Posted on 06/27/2010 1:46:00 AM PDT by the scotsman
'Prince Harry received a rapturous welcome as he threw the first pitch at a New York baseball game.
The 25-year-old prince looked nervous as he walked out in front of the 40,000 people to throw the first ball at the New York Mets' Citi Field stadium.
He looked genuinely relieved when the ball slammed into the catcher's glove and the crowd cheered wildly.
Harry's visit to New York is aimed at forging closer links between the UK and US armed forces charities.'
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
William and Harry seem like they are very good folks. They are heavily involved in many charities. They easily could have taken the Paris Hilton route but seem to have taken a better route. I know that some don’t particularly like the royalty in England but it seems like the younger generation are trying to change that.
I really could not care less about the British royalty. However, if it’s to help wounded vets on either side of the Atlantic, he can parade through Times Square in a horse drawn carriage. This is the case where a known evil (royalty), supports an acknowledged good (vet rehab).
“a known evil (royalty)”
True. It’s a lesser evil than leftism though. A lot lesser.
The world would be better if both vansished. I am not holding my breath though.
While in Afghanistan, I ate chow with PH sitting at the next table. He carried himself really well and I was impressed. I like the kid.
Geez... If he could make it as a pitcher, he would already have... Love all this lovey dovey stuff about British royalty... Come on folks, they are just normal folks that were born into a grand life. If he were good, he would have been signed by now...
Heck. If there were many women in the crowd, they probably cheered because he’s cute.
Except that he has spent the past several years serving in the British military, including time in Afghanistan's front lines. Prince Harry is wildly popular specifically because he is normal folk.
As many have already pointed out Prince Harry is by all accounts a good guy who does not ask for any special favors. His personal problems are much the same as many have here except every single thing you and I do is not reported in minute detail in the tabloid press.
That being said you should really learn what the function of the monarchy is under British law. The armed forces swear loyalty not to the British government but to the crown. The monarch has the right to dismiss any sitting parliament, has the right to refuse any Prime Minister sent to them by the government-amongst other things. In simpler terms the monarch can decide what shape the government takes and has the guns to back that. The monarch also chooses his or her successor, primogeniture is not guaranteed and I doubt that Elizabeth will make Charles her heir.
That being said I would much rather have Prince Harry as the leader of government then our own “royalty” of Obamao, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Dodd, Kerry, Kennedy, the members of the Hollywood and MSM freak show et al.
They are great young men. Their mother taught them well.
Boy, you said a mouth full!!! AMEN!!!!
You are wrong on this point. The monarch does not get to choose her successor. The Prince of Wales is Heir Apparent, and will automatically become King if his mother predeceases him. He then has the option of choosing himself to abdicate (which he might do if he was very elderly at the time, but he would still be King until the instrument of abdication was signed. He can't even refuse the crown himself, let alone be passed over.
There are only three ways he can be removed from the succession. If he becomes a Catholic, or he marries a Catholic, or if Parliament (not the Queen) chooses to pass a law altering the line of succession. Parliament does have the right to pass laws concerning the succession. Currently the succession is governed by the Bill of Rights of 1680, the Act of Settlement 1701 (the most important law governing the succession), the Act of Union 1800, the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, and (technically, though it is now moot) His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936.
Under the Statute of Westminster 1931, the British Parliament would also have to consult the Parliaments of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, if it wanted to change the succession, without splitting the combined monarchy of the Realms.
He has a much better arm than the messiah.
He has a much better arm than the messiah.
And you wonder why we have a Religious ESTABLISHMENT clause in our constitution??
When it comes to religion, the nearest person to the throne for who the current laws have any relevance is the Earl of St Andrews (a first cousin, once removed of the Queen, the son of Prince Edward, Duke of Kent) who, if he had not married a Catholic would currently be twenty fifth in line to the throne, and his two children Baron Downpatrick and Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor, who are Catholics. Because they are so distant from the throne, there's no urgency there either. Again, if somebody close to the succession was Catholic or married to a Catholic, there would be pressure to change the laws, but as there aren't, there isn't.
“a known evil (royalty)”
The difference between royalty and democracy is that with royalty you are supporting one family and democracy you are supporting a couple hundred million folks. The taxes that our Founding Fathers objected to are pennies on the dollar compared to what our democracy extracts.
And if Willliam had a daughter, they'd change the rules??? Me thinks not...
I was a young girl when Elizabeth was crowned and was very impressed.
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.