Skip to comments.William's fight with Palace over his Falklands mission
Posted on 07/03/2010 7:28:30 PM PDT by naturalman1975
Prince William is battling to go to the Falkland Islands next year as an RAF search-and-rescue helicopter pilot.
William, 28, finishes his training in the autumn and is due to travel to the Falklands for eight weeks next summer.
But there is a huge question mark over whether Buckingham Palace will let him take up the post because Argentina is pressing its claim to the islands.
A source told The Mail on Sunday: He will try everything in his power to make sure he goes out there with the rest of RAF Valley in Anglesey.
He has Royal engagements and other official duties, and that has to be considered, but he is adamant that he is going.
If he does, William would be following in the footsteps of his uncle, Prince Andrew, who was a helicopter pilot in the 1982 Falklands War.
Argentina is using every opportunity at international meetings to press its claim to the Falklands after British company Rockhopper revealed there are positive signs of oil in the waters around the South Atlantic islands.
Sources say this could be a reason why William would be held back from heading out to the Falklands with his colleagues from RAF Valley.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
bump for later
I like the kid. And his little brother too.
Got to give him credit for not hiding behind his postition to get out of a potentially dangerous assignment.
He has some stones; i’ll give him that.
Hard to believe its been almost 30 years since that conflict. Seems like yesterday.
Now that I think of it, at the time of the invasion it seemed like it took the Brits 30 years to get there.
You call the tundra of the Falklands a "dangerous assignment"?
It’s hardly a danger zone is it? There is no military reason for him not go so I wouldn’t see it as a military excuse.
He does want to go.
They’ve already more or less ruled out allowing him to serve in combat (his brother, as the “spare” is a combat soldier, the heir therefore cannot be - maintaining the succession is considered important), and so he went into S&R in the hope of actually being able to have a genuinely useful military career in a non-combat role. Now the government is raising blocks to that.
Like any junior officer, he must obey orders - he does so, but he doesn’t have to like it.
Britain is 12,000+ from the south of Argentina, near Patagonia and South Georgia island, where the Falklands are located. I believe that it took the Brits about a month to get there. Prince Andrew served during the Falklands conflict and deployed there in the summer of 1982.
I recall that the BBC refused to run a popular music video by New Zealand’s Split Enz at the time titled “Six Months In A Leaky Boat” because Buckingham Palace thought that the song would be defining the British fleet on its way to Argentina. The song had nothing to do with that — it had been written by Neil and Tim Finn years earlier.
Potentially dangerous in that if the Argentines were to capture him, they could ransom him for the deed to the Falkland Islands. Just my take. ;-)
It’s purely political and diplomatic - a member of the Royal Family visiting the Falklands at the moment in any capacity could upset the Argentinians and make negotiations more difficult. The question is how much of a concern this really is right now.
Prince Andrew deployed to the Falklands in the summer of 1982, and Queenie let him go (but, then again, he wasn’t the Heir to the Throne...)
You don’t know much about the Royals.
And you’ve Assam’ed with them?
You call the tundra of the Falklands a “dangerous assignment”?
The Falklands conflict in the eighties cost over a thousand lives. It was pretty damned dangerous then. Hell; the weather in that part of the world is plenty dangerous on its own.
Pffffttt! Do you think that the present-day Argentines, with their ditzy President and tanking economy, are in any sort of position to claim themselves to be a Naval superpower of any kind or able to capture the Heir to the British Throne for ransom? Highly unlikely.
During the actual Falklands conflict, Maggie Thatcher was in a direct war with the Ruthless Argentine Military Dictator Galtieri, and Maggie ended up winning.
I like him too. And I can’t stand the Royals. What up with that?
The Argentinians have the Falklands Islands set to a religious level. If you look into it, the hysteria is actually frightening. You have to ask though, if they honestly think the Islands are theirs why don’t they fight for it. I am sure the US and UK would fight anyone if their own nation was supposedly invaded.
With oil drilling starting in the area it’s best to keep them quietish. It saves any petulance.
I’m just a Tory from the colonies.
No - at the time Prince Andrew was, himself, the “spare”.
Practice is that either the heir or the spare can be allowed to serve in combat situations - not both. The Prince of Wales was out of the Navy by 1982 anyway, but if he had still be in operational service, they’d have had to resolve the issue there.
