Prince Harry Honours US War Dead At Arlington

Never Forget.

[[while also having concerts, dinners, and parties for their big donors and media pals]]

While cutting social; security and dissability payments to seniors, veterans and dissaabled peopel who are already so burdened with poverty that they just barely make it htorugh tough winters and get enough to eat or get the meds they need due to lack of funds-

Our dearl leader and ilk party liek htere’s no tommorow- to the tune of $1.5 billion dollars spent on just hteir own personal entertainment, whuile denyign seniors and dissabled and veterans a measley $20-$30 or so a month cost of livign increase so that they can keep up with soarign prices soemwhatt!

Our own GD _resident has no idea what honor is.He is a me only person who lives in a bubble.

Trying to find it.

I pity you. Don’t like it? So what.

Got any suggestions on how to lighten up?

I'm not sure. Harry stays home like his half-witted brother Charles, and I think you'd be po'd. Harry does what he thinks is right, and you're po'd. Sheesh.

Harry didn't invent the Royal Household. But he gives it it's best name in valor since his grandfather George VI.

...Which reminds me of Henry V:"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile, This day shall gentle his condition: And gentlemen in England now a-bed Shall think themselves accursed they were not here, And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

In other words, I think it was a damn fine gesture on Harry's part. But I guess there are contrarians about.

I agree. How does one raise money (for a good cause) without a little PR, anyway?

One thing, his brother is William, the dopey Dad is Charles.
I don’t see William as a half-wit, he too has served and seems to have more common sense than his dim witted Dad.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

Thank you for posting the article. I found it very heart-warming, although I confess that some of the comments in this thread have diluted the feeling a little.

A passionate and genuine opinion should always be listened to and respected. Therefore I am trying - and failing - to understand the small selection of negative remarks (on Free Republic of all places!) generated by Prince Harry’s visit to Arlington today.

Harry has been accused of the following:

Of taking part in a ‘PR Stunt.’ - Harry is not a politician. He has no need to take part in any such stunt. What would he possibly have to gain?

Of exhibiting ‘unnatural emotionalism.’ - The British are usually accused of being too buttoned-up and unemotional. I think Harry was showing respect here. As has been already mentioned, he visited a grave of a young man he knew.

Of being a ‘supposed combat vet.’ - There is no ‘supposed’ about it. His military record is quite clear. Despite the media’s best efforts, Harry has managed to serve his country honorably. I am quite sure that many Americans who encountered, and served alongside, Harry in Helmand would vouch for that.

Of the ‘sin’ of being a British Prince he is undoubtedly guilty. He could not choose his birth any more than you or I could. He chose to serve his Queen (who also happens to be his grandmother, of course) and Country in the Armed Forces, following in a long line of tradition. It means a lot to him.

I am very puzzled by the comment:

“And, lest we forget, a lot of very gutsy, honorable, forward thinking Patriots risked everything so we could be free of this monarchy and it’s country...
We must never forget!!!”

I’m not aware that Harry was attempting to drag the nation back under the wing of the Monarchy. I also think that that is some selective memory. Never forget the Revolutionary War, of course, but also never forget the many times since that the British and Americans have stood together, and died together, for the cause of freedom.

A cause that Prince Harry has fought for, and was attempting to pay respect to, today. I for one salute him for it.

But perhaps I have misunderstood some of the negative comments. If so, my sincerest apologies.

YES!

Thank God for the War of Independence.

Thank God for Freedom of Speech.

I just LOVE freedom of speech. It give the idiots among us ample opportunity to reveal themselves ...

Well played! *tips hat*

thank you sirs for giving this thread a bit of sanity

I don’t see William as a half-wit, he too has served and seems to have more common sense than his dim witted Dad.

The Prince of Wales served as well - about forty years ago now, he was a dashing young military helicopter pilot as his sons are now.

The United Kingdom was at peace at the time, so he was never called on to serve in a combat situation, but peacetime service is honourable service and he did his duty.

I know the Prince - he's a friend - and he has very little in common with the caricature the media tries to make of him. Why do they do it? Because on ninety percent of issues he's a conservative, and a lot of the media like trying to make conservatives appear foolish.

Thank you for the info. First off, I was not implying that Charles was dim in regards to service, I was aware of his history. I do agree that peacetime service is honorable; my Father served during WWII but was not sent overseas, much to his dismay. I can list others but that isn’t the point of my reply.

It is hard to imagine Charles having conservative leanings, last I checked the whole global warming issue is not on the list of conservatives issues. Immigration is not a hot conservative issue, regardless of how Rubio tries to twist his position to make it so. Just curious, where is Charles conservative? I am asking with all due respect. Btw, I think the Queen is just amazing, she is inspiring imho.

His position on environmental issues is a large part of the reason I said on ninety percent of issues he's a conservative, because that one area is something of an exception - but not as much as some people think. The Prince has been an environmentalist since before the issue was captured as a cause celebre by the left - until global warming/climate change became the huge issue, it was not really a left wing dominated issue in the way it is now, but the left took those ideas and have used them to promote their particular social agendas.

The Prince believes climate change is real. I've argued with him about it, myself. The thing is, I have to say, he's a lot better informed about the science behind it than I am. He's put a lot of time and effort in researching the position he holds - it's not just something he's accepted because somebody told him to. But the way he thinks it should be dealt with (given that he believes it is real) is quite at odds with the way most on the left think it should be. He doesn't support scaling back power plants, or industry, for example, in ways that would harm the economy or people's way of life. His position tends to be founded around the idea of encouraging entrepreneurs to find ways of creating new industries that will solve the problem, and doing things like planting forests where the timber can then be sold for a profit, and the furniture made from the wood, will sequester carbon dioxide in a fixed location rather in the atmosphere. But most of his environmental positions actually revolve around things like ensuring sustainable agriculture so farms can continue to function, etc.

