Thank you! 
Part of what’s wrong with our system is that the president is King and Prime Minister. I wonder whether a US president has ever had a son serve during wartime.
Given the OP of this thread, I find that comment quite amusing.
FDR’s did and AFAIK he got no special treatment (though we’re a republic).
Although not the son of a sitting president, Theodore Roosevelt’s son Quentin served and died in WWI. IIRC, which I may not, I believe he was offered non-dangerous duty but refused it; he wanted to fly airplanes. He was shot down over enemy lines in France.
Robert Todd Lincoln, son of Abraham Lincoln, was in the Union Army during the Civil War. He was a Captain on General Grant’s staff though, so he probably didn’t get too close to combat.
So **Friedo ** would you say that the US ever sends VIP members of its government on stupid grandstanding tours to Iraq, diverting resources from where they are needed to securing the VIP’s supple white ass, when that ass would do more good sitting behind a desk in Washington?
Because I think that might happen. I’m no royalist, but it seems to me this isn’t very much different from normal everyday government grandstanding of the type that happens all over.
The US has sent a few VIPs on delegations to Iraq. Sure, they require security precautions, but they at least aren’t pretending to be soldiers, thereby making a whole military unit unfit for combat.
A few? Ha! One of the perks of being a General or a civilian leader is that you can fly into the country on the last day of the month, leave the first day of the next month, and get all of your pay tax-free for both months because you entered a designated hostile area. When I was in Kuwait they came and went like clockwork.
Wow, and I thought this board was about fighting ignorance. The target of your ire isn’t pretending to be a soldier.
Precisely what information do you have that this guy is any less of a soldier than the other soldiers in his outfit who’ve been through the same training he has? I think you’re full of shit.
So expanding a bit on your position, anyone of note shouldn’t be allowed to serve in the lines? I’m sure some peeps over there would love to kill Eminem or Earnhardt Jr. or Beckam if they showed up, would certainly grab the headlines. Bullshit. Let them go. Who are you to criticize a dude voluntarily going into a hot zone, wanker.
And besides that, the Americans already do a fucking fine job of needlessly endangering British troops.
Comments like this one always tickle the “does not compute” part of my cognitive process. It’s somewhat analoguous to people who argue that Hillary Clinton’s desire to bring the troops home at the earliest chance she gets are placing them in greater danger because her comments embolden the insurgents. The reality is that ALL the troops who are serving in Iraq are in great danger, every day of their lives, by definition of simply being there to begin with. There is no way that deploying Prince Harry to Iraq is going to make one iota of difference to the latent, omnipresent danger which is confronted by all servicemen and women every single day.
I would add in closing that I don’t particularly care for Hillary Clinton, but the flak she cops in my example above is disingenuous nonetheless. Just as it is to accuse Prince Harry of needlessly endangering British troops by deploying him in Iraq.
I give this thread a 3/10. It’s my opinion that the author of the OP has issues with the Royal Family whatever happens.
Bingo. The funny thing is, I have issues with them. But I just hate seeing someone spouting shit. If the OP pitted the Royal Family for about a dozen other valid reasons I’d be cheering.
There is no evidence that the Queen has ever given any useful advice to anyone.
She was the daughter of an addicted gambler, married a stupid bigot and most of her children’s marriages have failed. Her son needed special treatment to go to University, despite the best education money could buy.
She may well be a useful figurehead for the UK and a pleasant hostess to foreign dignitaries, but not an adviser to politicians.
I do agree that Harry is showing guts.
Prince Harry isn’t “pretending” to be anything. He is the most senior royal to ever opt for the Army rather than the Navy, and went through Sandhurt’s tough training program with no special treatment. He learned armoured tactics, tank repair, and is a qualified troop leader for tank recon.
Harry trained like everyone else - that meant no weekends off, no getting shuttled to and from his big castle, doing all the regular G.I. type chores on base, live fire exercises etc. (including a big taste of public humiliation if anyone remembers). He is well-trained and respected by his academy peers. He had the option of non-combat duty but declined because he didn’t want to leave his regiment fighting for their lives while he sat back behind the lines. He requested to be deployed with the potential for combat, just like everyone else. He isn’t playing or “pretending to be a soldier”. He is fully trained and quite capable and fit for combat.
That his presence may put a big bull’s-eye on his regiment is another matter. That’s a valid concern with any celebrity on the front lines. A whole security running around trying to “make the war safe” is pretty silly, I agree, but in no way is they guy “pretending to be a soldier”.
Well his father was in the military 
The man that brought him up also like wearing uniforms and also served in his day.
If he was sheltered from service, like, say, the Bush twins, would you be Pitting the royals for not exposing their own to danger?
Sailboat
But of course!
If A, then X is in the wrong
If ~A, then X is in the wrong
Hence X is in the wrong.
It’s all gravy.