View Full Version : Prince William Interview

19th Nov 2004, 19:00
I'm not a royalist by any means but I saw the interview on the Beeb and he comes across as a very nice, normal young man.

Seems keen to join the army, but I don't believe they would send him to the front line!

What do British PPRuNers think, do you like the idea of him being King one day?

19th Nov 2004, 19:17
"Where there is uncertainty there is opportunity"- Confucious

Poor Lad.

His opportunities have been limited by his birth.

Still, at least he knows his place.

19th Nov 2004, 19:31
How can the UK call itself a democracy and have an unelected person (even if he seems like a nice lad) as Head of State?


tony draper
19th Nov 2004, 19:39
Wonder why none of em ever opt for the RAF, ? riding to hounds used to be a prerequesit for flying the fast pointy stuff.

19th Nov 2004, 19:43
Well Drapes looking at his fathers skills in the 146, I'm not surprised! :p :p


I learnt a long time ago not to interfere in Brit state of affairs. Their system may seem quaint and old fashioned and at times bizarre, but hey, somehow it just works!

19th Nov 2004, 19:48
Jolly Green Giant

Does it realy work?

tony draper
19th Nov 2004, 19:49
Indeed it does, and has done for a little over a thousand years now.

19th Nov 2004, 20:02
I suppose like most things that would depend entirely on your own point of view and opinion Mr Draper.

Many things that are pointless and have no relevance have lasted for more than a thousand years.

How about a public vote on the matter do the democratic thing and let all decide.

19th Nov 2004, 20:07
...yeah, and then Wills can be a Judge or a Pop Star or whatever he wants.

West Coast
19th Nov 2004, 20:14
Royalty like a big placebo pill. Supposed to make you feel better even though it doesn't do anything for you.

He does seem like a well adjusted young man. All the girls over here are quite keen on him. Got his looks from his Mom, and not his pappy.

Is there any current economic cost to benefit analysis to having the Royals?
You can have Ted Kennedy if you want the remaining vestiges of American royalty. If you can find a ship big enough to transport him that is.

19th Nov 2004, 20:22
Doesn't make me feel better.

The French had the right idea.

Poorly executed though.

19th Nov 2004, 20:25
Hey West, you know there where a lot of folks from Hollywood that claimed that they would leave the US if Bush was reelected, you think that there would be enough room on that ship for all of them? Think of the huge egos they all have before you answer.

How is that for thread creep.

Personally I like the Royal Family. Met the Queen once I did. It was about 40 years ago, I'm sure she remembers.:)

tony draper
19th Nov 2004, 20:26
The United Kingdom is not a democracy Mr D, and never has been, tiz a Constitutional Monarchy.
Frinstance they just had a democratic vote in the USA re The Head of State, now whereas Drapes is a great fan of GWB and thougherly approved of the cousins democratic choice, seems that many American Prooners did not, thats the trouble with democracy though, it bites yer arse every now and then.

19th Nov 2004, 20:33
Please remember that our system of government is still on trial. We have run it for about a thousand years, and we are still wondering if we can break it. But it seems to work ok.

When the trial period ends, we'll let you know!


19th Nov 2004, 20:34
I did not see the interview but I feel his mother did her best to bring him up with a good balance of royal duties but not losing touch with us mortals who live normal lives.

I hope he becomes a good king as I think my children will be under his reign.

If he holds his values and what he believes in and can make the British public regain its trust in what the royals stand for I beleive we may have the right person on the throne.

But then who knows what will happen in the next ?????? years


19th Nov 2004, 20:39
Bites yer arse?

That would once again be a matter of opinion Mr Draper. "Mr D" What have I done to imply that I am Male?

19th Nov 2004, 21:03
OW22, you raise a reasonable question:
Seems keen to join the army, but I don't believe they would send him to the front line!

A little while back there was a somewhat mocking comment from someone in these pages on the late King George VI's engaging in machine-gun practice at Buckingham Palace in WW2. The implication was that he was a Royal Wimp.

Well now: What was the truth? The King survived RN training when cadets started at age 12 or so, and suffered brutal hazing (Ha! Ha! We have a Prince!) so bad he was left with gastric/nervous effects that I believe caused the stammer for which he was also mocked. He stuck it out.

He was a sublieutenant in one of the big-gun turrets on board the battleship HMS Collingwood at the Battle of Jutland. One can scarcely get closer to the front line than that.

