Prince Harry's Military Experience


PDA






230RN
February 22, 2007, 03:08 PM
Just tossing the ball around: Would anyone have any comments on Prince Harry's being assigned to Iraq in terms of how his military experience might affect the UK's attitude on firearms when he gets back?

Two possibilities occur right away: That he will reinforce the current attitude in the UK that "Gunses is Bad Thingies," or that perhaps, "Guns may be necessary for the ordinary citizen's self-defense."

Other's insights?

If you enjoyed reading about "Prince Harry's Military Experience" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Zero_DgZ
February 22, 2007, 03:10 PM
I think it's wishful thinking either way.

The Brit tabloids are going to have a field day (or year, or two years) of wild speculation, photo-opping, bickering, finger pointing, and scandal sniffing related to this event. I predict that guns won't ever enter into the picture at all, no way, no how.

Fosbery
February 22, 2007, 03:13 PM
The Royal Family have always served in the armed forces and they've always gone shooting privately. They don't (openly) advocate gun ownership, neither do they (openly) advocate gun control.

wooderson
February 22, 2007, 03:14 PM
British conservatives/monarchists have always fetishized their military tradition even if generally anti-handgun (but probably pro-hunting arms), anti-monarchists have never particularly given a damn.

Harry's impact on British gun attitudes will be zero.

Hoppy590
February 22, 2007, 03:15 PM
hes royalty/top class. firearms are easy for him to get in england. and i highly doubt he cares, or even believes in individual RKBA. we here in america atleast (more or less) share a common belief that everyones equal. my understanding is that firearms is a very upper class thing in england. regulated to double barrels, and gun clubs. you know, a real Pipe tobbacco and brandy group. not the more common Marb reds and Bud heavy groups here in the USA

geekWithA.45
February 22, 2007, 03:17 PM
The "fetishization" of military experience for a monarch is a side effect of their political marginalization.

Set the wayback machine, or even just read Machiavelli, and you'll see that the difference between a prince and a putz was an army.


Edited to add:

Princes had armies. Putzes didn't.

I think I also ought to point out an important difference between then and now.

Then, the army served the whims and ambitions of the king. Now, the army serves the people. Royalty, by taking military service is a more than symbolic serving of the people, it is literally putting their life on the line for their nation, and oughtn't be poo pooed.

Of course, your average LT doesn't have a crack squad of commando bodyguards, but realistically, any royal in a combat zone becomes what we call "a high value target".

As for impact on British gun attitudes, I agree with Wooderson, the impact is likely zero. Hoplophobes are really good at the pyschological trick of compartmentalization, guns in context A are OK, in context B are cause for setting the shorts to condition brown.

Fosbery
February 22, 2007, 03:27 PM
I wouldn't say firearms in the UK are generally for the 'upper class'. Old aristocratic families, who are almost universally no longer very rich, will of course all have guns, certainly for bird shooting, possibly for deer too. Bird and clay shooting is also become popular with City businessmen and those sorts of people.

On the other hand, probably the majority of privately owned firearms in the UK are owned by ordinary people - farmers, who are rarely rich, and middle class hobbyists and sportsmen/women (shooting is expensive so the working classes are relatively rare, but they are not unheard of by any means).

I think you'll find the police are actually a lot fairer here than they might be, for instance, with concealed carry permits in California.

Car Knocker
February 22, 2007, 03:32 PM
I think you'll find the police are actually a lot fairer here than they might be, for instance, with concealed carry permits in California.
Fosbery,

Would you please expand on this comment? Thanks.

dm1333
February 22, 2007, 03:40 PM
I can answer that one for Fosbery. I live in Mendocino County and getting a CCW is easy. The last DA here (he died recently) publicly stated that he wanted everyone who was eligible for a permit to get one. Head south to Sonoma County and it is as tough to get a CCW as it is easy here. Go to San Francisco and there are only 8 CCW permits issued in the whole city.

AndyC
February 22, 2007, 03:44 PM
One of which belongs to one of our favourite antis, Dianne Feinstein, am I right?

Stretchman
February 22, 2007, 05:13 PM
IIRC, Prince Andrew served with the Royal Navy in the Falklands, and there were some pretty heavy casualties there, with some ships getting hit. For the time frame, fighting was pretty intense, and the Exorcet missiles that Argentina was using were pretty deadly to the ships patrolling the region.

I don't expect that the Prince will have anything to worry about as a tanker, but it goes without saying that he really doesn't need or want bodyguards. He has the best troops in the Royal Army, and they are the ones under his command.

