From Stuff
His pending tour of duty in Iraq has split world opinion, now Kiwi monarchists are urging British authorities not to send Prince Harry to war.
The Monarchist League of New Zealand said it was wrong to send the third in line to the throne to an “unpopular and futile” war in Iraq, and has urged the Blair Government to reconsider his deployment.
It will come as no surprise that I believe that every British soldier should be withdrawn from Iraq immediately.
But if there are going to be British soldiers in Iraq, then they don’t come more dispensable than Prince Harry. I’m not commenting on his worth as a person to those who love him, which I’m sure is very high.* But I would be hard pressed to think of anyone more useless. Unlike his older brother, he won’t even get to wait, to wait, to become a figurehead.
Almost all of the US and British soldiers who have died in Iraq would have had far less choice in their profession than Prince Harry. The Iraqi people who have died during the invasion and occupation, have even less choice still. Every day in Iraq there are tragedies that are far greater than the hypothetical death of Prince Harry.
* Although I have to say wearing a Swastika at a Colonials and Natives Party? Not OK.
Almost all of the US and British soldiers who have died in Iraq would have had far less choice in their profession than Prince Harry.
What? Prince Harry’s profession was defined at birth. The soldiers who have served in Iraq (whether they have died or not) were all volunteers. Perhaps I don’t understand what you are trying to say.
Everyone, every person, is incredibly valuable, or we’re all throwaways. So decide.
If Harry is too valuable to risk, so are all the other soldiers we and the Brits are sending over there, and everyone should be brought home immediately. If the effort is worth risking John Smith, it’s worth risking Harry, and his older brother too for that matter.
I disagree. Some people’s lives produce more positive externalities than others’.
It is not possible to have a royal system for long where the royalty doesn’t do its duty and fight for the country. Although a staunch small-r republican, if I were living in a commonwealth country I would accede to the existence of the royal apparatus; tradition and all that. But not if the members of the royal family were shirking their military responsibilities. Both of those princes should have been in battle from day one.
I dunno, Maia, if Harry had had a hand in setting policy for the British government, I’d be right there with you.
That said, I agree with Susan. I don’t think anyone is dispensable, which is why I find this whole conflict to be so insane.
Good Grief, I agree with Robert.
And also Susan. The war is horrible and I’d prefer no one be risking life and limb – iraqi civillians and soldiers along with US and other nation’s soldiers, but if some are going to be there then the so called leaders of the nations should be required to do so as well. It’s my understanding that part of the “duties” of royalty include serving in the military (I could be wrong) – if that’s the case then they should absolutely be wherever the rest of the military is.
Sorry for thread derailment Maia – feel free to squash it if you think it’s irrelevant, but I have a question to pose to people – do you think you should have to have a military history in order to be the ruler of a nation (president, prime minister, etc)?
I can understand the immense benefit to this logic, but am not certain it has to be a requirement either (which it clearly is not in the US). What are other people’s takes on this?
I could dispense with the whacknuts who like to blow up civilians because they are being frustrated in their aim of setting up a theocracy.
Interesting point, Robert.
I think that the English royal family occupies an interesting place here, because in terms of the operation and policy of the government they’re basically officially powerless, but they’re supported in an obscenely lavish lifestyle, and they have a strong symbolic value.
Does that mean that they’re compelled to sacrifice their children to this clusterfuck of a war? Dunno.
Although I have to say wearing a Swastika at a Colonials and Natives Party? Not OK.
I remember the flap about him wearing a Swastika and saw the picture, but I don’t know what a “Colonials and Natives party” is. Can you enlighten me? Somehow it doesn’t sound very PC.
they have a strong symbolic value.
Exactly. The symbolism of (a) the coddled prince putting down the Jetski and picking up his rifle and getting on the APC with the other grunts vs. (b) the coddled prince watching the war on the big-screen at the bar in Montenegro is powerful. The first is a social order that many people can support. The second sickens everyone.
I firmly believe that all leaders should have to face the consequences and imagine their own children being sacrificed to war. From day one, Jenna and Barbara should have been the first ones to have volunteered to continue the war that their grandfather started and their father wanted to “finish” (and, don’t forget, the Mission was Accomplished…he told me so!).
Instead, others sons and daughters, like Senator George Webb’s son, go off to fight the war and the President doesn’t want to hear about that sacrifice (if you missed that scene in Washington, read here). For a man who got a cushy job that he (a) didn’t deserve and (b) couldn’t even finish and a vice president who managed to get five deferments from going to war – maybe we should sign Mary up as well!
He’s more useless than his brother because he’s third in line instead of second? his life is worthless because of an accident of birth? wtf?
The debate over whether he should go is nothing to do with his value as a person, or the value of his life. It’s about a fear that the rest of his regiment might be put in more danger than they would have been otherwise, because he might be considered more of a target than any other individual. Also that if he was taken hostage it would create a diplomatically awkward situation to say the least. It might cause more trouble than it’s worth to the other people involved.
However it now looks as though he will be going, and apparently he wants to go, for better or worse.
What I have been trying to figure out since the news first came out is why the fact that he was going to Iraq was publicized by the British Government in the first place.
Um *blink* what RonF said in his first comment. That said, I think its really embarassing that so few of the US politicians who got us into this seem to feel at all compelled to encourage thier sons and daughters to sign up, if actual rates of signing up are any measure. That would be my own standard for a vote for war.
curiousgyrl is 100% right in her comment about a vote for war. A commitment to sacrifice other peoples’ children while protecting your own is despicable.
