time, but I don't think that necessarily enforces class barriers. It just means that if you have money you can get a better education (quite rightly). I know plenty of people who went to private school who aren't 'upper-class'. A lot of things perpetuate the barriers, the existence of two levels of education / health care is perhaps one of them, but I wouldn't say it's a major one. I go to a University full of 'old money' and the only common denominator between them all is that they are rich, largely conservative politically and generally in support of the Royal Family (perhaps due to the fact that women outnumber men almost 2 to 1, and the majority of my friends are hoping to marry one of the Princes). The Royal Family are a bunch of preening tossers who serve no purpose other than giving the illusion of a successful tourist attraction (as if people would stop visiting a country because they abandoned the Monarchy ... happened to France, I suppose ... *not*) and in reality cost us a whole heap of money that could be spent elsewhere. Like ammunition for the firing squad I'd hand-pick to cleanse the earth of Prince Philip.

I've always been very interested (from afar) in the English 'class' system, especially wrt the limitations it puts on *true* upward mobility (that is, assuming that it 'does').

I'm interested in a comparison of how 'different' upward social mobility would be in the US versus in England. Just 'how' difficult would it be for a middle-class person in the US versus England to be truly accepted into the upper class?

I suppose part of the answer is that we don't really have 'much' of what you'd call an 'upper class' over here. I mean, we have lots of rich people, but I wouldn't really consider most of them 'upper class' by any means - not by birth, not by demeanor. They just have lots of money.

Take Bill Gates, for example. Richest guy in the world? But he seems like an upper-middle-class person to me.

And Kate Middleton, Prince William's honey - I know she is a 'commoner', but what 'class' is she, I'm wondering? Upper middle class? Upper class?

I think the manner of one's speaking is the most noticeable feature of 'class' in both the US and England/UK. Wouldn't you agree? Over here, poor grammar is often used by lower class and lower middle class individuals, and so their speech marks them out as not well-educated. Of course, their behavior follows next as a determining factor.

But if a lower middle class person in America were to make a point of learning to speak English with proper grammar, and if he were to behave in a socially acceptable manner, he could probably interact, without much difficulty, with whatever upper class people we might have (assuming that we have 'any'). Of course, I could be wrong about that, but that is my current impression of the matter.

And yes, I think the royal family is fairly useless, but also fairly harmless, and kind of cool in a history/heritage context. I think they should *not* be siphoning any money from the country's coffers, except in the *very few* instances when they are performing some crucial national function ( and how often does 'that' ever happen? Almost never, probably.) They should be living off their own wealth. But I think a firing squad to solve this problem would be a bit extreme. haha

[Fahrenheit]

I think the Royal Family costs each person 61p a year or something. I personally couldn't give a shit, but I do think its kind of weird how just being born in the right place guarantees you a life of luxury paid for by everyone else.


Meh.

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by Farenheit Well that wasn't gay.

Fuck off.

Was that a little more "straight" for ya?



I'm just noticing/commenting on something that I've heard lots of people mention over the years. One was the "prince charming" and teen idol at one time, one wasn't. Then it seems to have switched as they've gotten older.

Your problem?

[Fahrenheit]

Yes.

[psmith2.0]

Ha. Okay then, problem solved.

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by Farenheit I think the Royal Family costs each person 61p a year or something. I personally couldn't give a shit, but I do think its kind of weird how just being born in the right place guarantees you a life of luxury paid for by everyone else. Meh.

61p? Whoa! Is that all?

Then, hey, I think the money your economy rakes in from tourism (ie. for tourists to see the changing of the guard, etc.) is *well* worth the 61p you have to cough up to keep this monarchy thing up and running.

[Fahrenheit]

Well, I agree. But then in a way I prefer the more mature looks and attitude of Will, rather than the druggie party boy, ginger Harry. But I wouldn't chuck either of them out of bed.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Farenheit but I do think its kind of weird how just being born in the right place guarantees you a life of luxury paid for by everyone else. Meh.

