Ok, we're beginning to go round in circles a little bit here.

Leaving Wils out if it for now (the thread is after all about Harry), how well he performed his flying duties or otherwise or how well he coped with his military duties or otherwise is immaterial to my argument that he would never have been given the opportunity had he not been a royal.

On the subject of Wils. You flew with him so I'll believe you when you say he was a highly competent pilot. My attestation was never that no Windsor could fly a military aircraft, but that it is highly dubious that they could all fly a military aircraft. The fact that all of those that decided they would become military pilots became military pilots, without exception, suggests to me at least that they were perhaps not operating on the same level playing field as everybody else. Clear?

No one, or next to no one, cares about your little crusade. You've tried to repeatedly make a point and failed dismally. Move on with what little dignity you have left.
I'm not a fan of royalty but recognise the relevance, more so recognise a whiner past their sell-by date.
:rolleyes:

Ok, bellringer and cab. Throughout this thread I have tried to put across my arguments in as civilised and polite a manner as I can. You don't agree with them, fair enough.

I have ignored the personal jibes about tin hats and the rest of it, and sought to play the ball rather than the man.

You both chose a different route, but I guess that's just the internet.

Best

so if he wasn't a royal, why wouldn't he have been able to fly in the military? We have established it is quite manageable with far fewer qualifications than he has so what is your actual point?

Just because YOU don't think he should have been given the opportunity because he is a royal doesn't mean he wouldn't have had that opportunity as a peasant.

If you don't like the argument, don't start it in the first place.

Interesting to note that Andrew, Wills and Harry all went a technically difficult flying path and all three did well!


Back in the dim and distant late 1950's/early 1960's one did need a respectable handful of 'O' levels and possibly an 'A' to go straight for a commission on joining but, having joined as an OR, then once one had passed ACE 1st Class and was suitably recommended, one could apply for a commission, even Cert A part 1 and 2 in the cadets was counted towards a commission!

That's pretty much what I did, though I didn't bother with the commission (bigger mess bills) :). In Transport & Movements (RCT), recommended, got sergeant at 22. Finished off my Os and As (yes, that far back) on the flying course. The beauty of the military is that they are able to see potential and work on it without necessarily requiring formal qualifications.

I do get your point melmoth, but there have been many from privileged backgrounds who didn't make it either.

phil

Why not? They're just a visible example of it, I'm certainly aware of at least one father and son who're both fast jet pilots, it's just that as they're not royalty you won't have heard of them. I'm sure if you had the time you could go through Air Force and Navy lists for the last few decades and find more examples.

The father of one of my RAF student helicopter pilots was an RAF squadron commander at the time. My protegee became a pilot on that same squadron, when "Dad" was in charge. He later surpassed his father's rank by quite a long way (and mine by even more). Nepotism/favouritism? Definitely not; it must have been a genetic trait. Or, of course, something to do with my training....:p.

But I was a mere direct entrant pilot - there was no private schooling or uni education and therefore no Cranwell for me. I came from what could be described as a humble working class background; no-one in my family had aviation connections and were about as far from "royal" as one could be.

But as far as the true royals being allowed into the armed services, Good on them; as far as I'm concerned it gives them the credibility they need and deserve and the present generation seem to be good at it.

They can't help their birthright / family heritage any more than anyone else can. To try to belittle them out of what can only be seen as some sort of twisted jealousy says more than enough about those doing so.

Cobblers.

My grandfather was a private pilot, my Dad was a night fighter/shipping strike pilot and I'm a helicopter pilot. Number one son has the skills but doesn't want to.

Much as skills such as art, writing and science aptitudes run down through generations of a family so the judgmental and manipulative skills for a pilot can be passed on.

The Windsors have shown that they have these skills, as attested by those who know.

plenty of Fathers and sons, and even grandsons in NZ flying helicopters, or planes. Some in Military, many not, as our military isn't that big. Maybe a bit of aptitude for similar types of occupations, maybe something else.

I look at it like sports. The number of Fathers, sons, cousins etc that have played for the All Blacks, or other top sports teams, must say something for genetics, determination, or maybe its all nepotism!

Add on motivation - who wants to fail at what your Dad/big brother can do? :=

Dad/big brother/uncle/grandfather/ and whatever George IV and Edward VII were to him. All on their merits, of course. Ahem.

All of whom had little choice in their destinies. The latter two were also denied the opportunity to become pilots due to the lack of aeroplanes and Edward was denied a military career as it was vetoed by his mother - who held some sway in these matters. Get a life Mil-26child.

Some other traits are followed along family lines too. Wasn't it Chucky who said he didn't want to be the only Prince of Wales who didn't have a mistress?

How about Yung Fat Wun who followed Daddy and Grand-daddy in the despot business?