He survived the sinking of a submarine of the RN, and in 1919 he qualified for RN pilot's wings.

If that was a wimp, I can find time for more wimps like him.

His brother the Duke of Gloucester was killed on active service in WW2.

I was not a great admirer of Lord Mountbatten, but he did have three ships sunk from under him in WW2.

The Duke of Edinburgh was in the RN throughout WW2.

HRH the current Duke of York flew helicopters in the Falklands during the unpleasantness twenty or more years ago.

Even the Queen was in the ATS in WW2.

And whether you are male or female, Diabolus, the UK does not call itself a democracy. It is a constitutional monarchy.

19th Nov 2004, 21:07
Hey connie, re those Hollywood types that wanta leave. Give 'em all an enema, replace the shite with helium and then float 'em over on the end of a tether. :E

tony draper
19th Nov 2004, 21:20
Apologies Madam Diabolus, but that is a somewhat masculine handle,old Lucifer was a chap after all.

19th Nov 2004, 21:24
Diabolus, no offense here, but would you mind moderating your argumentative tone a little? Can we hear your arguments against the UK system then, instead of your comments from the sidelines?

Sorry, I haven't had anything to drink yet. And its Friday! :{

Mr Chips
19th Nov 2004, 21:43
I agree with Dead Heading...

Diabolous in case you hadn't noticed, the UK has a democratically elected government. The Queen is head of state, but doesn't actually make laws or anything. The Royal Family make a nice last line of defence against a Prime minister who tries to take over too much... I hope that that is understandable, maybe one of teh others could phrase it better...

The Royal Family actually earn the country Millions in Invisible Exports (Basic Economics)

So.. your problem with the Royal Family is?????

20th Nov 2004, 00:54
I certainly hope that Prince William was misquoted as saying It should never be forgotten what all the war veterans have sacrificed for all of us to be as we are.:rolleyes:

Then again, I always assumed that joining the army was another way of obtaining higher education qualifications, all going well. :O

Unfortunetly, I don't see any future shortages of conflicts, if that is truly the Prince's wish, he is not likely to be disappointed. :=

As a matter of interest, who was the last Royal to have lost his/her life in the service of our great nation...:confused: :uhoh:

20th Nov 2004, 01:56
If you look back a post or two you will see reference to the Duke of Gloucester. His Royal Highness Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, was a serving officer when he was shot down and killed by the Luftwaffe in June, 1944.

20th Nov 2004, 03:25
mister drapes, one was under the impression that your cousins across the pond didnt have a deomcracy either, they had some republican whatchamacallit... which is why they cant elect their prez more than a coupla times.....

compare that to yer iron lady who was around for quite a while...

20th Nov 2004, 06:18
Got a good laugh out of the Palace press release a while back that Harry had "won" a place at Sandhurst.

...I say, well done old chap!

Would be more impressed if either of them had a crack at winning a green beret at Lympstone - remember Eddie?

...still it was good training for It's a Royal Knockout!

Whatever happens they'll both continue to be cosseted by tea-drinking deference monkeys.

The press in this country are unbelievable - when Liam Gallagher had a run-in with photographers he was branded a lout, whereas most of the press bottled it when Harry was caught up in a similar scrape.

Some even commented that he was simply showing that he was capable of expressing the passions of a normal young man - fergawdssakes are we supposed to be relieved by this revelation or what?

For a' that and a' that,
Their tinsel show and a' that,
The man of independent mind,
He looks, and laughs, at a' that.

- from A Man's a Man by Robert Burns.

Most British ppruners who are generally in agreement with all of this - and there are many - will snigger quietly to themselves, but wouldn't dare post their thoughts on a public forum like this, especially the ones who are desperately trying to climb the greasy pole of the UK's old-school airline industry.

I'd rather drive my cab and instruct part-time till I croak with my dignity intact.

Tea and deference anyone?

Erwin Schroedinger
20th Nov 2004, 06:21
.........he comes across as a very nice, normal young man.
Let him do a useful normal job for a normal wage and leave the British taxpayer alone, then!

To say that "it seems to work alright" misses the point.

Anything totally ineffective will seem to work OK. If it works perfectly or fails miserably, the outcome is the same. i.e. a big fat zero!

Apart from that, I think that the Royal family is a disgraceful example of how to live family life..........nothing but divorce, adultery, backstabbing etc.

