Les anglonautes

About | Search | Grammar | Vocapedia | Learning | Docs | Stats | History | News podcasts - Videos | Images | Arts | Science | Translate

 Previous Home Up Next


Vocapedia > UK > British Monarchy > Prince Harry





The Royal Wedding: Highlights | NYT News        NYT        19 May 2018




















Dave Brown

The Independent

27 April 2007


Prince Harry























Harry says sorry for Nazi costume


Prince Harry has apologised

for wearing a swastika armband

to a friend's fancy dress party.


BBC        Thursday, 13 January, 2005



















Martin Rowson

The Guardian

Monday 12 January 2009



Prince Harry


















Prince Harry        UK / USA





watch?v=Bwf3Q96p99w - NYT - 19 May 2018























































































Portrait of princes William and Harry unveiled        January 2010


Painter Nicky Philipps

describes what it was like

to paint the royal brothers

in the double portrait commissioned

by the National Portrait Gallery











Afghan Insurgents Attack

Base Where Prince Harry Serves


September 14, 2012

The New York Times



KABUL, Afghanistan — Insurgents using guns and rockets or mortars launched an audacious attack on the largest NATO base in Helmand Province shortly after midnight Saturday morning, killing two American service members, according to a spokesman for the international forces here.

The base, Camp Bastion, is where Prince Harry is serving as a member of a British helicopter unit. Prince Harry was not in any danger, said the spokesman, Master Sgt. Bob Barko. It was not clear whether the attack was meant to be an attempt on the prince’s life, Sergeant Barko said. The Taliban have vowed to kill him.

Camp Bastion is home to the largest number of British troops in Afghanistan, while the neighboring Camp Leatherneck is a mainly American base. A spokesman for the international forces said that the military did not yet have details on the exact location of the attack.

Although rocket attacks on both bases occur periodically, the latest one appears to have been far more serious, and possibly involved more assailants. Sergeant Barko said that because of the early hour, it was “difficult to know much yet,” though a spokesman for the International Security Assistance Force confirmed on Saturday that the two service members who were killed were United States Marines.

He described the attackers as using “indirect fire,” a term that can mean rockets or mortars as well as small-arms fire.

The insurgents in Helmand, in southern Afghanistan, are overwhelmingly Taliban, but the military in the early stages of its assessment was reluctant to say definitively that Taliban insurgents were behind the attack.

On the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks on Tuesday, Zabiullah Mujahid, a spokesman for the Taliban, was quoted by British news organizations as saying the insurgents would do everything in their power to eliminate Prince Harry, 27, who is third in line for the British throne.

“We are using all our strength to get rid of him, either by killing or kidnapping,” Reuters quoted Mr. Mujahid as saying.

In further remarks about the prince that appeared in jihadist media, Mr. Mujahid urged the British to spend the money used to send Harry to Afghanistan on the poor.

“The objective behind his coming is to deceive his people more, and in Afghanistan, to give something of a morale boost to the defeated soldiers of his country so they continue until the date of their fleeing to Britain, which couldn’t do anything despite the presence of thousands of its soldiers,” he said. “So what can it do through one soft prince?”

There have been news reports of internal British government discussions about whether a majority of troops will stay through 2014 or whether there might be an accelerated withdrawal.

Afghan Insurgents Attack Base Where Prince Harry Serves,






Doubts raised

over Prince Harry's war-zone

posting deployment to Iraq


Published: 27 April 2007

The Independent

By Kim Sengupta


The question of whether Prince Harry will be sent to Iraq, and whether he will resign from the Army if he is not sent, was mired in confusion yesterday. The Ministry of Defence said it was reviewing the issue of the Prince's deployment to Iraq after a rise in attacks against British troops and threats by insurgents to abduct him and cut off his ears.

According to one report, friends of the Prince - who is third in line to the throne - have said he will quit the Army if he is not sent. The claim was dismissed by the BBC's royal correspondent who said the friends had denied this was the case and insisted that the Prince will continue to serve.

Tony Blair, meanwhile, told reporters that he would be delighted if his son offered to serve in Iraq. This has caused a degree of puzzlement at the Ministry of Defence as none of the Prime Minister's children are known to be in the armed forces.

The controversy over the Prince's deployment surfaced yesterday with the news that senior officers are reconsidering whether the Prince, a 2nd lieutenant, should be sent to Iraq as this may make him a target.

In one of the bloodiest months for British forces in the country since the invasion, 11 service personnel have been killed this April.

In Maysan province, where the Prince and other members of the Blues and Royals are due to serve, two soldiers died last week when their reconnaissance vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb.

One option would be for the Prince to go to Iraq but not undertake any combat duty. However, in 2005 he said: "There is no way I am going to put myself through Sandhurst and then sit on my arse back home while my boys are fighting for their country.''

If the deployment does take place, the Prince will be the first member of the Royal Family to serve in a war zone since the Duke of York flew helicopters during the Falklands conflict 25 years ago. An MoD spokeswoman said yesterday: "Prince Harry's deployment to Iraq is, as we have always said, under constant consideration.

