h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

If I remember rightly, Andrew (and the other helicopter pilots doing the same job) were to serve as lock-on targets for the exocets so that they could intercept (then outmanouevre -sp?- them) so that the fighter pilots had a clear run.

That is clearly dangerous work even without the Invisible's force field.

"And I think you're wrong. And in fact have *proven* you're wrong, on, as I said, the reasonable grounds that the very last time the Royal family had an opportunity to put one of its members into a war zone, in he went.

This is, as I say, Harry's problem. He's the first to be mollycoddled like this."

And I think Harry proves me right, Andrew being now an exception to the rule. In fact, given what's been written here (and assuming it's true) I'm surprised Andrew was allowed to the Falklands at all. In fact, there seems to be some suggestion that he wasn't supposed to and the Queen forced it through (or talked the admiralty into it). Presumably that wouldn't happen now.

Oh good grief.

"I think Harry proves me right, Andrew being now an exception to the rule"

Fine. Presumably the "rule" is - Royals who are in potential frontline combat roles in the armed forces are not allowed to serve in the event of conflict.

Please supply one more example of this happening. Just one. A member of the Royal Family who was a serving member of a branch of the armed forces who might reasonably have been expected to serve in a combat zone, but didn't. ONE previous example of that, and I'll concede you're right and that Andrew was an exception.

SoRB

"Please supply one more example of this happening. Just one. A member of the Royal Family who was a serving member of a branch of the armed forces who might reasonably have been expected to serve in a combat zone, but didn't. ONE previous example of that, and I'll concede you're right and that Andrew was an exception."

I'm talking about NOW as things stand in the modern world. Members of the Royal Family serving as "ordinary" members of the armed forces cannot do any such thing by default. It's like having them join the police force and then expecting them to walk the beat. As I said, Andrew was an exception, I don't think they'd allow him to do any such thing now (although I still think he wasn't being asked to put himself in the same sort of danger Harry was). Given that any future member of the RF who signs up (and there will be others) will be given the "Harry" treatment rather than the "Andrew" treatment the question is what the point really is.

Incidentally, I'm not sure any other members of the Royal Family have served in a frontline capacity in the last 50 (possibly 100) years in the way Andrew did. To give an example of why royalty isn't suited to frontline combat, the Prince Imperial of the house of Bonaparte served with the British army in the late 19th century and was killed in a Zulu raid. His death caused political ripples throughout Europe and the Zulus had to explain he'd never have been killed if they'd known who he was. And his was a deposed house.

Zagreb, if you're claiming that Andrew was an exception, then logically you have multiple, opposite cases. Can you provide these? If you can't, then you can't call Andrew an "exception".

"Zagreb, if you're claiming that Andrew was an exception, then logically you have multiple, opposite cases. Can you provide these? If you can't, then you can't call Andrew an "exception"."

I'm talking about in relation to how things stand in the modern world regarding members of the Royal Family serving in the armed forces. There were good reasons why Prince Harry (who is officially an ordinary soldier) couldn't serve in Iraq and there were good reasons why Prince Andrew (an ordinary Naval officer) shouldn't have served in the Falklands although he did. I'm saying that any Royal who joins the armed forces will go the "Harry" route rather than the "Andrew" one for reasons that are obvious. Hence: Andrew is the exception.

I think people are passing-over my main point in regard to Royals in the armed forces to endlessly pick at my supposedly claiming that "no Royal has ever served or been put at risk" which is untrue and which I never said. I was wrong in regard to Andrew (who I said was not put at risk, although I maintain his situation and that which was considered for Harry were different) and have admitted this.

So the short answer is "No" you cannot provide examples.


"I'm saying that any Royal who joins the armed forces will go the "Harry" route rather than the "Andrew" one for reasons that are obvious."

Perhaps you don't know the definition of exception? I mean "I think it's blindingly obvious that one should control one's weight, and eat a healthy balanced diet, therefore overweight people who eat unhealthy food are the exception." Right? Provide all the *reasons* you want, that doesn't change the *actual* numbers involved, does it?



""no Royal has ever served or been put at risk""

Classic straw man. No one is saying you said this.

Zagreb, you really don't understand this, clearly.

In order for Andrew to have been an "exception" to a "rule", there has FIRST to be a rule. You can't be an exception in the absence of something to be an exception FROM. I think most ten year olds would get this.

You have clearly posited a "rule" which involves preventing members of the Royal family from serving in combat. This is implied by your use of the word "exception" in relation to Andrew.

However, in order for there to be a rule he's the exception to, you need ONE other example, DIFFERENT from the example of Harry. Otherwise you just look dishonest and slightly stupid for trying to spin this story your way quite transparently and ineptly.

Consider: *I* may decide, myself, that HARRY is the "exception". The "rule" is, Royals in combat units go to the front line. They're making an exception for Harry, now.

The difference is, I have a prior example of my rule - Prince Andrew.

YOU, on the other hand, have NO prior example of your rule. (Because if you had, you would surely have come up with it by now...)

Therefore MY rule is surely more valid than yours, and HARRY is the "exception", not Andrew.

Which, if I recall correctly, was the point everyone was making all along - Harry is being made an exception, which is the whole bloody problem in the first place. Your persistent refusal to understand this is rather frustrating.

SoRB

"Which, if I recall correctly, was the point everyone was making all along - Harry is being made an exception, which is the whole bloody problem in the first place. Your persistent refusal to understand this is rather frustrating."

Fine, Harry is the exception (although he might not be, I really can't be bothered looking up leading Royals of the last 50 years to see if they served in frontline combat on Wikipedia). Feel free to do that face Mrs Doyle does when she guesses Ted Unctious's name.

Now, does anyone want to discuss my main point about it being absurd for the Windsors to have leading Royals join the armed forces?

"Feel free to do that face Mrs Doyle does when she guesses Ted Unctious's name"

Ah, guwaan wit ya!

SoRB