Welcome to life as we know it. That doesn't just go for Royal families ya know

Originally Posted by spikeh I'm hoping they'll kill him off. I hate the way the class system is perpetuated by the Royal Family existing.

That's really.... just... pathetic to say.

[Freewell]

I am so glad this is not a redundant political flame war thread! Regardless of a person's political opinion of war and world peace, it is refreshing to see a young man stand up of his own accord, leaving the posh surroundings that he could very easily devise any excuse, or even valid *reason* to stay planted there, firmly enshrouded by comfort and safety, subjecting himself not only to the torture of military training, but pressing on towards becoming a respectable leader.

We sit around talking about what a worthless waste people like Paris Hilton, Anna Nicole, and Ms. Spears have made out of their lives and position of enormous potential, yet here is a young man in a 'greater' position than all of them, willing to put it all on the line to become something more than a spoiled brat living off daddy's money, and fight for what he believes in. Persuasions on war, peace and the royal family are truly irrelevant to this IMO. Right, wrong, or indifferent, you have to breathe a sigh of gratitude for the such a breath of fresh air and renewed promise amongst young people in the world today.

[Fahrenheit]

I don't mind people being born into rich families so much, because everyone else isn't paying for them.

[spikeh]

Originally Posted by Windswept I've always been very interested (from afar) in the English 'class' system, especially wrt the limitations it puts on *true* upward mobility (that is, assuming that it 'does'). I'm interested in a comparison of how 'different' upward social mobility would be in the US versus in England. Just 'how' difficult would it be for a middle-class person in the US versus England to be truly accepted into the upper class?

That's an interesting one. I guess I'm in the middle of that at the moment - I'm middle-class and virtually all my friends at University are upper-class. Some of the upper-class people I've encountered are asses ("You're a NOOC: Not Of Our Class"), but generally they are great.

Originally Posted by Windswept I suppose part of the answer is that we don't really have 'much' of what you'd call an 'upper class' over here. I mean, we have lots of rich people, but I wouldn't really consider most of them 'upper class' by any means - not by birth, not by demeanor. They just have lots of money.

Yeah, there doesn't seem to be a visible divide in terms of personality. We lived with some filthy rich people in GA before we got our house sorted and I don't remember them being that different - very humble and likeable. I'm not an expert in accent and elocution but I don't think the US voice changes that much if you've had a privileged upbringing, whereas in the UK it really does. The typical "home counties" accent, saying things like "ya" instead of "yes", etc.

Originally Posted by Windswept Take Bill Gates, for example. Richest guy in the world? But he seems like an upper-middle-class person to me.

Yeah, he just looks like a nerd who hit it big. I don't think wealth is indicative of class - for example, there is an infamous lotto winner over here who netted £7m, and he's a chav (wikipedia it, but basically it's Britain's burgeoning peasant underclass, wearing track-suits and with funny little lines cut into their eyebrows).

Originally Posted by Windswept And Kate Middleton, Prince William's honey - I know she is a 'commoner', but what 'class' is she, I'm wondering? Upper middle class? Upper class? I think the manner of one's speaking is the most noticeable feature of 'class' in both the US and England/UK. Wouldn't you agree? Over here, poor grammar is often used by lower class and lower middle class individuals, and so their speech marks them out as not well-educated. Of course, their behavior follows next as a determining factor.

I'd suggest she's upper class, but I don't know. I'm saddened that you know her name matey, your stock just fell But I don't think linguistics is where the division lies either - I've a vastly superior grasp of the language than some of the upper-class people I hang out with. An example of a post I received on Facebook last week from a girl who actually has a chauffeur:

u r obviously doing fine - as a) u have done a hell of a lot more than me and b) u are 'not sure' if it makes sense - i KNOW mine doesn't make any sense . u r depressing me even more ! wish i had sum alcohol, i would find the whole situation a lot more amusing

At any rate, I can't abide that sort of violence towards a language. I type my text messages, emails and Facebook posts in full sentences with punctuation.

Originally Posted by Windswept And yes, I think the royal family is fairly useless, but also fairly harmless, and kind of cool in a history/heritage context. I think they should *not* be siphoning any money from the country's coffers, except in the *very few* instances when they are performing some crucial national function ( and how often does 'that' ever happen? Almost never, probably.) They should be living off their own wealth. But I think a firing squad to solve this problem would be a bit extreme. haha

Oh, I don't think so. I hear you can get Zyklon B relatively cheaply nowadays too, that would be an effective solution to the problem. Jesus, what am I saying?

[psmith2.0]

I've never been bothered by people born into money (and, frankly, I admire like hell the ones who weren't, but who go out and make gobs of money by pursuing their dreams and busting their ass).

But back to the ones "born" into it: it isn't the "money" (and all that goes with it) that decides anything. It's all down to the person...what they do, how they act, the person they decide to be.

I've known several "old money" types in my time. Some were unbearable, a walking caricature/stereotype. A couple of others, you'd never meet more grounded, decent people in your life. They didn't carry on that way, and you'd have no idea what all they came from. They didn't let it be their "calling card" in life.

Same on the other end: I've known poor saints and poor shitheads in equal amounts.

I don't know. Not living in the UK, I don't know much about the whole "royal family" thing, and the division it represents. But it sure seems to do just that, huh?

I think it's kinda silly, what little I see or know.

I pretty much learned all I needed to when the death of Di got 500x the coverage than that of Mother Teresa, who died less than a week after Di. Remember that, the disparity? Truly appalling, considering.

That's when you know your "celebrity worship" is out of control: when a princess trumps a saint in the eyes of the media and many people.

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by Freewell We sit around talking about what a worthless waste people like Paris Hilton, Anna Nicole, and Ms. Spears have made out of their lives and position of enormous potential, yet here is a young man in a 'greater' position than all of them, willing to put it all on the line to become something more than a spoiled brat living off daddy's money, and fight for what he believes in. Persuasions on war, peace and the royal family are truly irrelevant to this IMO.

Very good point.

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 I've never been bothered by people born into money (and, frankly, I admire like hell the ones who weren't, but who go out and make gobs of money by pursuing their dreams and busting their ass). But back to the ones "born" into it: it isn't the "money" (and all that goes with it) that decides anything. It's all down to the person...what they do, how they act, the person they decide to be. I've known several "old money" types in my time. Some were unbearable, a walking caricature/stereotype. A couple of others, you'd never meet more grounded, decent people in your life. They didn't carry on that way, and you'd have no idea what all they came from. They didn't let it be their "calling card" in life.

Well, just think of Paris Hilton. I mean, the Hilton hotels have been around for a while, right? That money is not exactly 'brand new' money, at least, not as things are in the US. But Paris acts like the worst example of trailer trash that you'd find on the Jerry Springer Show. If I were her family, I'd be unbelievably appalled and embarrassed at how trashy she acts, considering that she is from one of the wealthiest families in America.

Honestly, I don't even know how the Hilton family members can show their faces in public, with such a sleazy offspring making headlines for sex videos and other assorted low-life indiscretions on a regular basis. Ugh.

I pretty much learned all I needed to when the death of Di got 500x the coverage than that of Mother Teresa, who died less than a week after Di. Remember that, the disparity? Truly appalling, considering.

Well, Paul, there's just no way in the current world as we know it that the death of a really nice, wizened, little old lady is going to get more *photographic* coverage than the 'suspicious' death of a glamorous, internationally known, divorced princess. Right?

Originally Posted by spikeh That's an interesting one. I guess I'm in the middle of that at the moment - I'm middle-class and virtually all my friends at University are upper-class. Some of the upper-class people I've encountered are asses ("You're a NOOC: Not Of Our Class"), but generally they are great.

Whoa! Do they actually say that: "You're a NOOC"???