Issues on which his conservatism is most obvious - first of all, he is a strict constructionist when it comes to matters of constitutional law. He believes that a nations constitution is at the foundation of all its laws and should be upheld as it is, and changed only very carefully. Secondly, and linked to that, he believes that duty to one's country is a profound obligation and he's spent his life doing his duty as he sees it, as well as he has been able to. The Prince is, by temperament, an artistic type - I don't think he particularly wanted to join the Navy, but that was part of his duty. And though it went wrong in the end - because he's not a perfect man - his duty to his country is also the reason why he did not marry the woman he wanted to back in the 1970s - he put duty to country at that time ahead of his own love and desires.

He's a hunter and a shooter who supports gun rights (he can't be too blatant about this, because part of his duty requires him not contradicting the positions of Her Majesty's Government, but he's never been shy about being seen out shooting, sending a clear message that he thinks people should be able to do so). He supports taxes being as low as possible - but also pays more taxes himself than he is required to because he feels it is inappropriate to take advantage of certain special advantages he has in British law (his secondary title as heir to the throne is Duke of Cornwall, and legally the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall are exempt from tax, but he voluntarily pays income tax on the income he gains from the Duchy). He supports his nations troops in a big way - attending many ceremonies in their honour.

Honestly, except for his environmental beliefs, he'd fit in quite well into a lot of the discussions here. And even with regards to those, they are not as far out as many people think. Unfortunately, constitutionally, he has to be very careful speaking publically in ways that might be seen as criticising Her Majesty's Government (because in an instant, it could become His Majesty's Government), which means during the long years of Labor, he wound up making a lot of speeches about the environment because it was one of the few areas where he was broadly in agreement with them. It made it seem like a much more important issue to him than it is.

Thanks for your first hand info. How about all that diversity they seem to embrace. Doesn’t look like it’s working out too great for them. But then again, who knows, I’m not there.

I wish them the best, including Charles and his new wife.

It depends on what you mean by diversity. Remember, a century ago, the British Empire covered a quarter of the globe and included a quarter of the world's population. Diversity that includes people from the Commonwealth is generally considered a fairly good thing in the UK - and that includes places like India and Pakistan. Diversity that involves large numbers of people coming in from eastern Europe is a somewhat different matter - and that's where the immigration problems for Britain come from. Most people coming from Commonwealth countries aren't causing problems (with the notable exception of a small number of radical Islamists who are a significant issue).

The Prince believes people have the right to preserve their cultural heritage - and that includes the rights of the English to do so, the Welsh to do so, the Scots to do so, and the Irish to do so. He is very committed to those ideas. In so far, as other people in the UK maintaining their cultural heritage does not come into conflict with that, he supports their right to do so as well. But England must remain English to its core, etc.

And it does. I'm over there a couple of times a year. While there are sections of places like London that have changed dramatically - particularly the East End - large sections are still very English. And once you get out of the cities, England is still very much England. And many of the places in London that are now heavily 'ethnic' have always been that way - in the late 19th Century, for example, the East End had large numbers of Jews and Poles, before that, large numbers of Dutch. Some places are melting pots - but over time, in most cases, those people have melded into the overall population. I think it will happen again.

Do you think Chuckles the clown is a Muslim or not??

Do you think Chuckles the clown is a Muslim or not??

Definitely not. Besides anything else, I've seen him eat bacon at breakfast - and for that matter, the company associated with the Duchy of Cornwall - his company, in essence - manufactures and sells bacon, ham, and pork sausages.

He's not Muslim - he's a Christian and a member of the Church of England, and I would say he's somewhat more Christian than the the modern Church of England requires somebody to be, although that's not necessarily saying much.

He treats Islam with respect, just as he treats Judaism with respect, Hinduism with respect, Buddhism with respect, etc, but it's only with Islam that this seems to be controversial. He does not treat those who use their religion - any religion - as an excuse for violence - with any respect at all. He believes terrorists should face the full weight of the law, but he makes a distinction between terrorists who claim a religious justification, and ordinary people who just want to live their lives following a faith that they may have been born into. In understanding his position, I think it's important to remember that throughout his lifetime, terrorists who claimed their terrorism was linked to Roman Catholicism, have repeatedly set off bombs all over his country, as well as assassinating the man he was closest to outside of his own direct family, the man who mentored him through his adolescence and young adulthood. He makes a distinction between those who will use a religion to justify crimes and terror, and those who just want to live a religious life. He has no time for Islamist terror - besides anything else, as he knows his entire family make spectacular terrorist targets for somebody who wants to make a point, he's far more acutely aware of terrorism than I think most people are.

The Prince is not at all like the caricature presented of him in the Press. He's a conservative on most issues (environmentalism is an exception, but even there, he's nowhere near as extreme as he's presented - as in this case, speeches are often not actually reported, and a lot of the time it's not made clear that a speech may have been largely written for him by the government (it depends on the topic - he doesn't write his own speeches - although he generally does write articles that appear under his name - but sometimes he has a lot of influence on the speech, and sometimes he doesn't - constitutionally, he has to be very careful not to publically criticise government policy). He's not a perfect man by any means - despite his position, he is, of course, as flawed as any other person might be - but he's a good and decent man trying to do his duty to his country and the Commonwealth, and mostly doing it well. As his friend, I don't like the way people have been made to see him, much. He shrugs it off himself, but he doesn't have much choice.

He certainly is not Muslim.