If you read towards the bottom of the article, there was a kerfluffle because there were several pictures on his webpage one in particular was apparently in his office, showing his desk [with a document, and a page with a list of passwords] so I figure that it is from that picture the image of the mug was taken from.
From years of working in IT, I know how common it is for users to have their logon id & password on a note pasted to the wall. (Or if they’re aware of security, carefully hidden under their keyboard.)
But this unit had a page listing the logon id & password for everybody in the unit, with copies given to them all, and posted on walls or left laying around on their desks. And this in a military unit! :smack:
I wouldn’t know for sure about the UK, but I think that the behaviour of drill sergeants in the USA (at least as depicted in movie in such), including apparently insults and similar disrepectful or agressive conduct is an American peculiarity.
AFAIK, princes typically used to and still reign under their given name. The UK seems to be an exception rather than the norm
No, it occurs in other countries’ military, too.
For example, I have seen Youtube videos of Russian recruits being treated much worse, actual assaults that result in injuries or even death.
Well, as recently as the 19th century every country in Europe still flogged soldiers. Further, having been in the American military and worked with people in European military forces I can say for they got chewed out if they did something really stupid.
Now, I don’t know what happened in their equivalent of basic training. With many European countries that have mandatory conscription periods I wouldn’t be surprised if basic is moderate or light, since the powers that be recognize these kids are not there by choice and they don’t want to make it miserable for no reason. With an all volunteer military there is more of a desire towards discipline.
I will say the British military types I’ve interacted with are typically tough sorts, I’d be surprised really if they are coddled in training.
+1. American treatment of recruits is mild compared to what soldiers in other countries are put through. France, Russia, South Korea… take your pick. And those are the developed countries. I’ve had British soldiers tell me stories of treatment that would result in criminal charges if it happened in the modern US.
And BTW, modern Army basic is tough but not “Full Metal Jacket” by any stretch of the imagination.
Since the US is entirely VOLAR, there is a limit to how badly you can mistreat a soldier before you eventually end up with no recruits.
I’d point out that as they were trained as officers they would even as raw recruits be addressed as sir, even by the NCO’s training them as in “Get your f**king hair cut…SIR”
Also differing arms of the UK military have vastly differing recruit training. A friends lad joined the navy a few years ago. A weedy guy and a bit nerdy he seemed doomed to fail. But he found it a nurturing environment and sort of like a family.
The British soldier is a lean, mean killing machine (also very good at telling stories 
). Mind you, a school mate of mine joined the Royal Marines. That’s quite a robust selection process by all accounts.
Indeed. In 1987, Prince Edward dropped out of Royal Marines training just three months into the yearlong program.
Here are two good brief documentaries on the rigors of contemporary British military training:
What UK monarch hasn’t reigned under one of their given names? I can’t think of any.
It wasn’t that Victoria wanted them to reign as Albert, but that all male descendants have the name “Albert” as one of their names.
Also, Edward VIII didn’t change the name to “Windsor”. That was done by George V during the Great War.
And if you mean that British monarchs skip over their first given names, that also is not true for the majority.
Until the run low on soldiers then almost anyone is fit to be shot..
You’re right. I stand corrected.
Note that two of the pictures of his brother show him wearing a nametag that reads “Will Wales.”
That doesn’t make any sense at all. The purpose of the rough treatment in the military, especially in basic training, has nothing to do with whether the recruits elected to be mistreated or were conscripted. It serves the purpose to push them to their limits and to reshape them psychologically to the expectations of the military. Those needs apply to conscripts just as much as volunteers, perhaps even more so.
Matilda of Boulogne led the troops that broke the siege of Winchester.
Except in a lot of countries with universal conscription, but not actual, you know, wars and stuff, the term of conscription is viewed as a certain amount of bullshit that everyone has to go through, so there’s an incentive to make it as trouble free as possible. After all, if it were tough and people hated it pretty soon there’d be grumbling about abolishing universal conscription.
And anyway, what exactly are you supposed to do with the slackers and mama’s boys who are willing to go through the motions but aren’t willing reshape themselves psychologically to the expectations of the military? Send them to the stockade? In Russia or China they are quite willing to literally beat the hell out of conscripts who won’t play ball. That isn’t going to fly in Austria or Denmark. In a democratic country you can’t mistreat conscripts just because the conscripts aren’t very good soldiers.
As suggested above by having security officers around a Royal, aren’t there specific laws about minimum security around Harry, as, I presume, around the Queen?
Can he, or the President of the United States, go swimming with sharks, or glide with those body suits, for example? Or, for that matter, tell his Secret Service to go take a hike when he does these things?