Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

For Harry and England

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 06:31 AM
link   
I know I'm nasty, suspicious and cynical, but....

Just a thought for our ginger haired, second in line to the throne, youngest son of Diana.
It's been announced today thet he will be sent to serve , in the front line, in Afghanistan......
Watch your back, kid!




posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by The great unknown
I know I'm nasty, suspicious and cynical, but....

Just a thought for our ginger haired, second in line to the throne, youngest son of Diana.
It's been announced today thet he will be sent to serve , in the front line, in Afghanistan......
Watch your back, kid!



Funny, I thought the same thing when I saw the headline as well......

What better way to gel a nation together than the loss of the 2nd in line for the throne.......

What better way to galvanize support for the 'war effort', distract attention from something else that may be looming.........

I just hope we are wrong.........

MR



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 08:30 AM
link   
But I have to say I was considering more his status, with regard to the 'aspersions' that have been cast by some, regarding his parantage.

I, for one, have no doubt as to who the boys father is, of course, lol!



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Isn't he 3rd in line to the throne?
Prince charles 1st
Prince william 2nd
Harry Hewitt errm I mean Prince Harry 3rd.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by executioner
Isn't he 3rd in line to the throne? Prince charles 1st


IS Charles really first in line? I am an American so obviously I don't care, those royals aren't my problem. But I am curious. Is Charles still first in line? He is an unrepentant adulterer and he married a divorced woman who is also an unrepentant adulterer. The fact that he married her ... that breaks the rules of the Church of Enland ... which supposedly he is going to be the head of, right??

Is he really first in line? Or is it William, since he hasn't broken the Church of England rules?

How does all that work???



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Technically he is third, if they ever allow Charles the title, and assuming that HRH doesnt outlive him. An untimely demise would ensure avoiding any potentially embarrasing questions being asked

Not withstanding, there's a strong possiblility that we may be under a completely different regime by the time ER11 finishes her reign, and she doesn't show any sign of allowing sucession whilst her homeopathists can keep her right hand waving.

As I understand it, Britain is rapidly becoming a catholic state, and going by THEIR track record and attitude to British, protestant monarchy, who knows what may happen.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 08:50 AM
link   
To the best of my lnowledge he is still first in line.
According to wiki this is the top 11


1 HRH The Prince of Wales ("The Prince Charles") (b. 1948), eldest son of Queen Elizabeth II
2 HRH Prince William of Wales (b. 1982), elder son of The Prince of Wales
3 HRH Prince Henry of Wales (b. 1984), younger son of The Prince of Wales
4 HRH The Duke of York ("The Prince Andrew") (b. 1960), second son of Queen Elizabeth II
5 HRH Princess Beatrice of York (b. 1988), elder daughter of The Duke of York
6 HRH Princess Eugenie of York (b. 1990), younger daughter of The Duke of York
7 HRH The Earl of Wessex ("The Prince Edward") (b. 1964), third son of Queen Elizabeth II
8 Lady Louise Windsor (b. 2003), daughter of The Earl of Wessex
9 HRH The Princess Royal ("The Princess Anne") (b. 1950), daughter of Queen Elizabeth II
10 Peter Phillips (b. 1977), son of The Princess Royal
11 Zara Phillips (b. 1981), daughter of The Princess Royal
[ex/]



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by The great unknown
As I understand it, Britain is rapidly becoming a catholic state, and going by THEIR track record and attitude to British, protestant monarchy, who knows what may happen.


Eh, where did you get that from?



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Yesterday, on BBC radio 4, claims were being made that the influx of east european migrants was leading to a situation where their are more practising Catholics in the u.k. than active C of E worshippers.

Bonnie Prince Charlie and Mary Queen of Scots must be having a good old grin somewhere over that one.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 08:58 AM
link   
[edit on 17-2-2007 by The great unknown]



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 09:06 AM
link   
So because we have a influx of catholic migrants this means we're becoming a catholic controlled state.
That's just scaremongering at it's worst.
Did they actually broadcast this claim or is it your interpretation of what was said on radio4?
Either way it sure is a good way to flame the fans of sectarianism and race hate, but at least it takes the spotlight of the supposed muslim threat to our nation.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by executioner
.. this means we're becoming a catholic controlled state.... That's just scaremongering at it's worst.


That's funny! It's okay to have a protestant controlled state but the thought of a catholic controlled state is something more scary? ha ha. Sorry, but I find that soooooooooooooo 1500s!


btw ... side note .... most Catholics don't listen to Rome.


THANKS for posting that list of who is in line for the throne. That is interesting.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Could well be usual press scaremongering, may even be I misunderstood (don't believe so, though).
I don't think of us as a very religious nation, though, so I shouldn't have thought it would present much of a problem, it could have been the C of E trying to get bums on seats.

I wouldn't have said state controlled was the issue, because Charles has already decided to be 'Defender of Faiths' - How clever of him to be representative of ALL Gods.

I wonder where Mjr J W gets done to commune with the Lord?



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 09:16 AM
link   
I'm glad I made you laugh but I've never seen anyone from Northern Ireland laughing about the troubles or had you forgotten about them.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Oh, thats great news, I was (while I hope no harm comes to him) hoping that he would go to the front line. It would be wrong to keep him in england just because he is in the royal family, after all, they (the army, government etc) expect other people's children/husbands/fathers etc to fight, why shouldn't he?

Well, at least we can now see that they won't do that. Although I daresay he won't be sent on the more risky operations.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 10:23 AM
link   
I hope your right! I may even join the taliban myself if I could get just one shot at that ginger bastard!

GO TALIBAN GO!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit on 17/2/07 by Mcphisto]


CX

posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mcphisto
I hope your right! I may even join the taliban myself if I could get just one shot at that ginger bastard!

GO TALIBAN GO!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit on 17/2/07 by Mcphisto]


Whatever peoples opinions of the lad, even opinions such as this one
, at least the lad had the balls to do something good with his life.

Don't forget he'll he being fighting alongside many others so that many of us can sit in our armchairs and not worry about it all. Ok he has done a few stupid things but who has'nt?

from me for what he's doing, it's just a shame that he'll end up getting a lot more recognition, and protection due than the other troops there who also deserve it.

CX.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   
War brings out the virtues that society most prizes: courage, honor, sacrifice, determination in the face of danger, and a tempering of youthful enthusiasm in the face of bloodshed. There was a time when battle was thought to make men:


From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.


The fact that those days are so long gone only serves to mark the decline of the West.

all the best.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I think its a good idea to send him there after all he is a trained soldier even if he does have blue blood running through his veins........



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by apex
Oh, thats great news, I was (while I hope no harm comes to him) hoping that he would go to the front line. It would be wrong to keep him in england just because he is in the royal family, after all, they (the army, government etc) expect other people's children/husbands/fathers etc to fight, why shouldn't he?

Well, at least we can now see that they won't do that. Although I daresay he won't be sent on the more risky operations.


Don't forget Prince Andrew was in the front line as a helicopter pilot during the Falklands conflict when he was 2nd in line to the throne.
Although, Elizabeth II had four children (an heir and three spares) whereas Charles only has an heir and a spare - so you could be right. It'll be interesting finding out!






top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join