This apparently is the actual text from the book (but who knows, I certainly don't plan to read it)
The context does show it in rather a different light, with Prince Harry (is he still a Prince, I cannot keep up?) seemingly wrestling with the morality around soldiering. Could have probably made the same points without mentioning the exact number, but it doesn't much sound like bragging when read in context.
Whether the book needed to be written in the first place is probably another question.
Long live the King...but after that, no more....
Yes, I wouldn't be a royal, for all their money. I'd often wondered if they're allowed to dip their wick, imagine if a slapper from a sink estate gave birth to an heir to the throne conceived up against a wall in a pub car park.From birth they are effectively public property and have to live their entire lives in the spotlight. Fancy having a couple of friends round after school to kick a ball round the park? Not without their parents being vetted and an armed guard hiding in the undergrowth.
They have no choice of career other than the military, no opportunity to make a living for themselves like normal people. Suppose one of them had a hankering to become a builder, or a software engineer, or a tyre fitter. Tough mate, you’re off to Sandhurst.
Gay or lesbian? No you’re not, at least in public. Select your own partner? No, not if you’re in the top echelon unless you’re prepared for all sorts of ordure being dropped on you.
Nearly all zoo animals exhibit behavioural problems and the royals are no different. The cage may be gilded but it’s still a cage.
Look after them, support them during their reintroduction to the real world, but set them free.
The Rattlebone Inn, Sherston according to the Mail. I wonder if they'll be getting a blue plaque now.Does it mention which pub?
Perhaps invite her on HIGNFY and have Paul Merton ask her.Wonder where Miriam Margolyes was that day???? I'm sure she could come up with some inventive details!
The Rattlebone Inn, Sherston
Not necessarily. The rules of proportionality and/or military necessity mean that if it’s only a couple people with guns and they can be clearly targeted using the gun, then that would greatly reduce the risk and scale of any collateral damage. Also, if operating in close proximity to coalition troops, missiles or rockets would be too risky.This thing about him having killed 25 people
Thing I don;t understand is that an Apache carries several different types of weapon
the gun is only one
if he was called to protect some soldiers from incoming fire from a building then he would have used a missile - which could have killed several people inside the building and he wouldn't know
He would just see, or get a report, that the incoming fire had stopped
so the concept that he knows he killed 25 is probably either untrue, naive or deliberately blinding himself to reality
any/all of which matches everything else he seems to be saying -
I made the mistake of listening to R5 yesterday. The phone-ins are an endless stream of people pronouncing it bad form for military personnel to publicly admit they were able to mentally dehumanise people in order to kill them...
Or read the many books written about and by WWII fighter pilots?How many of those people have read Brave Two Zero and other true war books.
Just caught 20 minutes of the ITV interview with Harry. I'm actually surprised at how articulate and intelligent he is. It's quite impressive to watch.
Just caught 20 minutes of the ITV interview with Harry. I'm actually surprised at how articulate and intelligent he is. It's quite impressive to watch.