At least, that's how I understand those O types see it.

Was weird to be in a country that was at war, be stationed on a British base, and relatively do nothing but sit on alert the whole time. But hey, we did plenty of that in the 3 years I was there. Great beer.

Fosbery
February 22, 2007, 05:21 PM
Fosbery,

Would you please expand on this comment? Thanks.

Well, basically it's not the case that the rich and powerful can get guns but common people cannot. Everyone is equally opressed, you might say. From what I hear, in San California for instance, the rich and powerful get CCW, but, at least in urban areas, nobody else.

FXR
February 22, 2007, 09:32 PM
He will support and preserve the 'crown', and his subjects will always be disarmed.

I'll give props to him for at least trying to get in the same general hemisphere of Earth that an angry shot might be fired, but his SAS bodyguards will make sure no harm comes near him.

Of course, the british press will treat him as the reincarnation of Monty.

CWL
February 22, 2007, 09:58 PM
The British have never 'babied' their royalty in warzones, British royals have always done well as professional military commanders -or died. Prince Harry will not be getting any special treatment -certainly not SAS protection. He would never earn the respect of his men or contemporaries if he did, he'll certainly never be a leader of men.

As a graduate of Sandhurst, he is as competent as anyone ever will be in Iraq.

As platoon leader of a troop of Recce Light Tanks, he will be in the middle of where the danger will be.

Where the British military will fight bears no relevance to firearms ownership within the UK.

HarryB
February 22, 2007, 11:57 PM
IIRC, Prince Andrew served with the Royal Navy in the Falklands, and there were some pretty heavy casualties there, with some ships getting hit. For the time frame, fighting was pretty intense, and the Exorcet missiles that Argentina was using were pretty deadly to the ships patrolling the region.


Prince Andrew had the duty of using his helicopter as a decoy to draw Exocet fire away from the ships. That's putting it out on the line without a doubt.

Geronimo45
February 23, 2007, 12:26 AM
"The British have never 'babied' their royalty in warzones, British royals have always done well as professional military commanders -or died."
Seem to recall a French prince - one of Napoleon's grandkids, IIRC - who died in the Zulu business.

Limeyfellow
February 23, 2007, 02:03 AM
my understanding is that firearms is a very upper class thing in england. regulated to double barrels, and gun clubs. you know, a real Pipe tobbacco and brandy group. not the more common Marb reds and Bud heavy groups here in the USA

Theres an element of that but the same can be said in the US too which ranches were rich guys can go and shoot a few hundred maimed birds in an afternoon. Much more target shooters, hunters and such are from the middle classes and then there are farmers and various others who have firearms for animal protection and so on. Its not as cheap to go shooting in the UK as in the US but I did it for years.

Besides the super rich also have horseback hunting of foxes with hounds since they are the only ones generally with the land available.

agd1953
February 23, 2007, 09:47 AM
As the British are pulling out of Iraq next week, this is no longer a subject worth discussing.

sterling180
February 23, 2007, 10:33 AM
Bird and clay shooting is also become popular with City businessmen and those sorts of people.

It has been for the last 25 to 30 years.Now,to talk about what they also shot,in the past:Yuppies/rich businessman in the 1980s used to carry Walther PPKs,Glock17s,Walther P5s,etc,etc in shoulder holsters,to the range-after work.All those expensive and fairly expensive guns,were status symbols,like how Mercedes,Bentleys,Rollers,were and are now.

The Glock was definately a status symbol,for the slick Yuppie,back then.

They even carried in concealed holsters,to the police station,to compete with the police officers,at a match of police pistol,target-shooting-would you believe.There was one such match in 1994.No chance now-at all.Too PC,now.

I know this,because I have been to the 2 central london,gun clubs,where people,there have told me-this.Even newspaper journalists,for major newspapers,such as:The Times,Daily Mail,Evening Standard and The Independent,are members of such clubs-even tax inspectors-too.

Now back to the topic:I wish Prince Harry,all the best,on his tour of Iraq and hope that he enjoys his career in the military,as an officer.At least,he isn't full of it,or doesn't appear to be,anyway.

hes royalty/top class. firearms are easy for him to get in england. and i highly doubt he cares, or even believes in individual RKBA. we here in america atleast (more or less) share a common belief that everyones equal. my understanding is that firearms is a very upper class thing in england. regulated to double barrels, and gun clubs. you know, a real Pipe tobbacco and brandy group. not the more common Marb reds and Bud heavy groups here in the USA

NO,NO,UH-UH,UH-UH:From the sounds of things,I doubt that you have read anything about firearm laws,in the UK,because if you did and if you bothered to research the subject matter,you would find that there are certain firearms in the UK and we are not all restricted to double-barrelled guns at all,but we have had large sections of our shooting sports destroyed by the antis(both in the government and in the civillian population.) over the last 20 years,because of the crazy actions of a few deranged madmen-who though it was fun to kill innocent adults and kids,whilst laughing uncontrolably.Both of them laughed even more,when they shot people,through the head.

