Is it just me or does anyone else think it is a complete waste of tax payers money to train soldiers who will never actually use any of the skills they are taught? What’s the point of soldiers who never actually fight or are never placed in any danger in a war zone?
It’s all very well some top brass in the army saying that to put prince Harry in Iraq would ‘endanger the men around him’, but why didn’t this bloke think one step ahead and refuse to have in the army at all when he joined up, thereby saving all that wasted tax payers money?
I was astounded to read that an army general said Harry would ‘be a target’! Helloooo, if we are not allowed to have targets in the army there would be no one to shoot at! If the criteria for being safe back in Blighty when there’s a war on is ‘you could be a target’, no one would go would they?
Apparently Harry as been ‘persuaded’ to stay in the army to serve in ‘other ways’. This presumably means poncing around in a uniform in complete safety in Buck House. Let’s hope he puts the right uniform on and doesn’t get mixed up with that nazi one he found in his Great Grandad’s attic.
Send him down to Bridders to open the new medical centre, that’s nice and safe.
well said batski, however it wouldn't be a problem for the royal bloodline if he did get wasted as he is actually major James Hewitts kid as any perusal of photos of the dashing young major at a similar age would be able to tell. I thought it was common knowledge that charlie boy had been caught hiding the sausage with camilla and di had been caught making the beast with two backs with the said major. The sooner that we get rid of this sponging bunch of toff freeloaders the better we will be as a country. Just thinking about the nonsense behind it all makes me want to pukeeeeeeurrraaagh.
Posted by Morning Loves It, on 22-06-2007 17:32,
I have a kinder and more sympatheic approach than you Rustic - in print anyway. But have they ever DNAd him? His Birth Father's identity is evident to me. Get rid of them? Would you prefer a Tony and Cherry, a Bill and Hilary? Perhaps the Royals are a safer option having to earn their wages for work done. Symbolic.
Posted by The Bat, on 22-06-2007 21:11,
At least a Tony and Cherry or a Bill and Hilary can be voted out of office and a replacement voted in.
Posted by Rustic, on 23-06-2007 13:44,
Yes MLI I would prefer Tony and Cherie or even Bill and Hill, even Cameron and whoever his boyfriend is. Anyone would be better than this shower of adulterous, inbred freeloading *****. I find it hard to believe that it is 2007 and we are still playing kings and queens and princes and princesses. I mean that it is all well and good in history books, where this lot should be consigned to, but in a modern society that supposedly supports equal opportunity for everyone,(sic) who are these people , what do they want, and what sort of forelock tugging, gawd bless em, three cheers for the queen, traditionalist wants to see them remain.
Posted by Morning Loves It, on 23-06-2007 17:19,
I've re-read my post and it sounds like I am a Royalist and want them to remain, so no surprise that The Bat and Rustic have responded like this. I think we should keep the Royals in place but as caretakers of the Palaces, Estates, wear badges like National Trust volunteers, showing tourists how it used to be in the days of forelock tugging. I've visited Palaces in Russia,China and Hungary, paid my admission, seen many Religious Icons in Churches and Museums(Ugly Babies)and Royal Artifacts, much wealth, thinking about the arguments made by Traditionalists that the Royals are a Tourist Attraction and bring us needed revenue. Plenty of revenue in these countries and their Kings and Queens were disposed of. So Symbolic suits and so does earning their wages.
Posted by The Bat, on 23-06-2007 20:08,
To get back to the original topic. What is the point of having members of the royal family trained in the armed services when everyone knows that they will never actually be placed in any danger. What adds insult to injury is that you see many, many legitimate war veterans/heros who wear medals that they have earned for bravery, and every time you see a royal in uniform they are covered in medals which they have not earned. What for? Doesn't it make a mockery of the whole system of awarding medals for bravery to members of the army, airforce and navy when the royal family have more medals than everyone else for doing nothing other than being a member of the royal family? Surely this is a continuation of the class society which was at its height during the 1st world war AKA 'Lions led by Donkeys'. And before any one spoutes the old cr*p about the royals setting an example for british society, may I remind you that if we all followed their example every member of british society would be having extra-marital affairs before getting devorced in order to marry our mistresses/gigalos. It seems to me that any member of the royals could do anything they damn well please and there would always be some royal hanger on, there to defend their actions. The French had the right idea, get rid, but keep the tourist attractions.
Posted by Carlito, on 25-06-2007 08:30,
I hold an equal contempt for the Royals AND the M.O.D., and everything they stand for. At the same time, I DO revel in the fact that we actually have a pretty exciting history, thanks at least partially to the escapades of the Royal family. How much does the Royal Family cost the tax payer? Anyone know?
Posted by Chief Wigam, on 25-06-2007 09:08,
I have a friend who was a serving marine at the time of the Falklands conflict. He tells me that although Prince Andrew was indeed on board a ship sent to the area, He was kept well away from any danger and others were briefed to make sure it stayed that way. Footage taken was to boost moral of others. So this is nothing new, I guess this time there is no ship to float around at the back and keep moving about???.
Posted by The Bat, on 26-06-2007 19:34,
Harry should be shipped off to the home for ginger children, the bloody ginger eyelashed waste of bloody space.
Posted by Rosieo6, on 28-06-2007 13:59,
Well Carlito you have gasted my flabber to the extent that I couln't breathe for at least a minute..
Posted by Bentley, on 28-06-2007 15:21,
Well carlito, they cost 37.5 million per year give or take some small change. What a tragic waste of money. Next time you see a picture of andrew have a look at some photos of the lord porchester when he was a younger man. It would appear that liz wasn't adverse to bit of rumpy pumpy on the side either. check out www.throneout.com for more details
Posted by Rustic, on 28-06-2007 15:57,
Carlito you dog breath, what utter drivelling pish. It is not who they are or how much they cost it is what they stand for that so repulses me. The ""exciting history"" that you gobble on about is the reason why you and most of the rest of us live in piddling little places with postage stamp gardens because historically the ""royals"" gave away all the land to their posh mates. no mercy and up against a wall with the lot of the sponging useless toe rags.
Posted by Major Geoffrey Stodworthy, on 28-06-2007 23:45,
Of course what is not too well known is that Royals have a ceremonial role in the armed forces, somewhat similar to that of a regimental goat. Which is not to say that any of them look like a goat, in fact as mentioned above two of the younger ones don't actually even look like the old goat at all. Talking of which Phillip is supposed to have sired an offsping in Australia so it all balances out in the end I suppose. What would be rather tragic were young Harry to be blown up by a landmine - tragic and ironic given his mother's long association with the armed forces. But that's all part of the job I suppose, though what job young Harry is giving in the photo at the top of this page one can only hazard a guess at.
Posted by Carlito, on 29-06-2007 08:44,
Rustic, get off your anti-royal bandwagon, take a swig of red cider and calm down. I'm not PRO-Royal...I don't cry at royal parades...infact I've never seen one for a start! Yes, most of our land is owned by the landed gentry and the National Trust but so what? That's not going to change is it? You can't have a permanent grudge with a few sponging rich people in St. James Park just because you stare out of your H-block window on to your communal dog-poo-and-needle-ridden lawn wishing you'd made friends with Cuthbert back at school.
Posted by Rustic, on 29-06-2007 09:49,
It is not a bandwagon you gonk, it is an executioners wagon taking their sad sorry arses to the guillotine where they belong. I know that’s maybe a bit harsh for the 21st century but there must be a metaphorical equivalent. As for bearing a grudge of course I do, that’s what grudges are for. If we didn't have grudges to bear can you imagine how dreadfully peaceful it would all become. I am aware it isn't their fault they were born into unearned privallage and the right to be treated as somehow a better human being than you or I or anyone we know, but that does not erode the point that they are pointless and should be eradicated as soon as possible. As for Cuthbert he was and still is my gimp, they love a bit of rough these posh boys, as you well know.
Posted by Carlito, on 29-06-2007 12:02,
Rustic the truth is that most of the trustafarian hippy/arty fraternity in Bridport who somehow get by mysteriously on roll-ups and elderflower presse, are actually the offspring of the old-rich... I met someone a few years ago, who's brain is shot to smitherines and famously attempted to bed a leathery alcoholic over a table in the George. I then discovered that his parents DO really own most of Devon. Yes, he is a waste of space, but many of these pseudo-impovrished art-based patchouli-whores are actually here (and actually represent Bridport to some extent) because their HUGE trust funds allow them to be.
Posted by The Bat, on 30-06-2007 08:42,
I don't see how anyone could compare any member of the royal family to a regimental goat. They look nothing like goats. For starters goats have chins. Secondly they don't plaster goats with war medals simply for 'being a goat'. I'd rather have a goat in Buck house that than the family of leeches we presently are forced to endure.
Posted by Major Geoffrey Stodworthy, on 30-06-2007 20:42,
My dear fellow, I didn't mean you to think that any member of the royal family looked like a goat or should be compared to a goat, I was merely pointing that they both shared,in the main, ceremonial purposes in the armed forces. Although in recent times royals have played a much more active part, with Charles and Andrew both in the Royal Navy and Edward attached to the Queen's regiment for some while. The latter took much fright, I'm led to believe, when he misheard that the company would be doing a bit of square bashing the next day. As to your suggestion that we should have a goat in Buckingham Palace I rather think that it would not work. I'm sure some of the more irreverent folk on here might say that it wouldn't matter as none of the other occupants work either, but fear is it would set a dangerous precedent. Next thing we know we would be having pictures of billy goats on our ten pound notes and nanny goats on the stamps. And this is before Camilla is queen.
Posted by The Bat, on 01-07-2007 17:02,
Major Geoffrey Stodworthy Re you comment that both the royals and goats share,in the main, ceremonial purposes in the armed forces. I would like to point out that goats are not paid several million pounds per annum at taxpayers expense. Further I wish to take back my comment that the royal family don't look anything like goats. I forgot about Cruella, sorry ...... Camilla. How on earth did a bloke who could could have had mostly any woman he wanted end up with an old trout like Camilla? I mean... she looks like a bloke!!
Is it just me or does anyone else think it is a complete waste of tax payers money to train soldiers who will never actually use any of the skills they are taught? What’s the point of soldiers who never actually fight or are never placed in any danger in a war zone?