"It is still our intent that Prince Harry will deploy as a troop leader.''

Doubts raised over Prince Harry's war-zone posting deployment to Iraq,






Joan Bakewell:

Prince Harry can't really do

his duty in Iraq

This young man of 22,
vigorous and enthusiastic,
is faced with the frustration
of all his hopes


Published: 27 April 2007

The Independent


He's eager, he's available, he's qualified, and he's a prince. That means if Prince Harry goes to fight in Iraq he'll be a target, a risk, a liability and a headache. Prince Harry and the Army now find themselves in a no-win situation, and, let's face it, that's not what soldiering is about.

Did nobody think of this when career plans were being laid? For the heir to the throne to have two sons who've both decided to make the military their career seems deliberately perverse. Neither will ever be able to fulfil their role as officers in exactly the same way as their fellow soldiers. It's just not possible. They are royal and privileged; they are pampered and favoured; they are emblematic icons, while others are simply ordinary fellows trained in warfare. As parental career guidance it rates as rock bottom.

Shakespeare knew all about kings at war. Throughout the history plays, a king bearing arms is consistently the deliberate target of his enemies. As the great sequence comes to an end, Richard III, cornered and screaming, "A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse ..." is finally and ignominiously slaughtered, bringing his dynastic line crashing down with him.

The death of a king is that momentous. When Henry V - known to his soldiery, appropriately enough, as Harry of England - disguises himself and wanders his camp as an ordinary soldier, he hears the truth at first hand: an ordinary squaddie declares, "I would he were here alone. So should he be sure to be ransomed and a many poor men's lives saved."

For all his well-meaning intentions to be just as any other soldier, Prince Harry is different. His eagerness to serve in the front line, leading his men, is honourable and impossible. Consider the range of differences that apply in his case. Going out into the front line, Prince Harry can be assured of the very best kit, fully served with the latest in protective equipment.

There will be no wretched phone calls home about the inadequacy of his stuff or the need to supply his own boots. The vehicle he uses will be the best protected, the most thoroughly serviced. The route it takes will be tracked, the time of its return anticipated with relief by his superiors. There will be commendations for those who see him through it all, and more than normal relief when his term of duty comes to an end.

Were he to be wounded in action, the best of medical facilities will attend on him and the subject of his injuries be a matter of national interest and attention. Sneak photographs taken by the mobile phones of hospital orderlies will be sold round the world before a public enquiry as to how such dastardly behaviour could have been allowed. Should he need them, there is no question that the best of surgeons will be available, and on his return he will not be dumped in public hospital wards where other patients who disapprove of the Iraq war can come and remonstrate with him.

Were he taken prisoner or hostage, the mantra "we do not negotiate with terrorists" would be swiftly revised. Those responsible would have scored an amazing international coup and could set their own agenda as to how it was resolved. With such lavish options open to them, they would surely quarrel among themselves, delaying and confusing the outcome.

Meanwhile, snatch squads of our own, possibly with aid from Mossad, would make plans for dashing raids of heroic proportions, all of whose participants would claim that, following recent precedents, they should be allowed to sell their stories to the tabloids. Meanwhile Harry would return to a hero's welcome, and the troops in Iraq would relax their vigilance, leaving themselves open to instant opportunistic attacks.

This, as the military have now realised, is no way to fight a war. The insurgents have realised that too, making it known that the Prince himself would be the battleground.

Such declared targeting was not the case when his uncle Prince Andrew served as a helicopter pilot in the Falklands war. That was an old-fashioned confrontational fight between two armies. But Middle East wars are more elusive, more insidious and, for serving royals, more deadly. The only possibility of Prince Harry fulfilling his proper duty would have been for him to have gone in secret, served anonymously and returned from duty before the whole thing became known. Such is the double track of both royalty and celebrity that is currently the Prince's lot in life, that that was never conceivable.

Now we have a young man of 22, vigorous and enthusiastic, faced with the frustration of all his hopes. This is not what any family could wish for their child. Given Prince Harry's freedom with his fists and with drink, it could well result in further brawls and unhappiness.

Judging from blogs, the public is speaking out strongly in favour of his going to Iraq: "It's what he signed up to"; "He's trained, let him serve"; "His credibility as an officer is on the line." With only the occasional traditionalist: "The Royal Family are the backbone of society in this country ... its time we saw sense, and kept Prince Harry safe."

So whatever the outcome - front line or desk job, resignation from the Army or ham-strung career - opinions on whether he should go or not will be filling chat shows and column inches for a good while yet.

Joan Bakewell: Prince Harry can't really do his duty in Iraq,










Related > Anglonautes > Vocapedia


politics > UK > British monarchy



politics > UK



politics > USA



politics > activism > UK / USA



politics > world > countries, foreign policy,

Arab Spring, Middle East, diplomacy, U.N.