See, this is why they still have a Monarchy

[demiurgent]

Here's something worth noting.

As Michael Moore perhaps over-dramatized in Fahrenheit 9/11, almost no members of Congress have children in the Iraqi War. It's the poor who send their children to fight, not the wealthy.

In Britain, on the other hand, there is a slightly different tradition at play.

Prince Henry of Windsor, called Harry, is going into harm's way. He has insisted there be no special treatment. His assignment is actively hazardous. He is a member of the Royal Cavalry, and he's going to fulfill those obligations.

I'm reminded of the Falklands, when Harry's uncle Prince Andrew went to war.

There is something to be said for a society where the wealthiest, most privileged among them feel an obligation to place themselves in harm's way.

In other news, the Bush Twins have entered week three of their siege on Jaeger.

Comments

[darthparadox.livejournal.com]

Meanwhile, a million young female Brits weep.

Good on him. I'm impressed.

[david-wisdom.livejournal.com]

"... the prince will have the rank of cornet, equivalent to a second lieutenant ..."

So, not only does this aristocrat feel an obligation to serve, he's starting at the bottom of the commissioned ranks. No strings pulled, no special treatment, he's a lowly butter bar like every other Junior Officer.

If a society has to have a privileged elite, this is how they should behave.

[matgb]

Yup. Y'know what really scares me?

If he dies (or even gets badly injured), the rebublican cause in the UK is set back years...

Then again, I'm no longer a republican, so, well, it's a good thing. The younger generation of royals are pretty switched on, I suspect it's the new gene pool. Scurrilous rumour has it that Harry isn't actually Royal, she was seeing someone else at the time. Silly, utterly discredit rumour. Obviously.

NB. No capitol letter, our republicans are on the left, for the most part, and our Republicans are marxists...

[magentamom.livejournal.com]

Unfortunate for him, then that she was seeing someone who gave him genes to look scarily like Charles. :)

[matgb]

You never saw a picture of Hewitt? the lady had really bad taste...

[mishamish.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I'm reminded a bit of Peter the Great of Russia. As a kid and teenager, he would have mock battles with his friends and would always place himself as the lowest common soldier, ordering them (ironically enough), to be the officers. Then, when he grew of age, he "joined" the army with a rank of private in the artillery. Then, later, when he became enamored of boats and started the Russian Navy, he gave himself the lowest rank. Of course, he always promoted himself as he learned the duties and got better (and he was the sole judge of that), but hey! He was CZAR for Dog's sake and he was STILL taking on the lowest ENLISTED roles! He didn't even commission himself.

Of course, he also made a MAJOR scandal throughout Europe when he tried to travel incognito (tough to do when your a 6'7" Russ travelling in 17th century Europe with a gimongous entourage) and apprenticed himself to a master ship builder in Amsterdam...

[inkbrush76.livejournal.com]

This Week on J.A.B. (Jenna and Barbara)

Jenna and her sis kick it real and take it to the Jaëgermeister's Germanic fortress, where they use the combined power of their drunken revelry to convince the dour hearted Meister of the joy of shallow abandon. Tonight on DUM, America's network... of Freedom!

[larksilver.livejournal.com]

"He's a Cracking officer."

That's quite a compliment, and an expression I always forget about. "Cracking."

It's right up there with "chuffed" in my list of favorite terms from across the pond.

It's nice to know that he's serious about this. A true leader is one who wouldn't send someone else out to do a job he won't do himself, right?

[wednesday]

"Chuffed" falls over, as it were, the second one finds British pulp porn with the phrase "diddling her chuffie" in it.

[darthparadox.livejournal.com]

That might be among the most entertaining phrases I've heard all day.

[z-gryphon.livejournal.com]

Dayumn. Clearly I am sourcing my porn from entirely the wrong vectors.

[larksilver.livejournal.com]

Oh good gravy. Such a fun word to be turned so... icky. Bah!

[sneakums.livejournal.com]

"Cracking tea, Gromit!"

[larksilver.livejournal.com]

Exactly!

I found the little gags in the full-length feature to be as delightful as always. Middle-aged spread indeed. hehehehe

[caprine.livejournal.com]

"In other news, the Bush Twins have entered week three of their siege on Jaeger."

Brilliant.

May I post this to metaquotes?

[matgb]

Appears to be a public post. Public posts are always fair game.

[no-relation.livejournal.com]

True, but it's always nice to ask.

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

Feel free. :)

[magentamom.livejournal.com]

Yes, well, I'm sure the twins will be onboard when we go into invade Iran.