Yeah, there doesn't seem to be a visible divide in terms of personality. We lived with some filthy rich people in GA before we got our house sorted and I don't remember them being that different - very humble and likeable. I'm not an expert in accent and elocution but I don't think the US voice changes that much if you've had a privileged upbringing, whereas in the UK it really does. The typical "home counties" accent, saying things like "ya" instead of "yes", etc.

Well, I think many filthy rich people here came from humble beginnings. I mean, look at Oprah. One of the richest women in the world, and as a child she lived in a house without indoor plumbing. I think she acts pretty classy too, btw.

Yeah, he just looks like a nerd who hit it big. I don't think wealth is indicative of class - for example, there is an infamous lotto winner over here who netted £7m, and he's a chav (wikipedia it, but basically it's Britain's burgeoning peasant underclass, wearing track-suits and with funny little lines cut into their eyebrows).

Oh, now 'that' would be an interesting story to follow.

I'd suggest she's upper class, but I don't know. I'm saddened that you know her name matey, your stock just fell

haha

That's funny. Actually, I was sitting here thinking, now what the 'heck' is her name, when all of a sudden I remembered the Poirot story called "Hunter's Lodge", where a Mrs. Middleton is an important character. So *that's* how I remembered Kate's name. And I wasn't entirely sure it was 'Kate', but I thought I'd wing it.

Plus, I'd say every female for the last quarter-decade has been watching Prince William with a certain interest. I was especially fascinated at the news that a woman from his social class was arranged to 'initiate him into manhood' when he came of age.

[curiousuburb]

Originally Posted by Windswept Plus, I'd say every female for the last quarter-decade has been watching Prince William with a certain interest. I was especially fascinated at the news that a woman from his social class was arranged to 'initiate him into manhood' when he came of age.

I wasn't surprised. Think of her as a Royal Taster.

Henry VIIIth used to have a Royal Ass Wiper Groom of the Stool

Originally Posted by Channel4 Worst Jobs in History (link above) Attention all ambitious noblemen! Following the untimely death of Sir Henry Norris, a new groom of the stool is required by Henry VIII. The primary duty of the groom is to see 'the house of easement be sweet and clear' or, more plainly, to clean the royal rear and privy. It's always interesting to look at your own stool but imagine looking at the king's and laying it in a dish. As for wiping – with the hands: there is no toilet paper at the Tudor court – just try not to think of the meat-heavy diet of the big man. This is a challenging position for someone looking for exciting openings, for whom no job is to too big or small. Light relief may be provided by regular enema and laxative administrations. It's a coveted position – no one else will be so often alone with His Royal Highness, so although you will be dealing with number twos, you will be number one in the privy chamber. (And, later, the eminent historian David Starkey will write about you in his doctoral thesis.)

Originally Posted by Tony Robinson comments on filming that "Worst Jobs" scene to SunOnline GROOM OF THE STOOL Henry VIII ... would you have wiped his bum? The groom of the stool was basically Henry VIII's chief bum-wiper. He had to look after the King's poo. And if you didn't do a good job first time around then you could always mop it up with what was called a diper, which was actually a diamond shape piece of linen with a pattern on it. Thankfully I only mocked that one in the series, no hairy arse was pointed in my direction. And given how gross Henry VIII was by the time he got to middle age, it was way down the list of jobs that I wanted to experiment. The strange thing about the groom of the stool is that you'd think it would be the worst job anyone could do, but in fact you became such an intimate of the King only courtiers were chosen to do it. It was also a very dangerous position to hold, because you were right in the thick of the things – you were the Alan Milburn of your day! You could rise up the ranks, but go back down just as quickly. And it was not unknown for grooms of the stool to end up with their heads chopped off. For instance one of them was executed after being accused of having hanky panky with Anne Boleyn.

Now as to the tactical and strategic impact of having a huge target like Prince Harry in Basra...

I can actually see them getting some lookalikes and using them as bait diversions to draw the worst threats out and away.

Also a tough job.