It is true enough that Prince Harry did not vote for war, nor did his Mom, who has nothing to say about all this. That said, IF that family would like the monarchy to continue, their children have to go to war. Part of the deal. Hard deal and all that. Prince Harry could abdicate and become the Lord of Whatever and get out of the loop.
Actually, Prince Harry himself has indicated that he wants to go to Iraq instead of staying at home “sitting on his arse” while his comrades are putting themselves in danger. I think Sarah is right: the reluctance to send him is due mainly to concern about whether doing so will put others in his unit in greater danger and about the political and diplomatic mess if he is taken hostage.
There seems to be a pretty strong tradition of younger sons in that family serving in wartime. His Uncle Andrew served during the Falklands conflict, and his grandfather, who later became George VI (and was also a younger brother) saw action during the Battle of Jutland in WW I. I suppose the “spare” is more expendable than is the “heir.”
I’d like to see him go. If anything can mature someone as insensitive and ignorant as the callow youth who wore that swastika, it’s being thrown into a hypocritical and nonsensical war. If he survives, he should come out of it a better person.
It would be interesting to know just how many politicians have children that are of an age to join the military. Also, for all you know many of them have encouraged their kids to join but the kids have rejected the advice.
Speaking of politican’s kids in the military, there’s an interesting story out of Chicago. Mayor Daley’s eldest son went to West Point out of high school. After a year or two (I don’t remember the exact period), he left West Point, just before the point at which he would have had to commit to active service as an officer. He continued his college career elsewhere, and ended up getting an MBA at the University of Chicago.
For those of you not familiar with the U. of C., it’s a very prestigious and academically demanding school. You’ve got to be pretty smart and a hard worker to get an MBA there. At this point, he was pretty well set. He had a very good education from a very good school, and given his name there’s no way he could fail to land a very high-paying job anywhere in Chicago. Which he did.
And then, a few months after finishing his MBA, he quit. And enlisted in the Army. He’s currently with the 82nd Airborne, and could easily go to Iraq. He was quoted as saying that he had come to realize what “Duty, Honor, Country” really meant, and decided that he needed to serve his country. His mother is reputed upset that he has decided to join the military, but his father said he did not try to talk him out of it.
Good Grief, I agree with Robert.
Me too. What’s the world coming to?
As far as Harry’s being given no choice about being royalty, maybe one of the commonwealth types could correct me if I’m wrong, but it was my understanding that if he wanted a different life he could simply renounce his claim to the succession (is it called “abdicating” if he’s only giving up the possibility of being king some day?) and go off and become whatever he wanted to. So the fact that he doesn’t do that means that he needs to fulfill all aspects of the job: if he wants the fame, wealth, and power (even if it is unofficial, he has more power than the average Brit), he needs to deal with the dangers and inconveniences as well.
Me too. What’s the world coming to?
Why, the ultimate convergence of science, technology, human knowledge, and spiritual power into one omnicognizant point, known as the Bobularity, of course. Get your tickets now.
Yes, Harry can walk away any time he wants to. He can renounce his claim to the throne, pursue an independent life, and otherwise become a private citizen. (Not that he would be anonymous, of course, it would surely make him far more well-known than he already is.)
That’s what he can do. What it’s actually called if he does it is a matter of some question. When Edward abdicated to marry an American woman, it required an Act of Parliament to formalize the abdication. So perhaps, technically, it wouldn’t be an abdication on Harry’s part if the Parliament never chose to ratify his choice. They couldn’t stop him, of course (how do you make someone be King?) but the legalisms might be murkier.
Aside from converting to Catholicism or marrying a Catholic, I’m not sure whether there’s anything Harry can do in advance to renounce his place in the order of succession. He may not be able to abdicate or otherwise renounce his rights to the throne unless and until he actually succeeded to it. It’s really an academic question since he hasn’t shown any intention of refusing to serve in Iraq if his unit is sent there.
Just wanted to say that the last six years have more or less convinced me that there’s a lot to be said for a government with someone who has enormous prestige and influence and doesn’t have to worry about being elected. Yeah, they went to war with us. A lot fewer troops, and they’re getting out.
ivy–the royals dont actually rule the government though. They have nothing to do wiht it but look shiny.
Curiousgyrl is right. In fact, in all the European states with monarchies, are there any where the sovereign actually holds any real power? I don’t know of any, but then again, royals are pretty low on my list of interests (even though I am in theory the “subject” of one), so you’ll find few people who actually know less about them.
Can the English Sovereign still dissolve Parliament and force new elections without the permission of the Prime Minister? Or is this one of those “Yes, technically she can but it hasn’t happened in 300 years and people would go nuts if she did” kind of things?
Ron, the monarch lost the power to dissolve parliament fairly early on, in the late 17th century, along with most of the other powers. The Queen can, theoretically, stop any LAW that Parliament passes by refusing her assent, but this has not happened since 1707. If she were to try it today, the specific law probably would indeed be junked,but it would add enormously to the pressure to just boot the Windsors to the curb.
On the other hand, if the monarch were to come out and publicly say “this Parliament is a disgrace, this government is a shambles, etc” it would certainly have a powerful political effect (but again would probably also destabilize the situation).
The Queen has lots of power, as long as she never uses it. ;)
If he survives, he should come out of it a better person.
Or at least with post-traumatic stress disorder.
The news stories out now are that it’s been decided that Harry will be a terrorist magnet that would put his unit into highly disproportionate risk, so he’s not going.