[jfargo.livejournal.com]

Why? They have good alcohol there, and are keeping us from buying it from them?

Those Iranian bastards!

[the-rammy.livejournal.com]

I knew there was a reason I'm fond of British things.....tho it might just be because I'm a Terry Pratchett fan. Either way, I think politicians should be on the front lines of the war.....they're the ones who want to fight it, after all.

Gavin R.

[inspectorzutto.livejournal.com]

This discussion reminds me of a conversation a friend and I once had. His family is English, and his family line actually goes back quite a ways in one particular town in the UK. He went there to learn all he could about the life and culture, which kindled his pursuit for identity.
He tells me he came to be shocked at the difference between the thoughts "I am American" and "I am English." Long story short, he believes many Americans are caught up in a sea change of mentality that renders them culturally rootless, not caring for home or history, compared to the degree of personal investment in ancestry that he discovered while in England.
He claims that at least some of English identity isn't just a matter of "red, white, and blue, God I love this land." It is knowing where your family has lived for generations, how they survived certain wars, what businesses they ran and how/if the family prospered. Tied to a place with a history, and all the people tied to their respective places, making a tightly-knotted population that has collectively survived grueling difficulties in history. Sharing in that survival made a national identity, aware, and it isn't to be looked on lightly. People are more sensitive to in-groups and out-groups.
I know my post here deals in stereotypes and that these differences aren't pervasive, but I do this to put the contrast in greater relief, else it go without notice.

[mishamish.livejournal.com]

Similar to the tired (but wonderful) saying:

"The difference between England and America is that in England, 100 miles is a long way, while in America, 100 years is a long time."

[howardtayler.livejournal.com]

Warmongering Neoconservative though I may appear to be, I too am in favor of military service among our "royal" class here in America.

But it's not the children of the Congresscritters. After all, many of the Congresscritters themselves actually served in the armed forces, which suffices in large degree. No, it's the ACTORS and MOVIE PRODUCERS. Those are the people we treat like royalty over here.

(Or, you know, we could stop treating them like royalty. That works too.)

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

(Or, you know, we could stop treating them like royalty. That works too.)

Godless Communist Liberal though I may appear to be... I am entirely behind this sentiment.

(It goes double too for modern sports heroes, in my book. Guys. They're getting tens and hundreds of million dollars to play a child's game.)

[larksilver.livejournal.com]

Rampaging Neopagan Moderate though I am, I agree with you both. If we're going to treat someone like royalty, it should be those who spend their lives in service to the community.

It's better, since 9/11, but gee, wouldn't it be cool if we could take some of the cash the sports heroes and the film "superstars" make and give it to the teachers, firefighters, police, and yes, even to raising the salaries of some of the folks in the armed forces?

Hey, there would be that budget for increased science and mathematics educational opportunities. hmm.

[bimmer1200.livejournal.com]

One problem.

One of your fundamental assumptions is incorrect. It's not just the poor who send their children to fight. On the contrary, according to the latest statics from the DoD, recruits from poor households are -under-represented, in the armed forces. Middle class and upper class families are over represented. In fact, recruits from the wealthiest 20% made up about 19% of recruits prior to 9/11. Post 9/11, that number has increased to 22%.

Not to take away from Harry, he's doing a good thing, I believe. But I'm curious, how many members of the Parliament have children serving in the U.K.'s armed services? Wouldn't that be more anagolous? Further, compared to children of U.S. Presidents, how often have children of the monarchy served? I don't know the answers to those questions, but it's a bit hard to make a legitimate contrast without knowing them.

[larksilver.livejournal.com]

I think, if I recall my PBS viewings accurately, that military service is expected of royalty. The big news about this is that most of the time, their "military service" constitutes standing waaaaaaaaay behind the lines, far from danger, and given tasks like guarding the hotel room or something. For Harry to insist on earning his commission and then on actually using it is a bit extraordinary.

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

To a degree. Prince Andrew's service was exemplary, and many Royals fought and served with distinction both World Wars, for example. Prince Charles never saw combat, to my knowledge.

[unimag.livejournal.com]

From the current Royal Family, at least the most recent three generations have had members serving on the front lines in their respective conflicts (Prince Phil served in the Pacific Theatre (albeit before he married Liz), Prince Andrew served in the Falklands and did a fair bit of service flying British special forces around in other situations (not through virtue of rank, he's just a very good helicopter pilot), and Harry should be similarly posted towards what fronts there are)

It's certainly not a universal trait (Charles hasn't, and we haven't had a ruling monarch serve in a few hundred years), but it's not that uncommon to find even high profile royals in the thick of things - the Queen mum's eldest brother died in the trenches of World War I, and they stayed in London during the Blitz.