Ditch the lot of them! Only the American and Japanese tourists will notice!

Oh, and the British taxpayer, of course!

:mad: :mad: :mad:

20th Nov 2004, 07:18
Probably too p1s$ed to be replying to this, but here goes.

Republicanism is back on the agenda in NZ. Most recent opinion polls have 70-odd percent opposed to it.

This, IMHO, is not because a majority of New Zealanders are against the idea, but more likely that they don't trust the politicians to do the right thing. The Queen, however, we know and love, and it is comforting to know that the Police and the Military swear their alleigance to an apolitical Monarch, and not to the Government of the Day. So she's 12,000 miles away; so what? We're British, she's our Queen, and where she is doesn't matter.

If we opt for Republicanism, what do we gain? An elected figurehead with no real power, replacing a Monarch who has no real power, but who represents a system worthy of respect; or an elected executive President, with his or her own political agenda?

Real power in this country rests with the Prime Minister, and perhaps it is time that that particular office was awarded by Universal Ballot; in the meantime, we retain, albeit solely moraly, the right to overthrow the Government of the Day in the name of the Sovereign.

As to the Princes-in-Waiting in the UK, if they are willing and able to give their all in the military arena, I say, good on them. That said, I have to voice my opinion that the majority do not opt for the RAF as their service of first choice, purely and simply because most of them are not up to its required standard. This is hardly surprising; most people are not up to the required standard of the RAF, and long may that staus quo remain.

Democracy is a wonderful concept, and I for one will be at the front of the queue to view it when the scientists finally manage to produce a working model.

In the meantime, I will still haul my aging carcasse and my hunting rifle out on parade to answer the call of my Sovereign; I'm bu&&ered if I'd do that for Helen Clark.

20th Nov 2004, 08:16
We all have our opinion and mine is that of a Republican others on this thread are more Royalist. I say that instead of arguing the toss over whether or not Her Imperial Maj is of any use to the UK there should be proper discussions and arguments about the possibilities of a Republic would it work etc and more in depth answers than "it just works" and I am right you are wrong school boy/girl argumentative tactics and once that has been done put it to a public ballot. I think that would be fare and proper.

tony draper
20th Nov 2004, 08:59
They ran such a excercise in that hotbed of republicanism Australia a few years ago , an lo they chose to retain Mrs Queen as Head of State rather than have a President, who would invariably be a career politician, and therefore the lowest form of life that walks hops slithers or wriggles on the face of the planet.
Lot to be said for , "if it int broke don't fix it".

20th Nov 2004, 09:13
That would be one opinion of The Monarchy but probaly not an opinion shared by all in the UK the best way to find that out would be to have a public ballot on the matter after a lenghthy course of serious and articulate debate.

20th Nov 2004, 09:31
Why on God's Earth would anyone want a political head of state? The head of state should represent the country, not just a political party. Not only that, you have to pay for elections every few years so that a different drongo gets in. You don't need democracy for someone to open hospitals and host banquets for foreign dignitaries.

There are problems with our Royal Family, or to be more precise, the press preocupation with it. But keep lets keep the Queen as head of state and ditch this bollocks about republicanism.

20th Nov 2004, 09:39
Just caught a bit of the interview, and I have to admit that he does come across as a very decent bloke.

I'm sure he could succeed at whatever real job he might chose for himself - however I meant what I said earlier about his woeful lack of opportunity in that department.

Perhaps he's a decent enough bloke to abdicate on the grounds that everything that's expected and required of him is a whole lot of anachronistic nonsense for a nation who seem to be losing their taste for bowing and scraping anyway, and therefore far too much hassle to be worth the wasted effort of a talented young man ?

20th Nov 2004, 10:40
hear hear Bs. I cannot accept a bunch of dysfunctional state sponsored hereditary billionaires as my betters.

They represent elitism, privelige, idle wealth & status and for what? Oh, the old economic argument - they do lots for trade abroad. Well I don't see the cuz's clamouring for a royal train set.

No, we're well overdue for a line up against the wall. The Ivans had the right idea. Well, the first part anyways.

P.S. I think a delve round google will find that Mountbatten had three ships shot out from under him because he was an incompetent commander who failed to folow battle plans in preference to his personal glory. Not popular amongst his men was Mountbatten.

