Re: William, Prince of What?
- From: Sacha <sacha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 10:28:26 +0000
On 1/11/05 10:00, in article eoeem1dg0qglb1cotfoa5hus5mdse2m1ql@xxxxxxx,
"Daisy" <DaisyL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I was not trolling actually, but reprinting a very recent op.ed. from
> The Independent. I happen to agree with whichever (should that be
> whoever?) journalist wrote the article, but perhaps the respondents -
> mainly British I would think and a fair number sympathetic to the
> British military tradition - have not read it.
> In a very bygone era British monarchs, and princes, and heirs to the
> throne etc. often led the army into battle. This is no longer the
> case, and while it is true that the Duke of York saw front-line duty
> in the Falklands War - and the first Gulf War? - he is not a direct
> heir to the throne or even second in line. Is he third or what?
> The piece from The Independent did not set out to discredit the
> military, only that the heir to the throne could probably have carved
> a better career given his very expensive (and quite successful)
> education. Is there anything wrong with that?
> Why do all these erstwhile Colonel Blimps have to jump up and down and
> huff and puff about this? The military is all well and good in its
> place, but is it a place for the heir to the throne to while away a
> few years before he retires and begins to open things and cut ribbons?
I think you will find that not many people will have read that article
because not many people read The Independent. Its figures are alarmingly
low and I think I'm right in saying that both its circulation and readership
figures are the lowest of any national other than the Financial Times, which
is somewhat specialised.
I'm not quite sure why The Independent considers itself qualified to remark
on what Prince William should have chosen for a career. Certainly, it is a
British tradition for members of the royal family to go into the services
and as royalty in Britain could arguably be described as a bolster of
tradition, there is nothing extraordinary in him doing so. He has said
himself that he would like to farm and will probably be involved with the
running of the Highgrove estate and will involve himself in the financial
running of the Duchy. What Prince William has, which his father did not, is
the luxury of time to make choices and I see no reason why he shouldn't
avail himself of that.
And if you think that all the heir to the throne, William's father, does is
open things and cut ribbons, I think some wider reading might interest you.
(remove the weeds for email)
- Prev by Date: Re: if Prince William...
- Next by Date: Re: William, Prince of What?
- Previous by thread: Re: William, Prince of What?
- Next by thread: Re: William, Prince of What?