The key difference between the Royal Family and politicians (British or American) is that non-reigning royals are expected to perform military service (some do their duty as diplomats instead) - it's basically their job - and politicians aren't.

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

Well, we know about Harry, Andrew, Charles, Lord Mountbatten, Edward, Prince of Wales (the one who abdicated), Prince Philip, and...

Well, pretty much all of them. Even Prince Edward. Prince William -- Prince Harry's elder son -- actually is still in Sandhurst as we speak (he started after Harry did), so he's not yet been commissioned as an officer but is working on it.

Now, there have been a number of Presidents who have served. I don't mean to imply otherwise. (Really, it was once a prerequisite for the job.) However, overwhelmingly, the architects of the War in Iraq -- most notably Vice President Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz -- did not serve in the military and don't have dependents in the current conflict. The less said about the President's military service in this discussion, the better, but he certainly was never in combat and he has no dependents in his conflict.

It is also worth noting that Tony Blair never served, and neither do his children, though to be fair to the Blair boys and girls, only one is an age where he could be in the service. That one, Euan, is currently an intern at the United States Congress.

Also of note -- Donald Rumsfeld, for all we have said and can say about him, was a Naval Aviator in active service during the Korean Conflict.

My core point remains -- the tradition that the Royal Family of England serves, facing war with the people they officially lead is one that is exemplary. And Prince Harry going into harm's way and insisting he be allowed to do his job without special privilege is commendable.

[bimmer1200.livejournal.com]

I'm not knocking Harry. I agree what he is doing is commendable. That is a point worth making.

However, you didn't stop there. You said that in contrast "it's the poor who send their children to do the fighting". That contrast is invalid, not your core point about Harry's service being commendable, and that is what I was pointing out. It is equally commendable that the children of our wealthiest are carrying more than their fair share, so while kudos are being handed out, I think it was worth mentioning and that they receive recognition.

And it (military service) wasn't a prerequisite to be President. Neither Adams, Jefferson nor Madison served in the military to my knowledge. Madison was too sickly, Jefferson was Gov. of Virginia during the revolution, and I'll admit it's possible I'm wrong about Adams, but he'd have been around 40 at the start of it. Madison led us through the war of 1812. Then there was Lincoln, who never served, but handled the Civil War pretty well. Woodrow Wilson didn't serve and he let us ably through WWI. FDR never served and led us through (most of) WWII. A little more recently, Clinton had no service. And the less said about his activities during the Viet Nam war, the better. Two of his three Sec. of State had no military service either, but they handled the Kosovo situation relatively well.


So, my point is this: What Harry is doing is good. It is commendable. But the U.S. has a tradition of civilian leadership of the military, particularly in times of war. Our middle and upper classes carrying more than their share of the burden in the present conflict, and that too is commendable and there was an implication in your post that somehow our leadership is being 'shamed' by this, which is, I think, ridiculous.

[wednesday]

Prince William -- Prince Harry's elder son

Surely the logistics involved with Prince Harry impregnating Diana with his own older brother are beyond even the usual excesses of British royal inbreeding?

[z-gryphon.livejournal.com]

I would say that particular achievement would even be beyond the usual excesses of ancient Egyptian royal inbreeding.

[dirkdada.livejournal.com]

Interesting statistics. Is there a website I could go to to look at them in more detail?

[bimmer1200.livejournal.com]

Certainly. I meant to include the link but forgot.

Make with the Clicky (http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda05-08.cfm)

It is an analysis done by the Heritage Foundation, which is a conservative think tank. As you can see in the link though, they explain their methodology so you can make up your own mind about how reliable it likely is.

[j-anderson123.livejournal.com]

Wait- this is the same jerk who wore a Nazi uniform for Halloween, right?

And at least one Congressman did have kids in Iraq. Not that Michael Moore wants that fact to be heard... nevermind everyone there volunteered for the Army. We aren't drafting. One of the understandings of military service is, you sign up, you could go to war.

Meanwhile, in other news, a California cop shot an Iraqi war vet and seemed pleased that he did it, after bullying the guy.

[z-gryphon.livejournal.com]

Eh, county mounties - can't live with 'em, can't strip 'em for parts and sell 'em on eBay.

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

And at least one Congressman did have kids in Iraq. Not that Michael Moore wants that fact to be heard...

Actually, Moore acknowledged that fact in the movie, and specifically highlighted that one Congressman and his child.

Like I said above, Moore overbelabored the point. However, you seem to be missing it. I'm not knocking those who go and serve. Not at all.