22nd Nov 2004, 09:37
Wrong end of the M4 Davaar! 'Twas Kent not Gloucester! (http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/line1942.html)

Scroll down page to 22 Aug 42.

Mr Chips
22nd Nov 2004, 09:46
Did I miss the bit where Diabolous actually gave a credible argument about the Royal Family?

22nd Nov 2004, 09:59
Can't decide. Having sworn allegiance to Her Majesty (in her part time job, as Queen of Orstralia) I suppose I have to be careful what I say if I am to avoid The Tower, but I have one objection.

Every kid born in the US is told he can be President. (If he raises several hundred million dollars and works his way through the party system)

When you are born in the UK, the message is that there is at least one job that's not for you. Maybe that forces people psychologically to limit their expectations.

I make it a fundamental principle never hire to someone I can't sack.

On the other hand, royalty makes for great tourism and entertaining pomp. And the "Court Circular" bit in "The Times" is often the funnient part of the paper.

Big Tudor
22nd Nov 2004, 10:15
Every kid born in the US is told he can be President.
And I thought child abuse was outlawed in the US of A! ;)

Seriously though, this comment does back up the Prince of Wales's comments last week about playing up kids expectations on life.

22nd Nov 2004, 10:40
Diabolous, if you hate the set up here in the UK so much, I can happily recommend any number of international airports you can make your exit from.

22nd Nov 2004, 12:24
In the overall scheme of things our monarchy costs us peanuts. They are apolitical and that is there very strength.

Our monarchy, history and the pomp and ceremony that goes with it is the envy of many countries, unfashionable as President Bliar thinks it all is. Do we really want an elected head of state with all the opportunity for corruption and nepotism that would entail?

Republicans refer to the Royal family's life of privilege but who would want it? I wouldn't but I am glad our Queen is our Queen and she has my wholehearted admiration and support.

Larry in TN
22nd Nov 2004, 19:05
Try being a gay black woman trying to marry another woman and see how many votes you get. (anytime in the next century!)

Do you find that it works much better for a gay black female monarch who tries to marry another gay women?

(I'm not sure what the 'black' part has to do with it. When was the last time Britian had a black king or queen? Do many African monarchies have white monarchs?)

FWIW, I like the British Monarchy. I doubt I'd feel the same way if they actually ruled the country, however. I certainly enjoy the occasional feature about them and would want to see some royaly related attractions when visiting the UK. I must admit that I know very little about how it all works.

22nd Nov 2004, 19:40
Thank you, teeterighead: Kent, not Gloucester. I did check, too, but sloppily, it appears.

22nd Nov 2004, 19:48
Yawn! Please keep your retorts moderated and civil when replying to me Thank you.

See previous post if you wish I have said all I wish to say on the subject let the populace decide.


henry crun
22nd Nov 2004, 19:53
Mr Gower (conservative): "Can the Prime Minister (WSC) state what course will be followed if a future British monarch should bear the name Llewellyn ?"

The Prime Minister: "I hope I may ask for long notice of this question."


tony draper
22nd Nov 2004, 21:18
What! let the great unwashed decide?, bollix to that, next thing the buggas would all be wanting shoes.

Mr Chips
23rd Nov 2004, 13:04
Diabolus See previous post if you wish I have said all I wish to say on the subject let the populace decide. You have actually said next to nothing. May we take it that you are incapable of presenting a rational argument? just so that we know....

23rd Nov 2004, 15:28
Take what you want from them and be done Mr Chips. I will not be goaded into any kind of argument because you wish it.



Mr Chips
23rd Nov 2004, 17:23
Diabolus I have read your posts.. at least twice now. You started by asking about the Royla family, and pretty much all you have said since is that there should be a public debate and vote.
I will not be goaded into any kind of argument because you wish it. I am not trying to goad you into an argument, I am trying to get you to expand on your apparent view. Its what we call a "discussion". If you hang around Jetblast long enough, you may discover that is what we do here. Sure, it sometimes get heated, and people disagree with what others have said... but as you have said so little so far....
In fact, you put me in mind of a schoolboy (or girl) with their fingers in their ears singing "I'm not listening"

23rd Nov 2004, 18:06
"I am not trying to goad you into an argument"

"In fact, you put me in mind of a schoolboy (or girl) with their fingers in their ears singing "I'm not listening"


Lets see whats on www.ebay.com