Why are they being so pampered? They cost British tax payers millions of English pounds. They get invested in going through training with the military. Than to find out that they will never serve? What humbuck is that? Cause I think they never made that much fuss about Prince Charles and Prince Andrew? I think they are just spoiled brads?Whats your thinking?
2007-01-14 12:04:05 · 13 answers · asked by angelikabertrand64 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
Why would you send your second and third people in line to the throne into a war? Esp because people are not fond of Charles and they may find a way to bypass his rule. Also, he's old and could get sick or something.
If you spend an entire lifetime grooming someone to take the throne, why would you waste that and end up with someone fifth or more in line? From a monarchical angle, it would be foolish.
And at least they are doing something with their lives. They are being trained militarily and could impart some of their knowledge in the political sphere. Better than President Bush who is Commander in Chief and has no idea about wars. Although I realize the boys have no real political power, they do have an opinion that will have weight within the society.
Plus it's better than spending the day at the spa like they probably could.
2007-01-14 12:16:05 · answer #1 · answered by plant a tree 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Prince Andrew saw active duty as a chopper fighter pilot in the Falklands War. When he did so, he was second in line to the throne.
There's only one reason for either Prince William or Prince Harry to not be sent into combat. That's the possibility that they could be kidnapped (it's not the least bit unusual in Iraq), and there's a huge diplomatic mess as well as a military one.
I do not in any way shape or form here intend to say that these problems don't exist for anyone who is kidnapped in Iraq. They do, but this one is a matter of perception for the Brits.
BTW just because someone doesn't see active service doesn't mean that they aren't serving.
2007-01-14 12:16:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
They got military training because, as noblemen and Royals, military function is a traditional part of their duties, they'll never go into front line fighting because, as noblement an Royals, their role is to be staff officers at HQ, not grunts or field commanders. Long past are the times of Henry VII and Richard III when the king was expected to command from the front and fight personally.
As for their cost and value to the state, that's another kettle of fish entirely, and if the british are tired of supporting the windsors and of their insolent wealth, let them revolt and cast the monarchy down, it's not as though it would be the first time, and they have gotten rid of more legitimate dynbasties than that one,
2007-01-14 12:17:54 · answer #3 · answered by Svartalf 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Prince Harry can, and might, be sent into combat in Iraq (it's up to the commander of his unit). Prince William cannot, because under British law, you cannot send the person next in line to the throne into combat (or any other potentially life-threatening situation).
2007-01-14 14:16:59 · answer #4 · answered by J D 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's the same reason as to why Charles and the princes can not fly together on the same plane.. Because if something were to happen, it would be too much of a blow to the Royal family and the line to the throne.
It's not about pampering. There's just too much at risk.
2007-01-14 19:07:28 · answer #5 · answered by evil_nykki 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't think that the second in line to the throne(Prince William) will ever be sent into combat but unlike his brother Prince Harry who will probably be sent into combat. Because Harry will not be the future King of England I think that he should be sent into combat just like any other soilder in England.
2007-01-14 19:19:29 · answer #6 · answered by tara20052 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm anti-war, so NOBODY should be sent into combat, not even THEM! Someday, they'll realize what a super mum they had and how she was probably done in by the Queen and her agents and they'll turn on the old bat! Heh! I hope they do. As for combat...Tony "Nigel Tufnel" Sinclair" needs to REMOVE HIS LIPS from Dubya's posterior! STAT!
2007-01-14 12:13:33 · answer #7 · answered by Gwynneth Of Olwen 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it's them actually. I think they might be happy to but someone else is pulling the strings on this one. Plus the Iraq war is a much more dangerous proposition the Falklands. Andrew serving in the Falklands was largely symbolic. When there's a very real chance of a monarch dying in a war, things are different.
2007-01-14 12:10:53 · answer #8 · answered by Katya-Zelen 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I think it is OK that men of their political significance would not be sent into combat. They would be extraordinarily valuable targets for kidnapping by the enemy, and we know that the enemy in today's world often uses kidnapping/extortion. Additionally, if they were lost, it would be a major blow to the British and global communities.
2007-01-14 12:10:38 · answer #9 · answered by cucumberlarry1 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
they shouldn't they are supposed to rule the kingdom that is why the peole should not worry the cost of education of the princes
2007-01-14 13:40:29 · answer #10 · answered by saudia joy c 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