So these incidents are not any different from an incident in the USA,where the gun grabbers,aim to destroy you rights to firearms,but over here they succeeded,with certain types of guns and are pushing for more stringent laws,at this moment.

Both wackos,were weirdos with licenses,which prompted a change in the law in 1988/1989 and again in 1997/1998.Both changes were forced upon the government by ordinary people,who were affected,by those related massacres.

I have met electricians,builders,cab-drivers,crane drivers,postmen,garbage men,who are all members of gun clubs-in the UK,so it is not just an upper-class sport,it is a sport for all,to enjoy and the BASC,would be very unhappy,with your comments,if they saw your post.
If you read the posts on this website,regarding the UK mainlands gun laws and reasons why they became so oppressive,then you would know more,then you do now.

Fosbery
February 23, 2007, 11:43 AM
As the British are pulling out of Iraq next week, this is no longer a subject worth discussing.

1600 troops are leaving. We're not gone yet. Though we damn well should be.

I had heard rumour-like stories of people carrying concealed to ranges but I've never heard any first hand evidence. Interesting.

On the issue of Prince Harry, if it was my decision I would not have let him join the army in the first place. Though I have the utmost respect for his desire to server his country and to be a soldier, he is a high value target. His mere presence puts the lives of his men and those around him in unnecesary danger and I wouldn't have that.

LaEscopeta
February 23, 2007, 03:14 PM
As the British are pulling out of Iraq next week, this is no longer a subject worth discussing.1600 troops are leaving. We're not gone yet. Though we damn well should be.

The Brits are reducing forces in Iraq but are increasing their forces in Afghanistan. Again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6388717.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6389801.stm

And not to get this thread moved to L&P but we, the US, should not have invaded Iraq in the first place, let alone forced the Brits to go with us.

Fosbery
February 23, 2007, 03:38 PM
Oh, you gotta love pics like this:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42605000/jpg/_42605867_troops203.jpg

A proper squaddie :D

Sunray
February 23, 2007, 04:03 PM
"...might affect the UK's attitude on firearms..." Not at all. The Royal Family has no say one way or the other about legislation.

cbsbyte
February 23, 2007, 04:30 PM
First his going to Iraq will have no effect on gun laws in England, why would it?

Second, Prince Harry will command a platoon of Scimitar light Recon tanks along the Iraq border. He could be killed in action since the light tanks hardly look like they could survive a direct hit from a RPG.

JShirley
February 25, 2007, 06:31 AM
IEDs are the big danger in our areas of operation, and they will blow the hell out of a light tank. :(

DWARREN123
February 25, 2007, 02:25 PM
I really doubt he will go but if he does he will be protected to the max.

JShirley
February 25, 2007, 06:39 PM
You know this how?

Byron Quick
February 25, 2007, 06:58 PM
I really doubt he will go but if he does he will be protected to the max.

Members of the House of Windsor who were military have been deployed to combat zones for centuries with no extraordinary protection.

Exactly why do you doubt he will go and what basis is there for concluding he will be "protected to the max" if he does?

AndyC
February 25, 2007, 09:29 PM
I've served on the security-detail of European royalty; I've also spent time in Iraq on PSD duties.

It's my considered opinion that Harry will have no special close-protection detail (if it were me, I'd love to sneak someone into his troop; true, an outsider brought into a team could be an immediate object of suspicion but I have some nasty ideas on that score). Royals like to feel their oats and it's Harry's time to be a soldier - he'd throw a bloody fit if he felt he was being mollycoddled.

However, I believe that, without his knowledge or consent, he will have better top-cover and casevac standing by, the ground before him will be cleared as much as is humanly possible, both in physical terms as well as getting the best possible intel before assigning him a mission - but there will come a time where he's going to go walkabout either from desire or circumstance.

That being said, he's still going to be taking the same risks as everyone else, especially where IEDs and the like are concerned.

Break a leg, 'arry ;)

If you enjoyed reading about "Prince Harry's Military Experience" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!