Only takes a mistake or an accident to put the Royal in the hands of the Argentineans.
I do actually know some of the Royals and am friends with a couple of them.
Leaving aside their particular constitutional role in the UK, they are patriots who believe in serving their country. And with a long tradition of doing so.
“Only takes a mistake or an accident to put the Royal in the hands of the Argentineans.”
Don’t be silly. They are crazy insane about the Falklands but they are not animals or stupid.
Where did Chuck serve in the Navy, anyways? The Cook Islands, or Montserrat, or something like that? LOL!
It would do them no good. There would be no negotiation for the Prince.
That is the policy of the British government, of the Royal Family itself, and Prince William has, as an adult, left the same instructions with regards to himself as most of the Royals - no negotiation under any circumstances.
The only thing that might have a chance of succeeding would be grabbing one of them as a child. That would be difficult to deal with.
Besides, he is slated to be the next King of England and his family will do whatever it takes to protect him.
Among other things he flew helicopters for British Commandos.
The Prince of Wales Naval service was genuine service. He was a line officer. Only for about five years, but it wasn’t some symbolic service.
If Argentina took a member of the British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand etc heir to the thone hostage there would be negotiations.
It would go like this:
“Give him back or you will be bombed into the stone-age.”
“Besides, he is slated to be the next King of England and his family will do whatever it takes to protect him.”
To be far more accurate:
The future King of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis.
Well, yes - that type of negotiation would occur - and the Prince himself would start it.
Well excuuuuuuuse me! LOL! Guess I missed a few.
But wouldn’t being the King of England embrace all of these? After all the King of England would, in fact, be the King of the United Kingdom?
“Well excuuuuuuuse me! LOL! Guess I missed a few.
But wouldnt being the King of England embrace all of these? After all the King of England would, in fact, be the King of the United Kingdom?”
No, England is not the same as the UK. The United Kingdom is the nation-state. England is a nation within the UK.
Scotland + England + Wales = Great Britain.
Great Britain + Northern Ireland = The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Plus, Canada, Australia etc are obviously all independent nations of the UK.
However, if he is the King of England, isn’t he automatically the King of the United Kingdom?
The error you are making is that there is no King or Queen of England as such.
The Scottish and English crowns merged in 1603.
In any case the British Monarchy is seperate from the rest. The current Queen is also the Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. It is their Monarchy too and it is seperate from the British Monarchy.
In other words the UK could become a Republic tomorrow and the Canadian Monarchy would not change one iota.
In 1801, the separate title of King of Ireland was merged into a combined title of King of the United Kingdom and Ireland for George III, and in 1922, when Ireland was partitioned, George V became King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and also separately King of Ireland (again). Precisely when Ireland ceased to be a Kingdom is complicated - but today the British Monarch is King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
He is not the King of England. Such a title no longer exists.
Your feedback clarifies many of my preconceptions about the position of the Royals. My education continues. Thanks.
Very interesting - I didn’t know all of this. It’s just as complicated as London’s subdivisions. :-)
It's separate. Report to the spelling Nazi.
Thanks. Between you and Gimour09, I will eventually understand all that is understandable about the Royals. LOL
P.S.: I love the Queen! And I sincerely hope that the crown skips a generation. Thumbs down on Charles. Can the Queen name her successor?
I noticed it when I sent it. However when you start saying “Herbs” in the proper, more manly way, then I will apologiSe. :)
And for the same reason - it’s all developed organicallly, rather than being planned, and through compromises and enforced decisions at times.
The official website is great for the history of the Monarchy:
The Prince of Wales is a friend of mine, and is nowhere near as odd or incapable as the media tries to present him. I think he’ll make a good King, if it ever does fall to him.
To answer your question, though, no, the Queen cannot name her successor. The line of succession is set by a series of laws made by Parliament. Parliament can alter them - the Queen can not. The Prince of Wales will automatically become King the instant his mother dies, unless he predeceases her. He can’t even refuse to be King, himself - he can abdicate but he would still be King until the Instrument of Abdication was signed.
Sorry wrong quote, it should be “Where did Chuck serve in the Navy, anyways?”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.