Prince William and the East Anglian Air Ambulance

Tefal said:
I thought william was the pilot who flew the apaches and it was harry who was the tank comander of a scimitar?
Click to expand...

Other way around.

Both trained in the Blues and Royals as troop commanders in an armoured reconnaissance unit.

William then went RAF and flew C17s and then Search and Rescue helicopters.

Harry went Army Air Corps and flew Apaches.
 
Last edited:
Burnsy2023 said:
Other way around.

Both trained in the Blues and Royals as troop commanders in an armoured reconnaissance unit.

William then went RAF and flew C17s and then Search and Rescue helicopters.

Harry went Army Air Corps and flew Apaches.
Click to expand...

ahhhh ok.

also seems William did some time with the navy to give him a rounded view of all the armed forces. seems bizarre our kings and prices are better informed than our politicians.

but i suppose this makes them valuable advisor for many subsequent governments.
 
Tefal said:
ahhhh ok.

also seems William did some time with the navy to give him a rounded view of all the armed forces. seems bizarre our kings and prices are better informed than our politicians.

but i suppose this makes them valuable advisor for many subsequent governments.
Click to expand...

Politicians change regularly... Kings and Queens, less so.
 
It's also worth remembering that we, the electorate, chose our politicians in full knowledge of their CV. Perhaps we should pick those with real life experience, like ex services people, healthcare professionals, teachers, business owners, etc but until the electorate make it clear that's what we want, we'll continue to get Oxbridge PPEs who have never done a single proper days work in their lives.
 
Tefal said:
ahhhh ok.

also seems William did some time with the navy to give him a rounded view of all the armed forces. seems bizarre our kings and prices are better informed than our politicians.

but i suppose this makes them valuable advisor for many subsequent governments.
Click to expand...

The Navy would have been the SAR helicopters IIRC.
 
phonemonkey said:
It's also worth remembering that we, the electorate, chose our politicians in full knowledge of their CV. Perhaps we should pick those with real life experience, like ex services people, healthcare professionals, teachers, business owners, etc but until the electorate make it clear that's what we want, we'll continue to get Oxbridge PPEs who have never done a single proper days work in their lives.
Click to expand...

Then in elections you'd just end up voting for none of the above all the time.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
When the Queen started her reign, Winston Churchill was PM. There have been 13 more since. I think that gives a bit of perspective.
Click to expand...

What perspective does it give, exactly?

The current political system states that a monarch can remain in power pretty much as long as they like, while a PM can only remain in power at the whim of the people.

The only 'perspective' I can derive from this is that the PM is beholden to a fair and democratic process while the institution of the monarchy is inherently unfair and undemocratic.

Monarchs are not even chosen by merit; they just inherit the title regardless of competence, and never have to work for a living. That's a pretty sweet gig in any language. The ultimate 'Benefits Street'!
 
Evangelion said:
What perspective does it give, exactly?

The current political system states that a monarch can remain in power pretty much as long as they like, while a PM can only remain in power at the whim of the people.

The only 'perspective' I can derive from this is that the PM is beholden to a fair and democratic process while the institution of the monarchy is inherently unfair and undemocratic.

Monarchs are not even chosen by merit; they just inherit the title regardless of competence, and never have to work for a living. That's a pretty sweet gig in any language. The ultimate 'Benefits Street'!
Click to expand...

Yes it is undemocratic, but democracy is flawed just like any other system, having more of it doesn't necessarily mean a better state structure.

My point is that HM has a perspective that few heads of state do, let alone government ministers. She has seen many people come and go; the longevity of her reign means that she isn't constantly worrying about being elected but can actually concentrate on being head of state. That long-term approach has some clear advantages rather than thinking no further than 5 years.

I'd also like to point out that HM has approval ratings that elected politicians could only dream of:

It seems Queen Elizabeth II’s popularity far outstretches that of our elected politicians, with 72% saying that she does the ‘does the best job at representing the UK abroad’ and a mere 6% choosing Foreign Secretary William Hague while 5% selected Prime Minister David Cameron. In continuation with that theme, our poll found a +64% approval rating for the Queen compared to -29% for David Cameron, -25% for Ed Miliband and -43% for Nick Clegg.
Click to expand...

http://survation.com/queen-elizabeth-ii-most-popular-monarch-in-british-history/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom