What is the point of Royal men going into military service when they'll never be risked on the front line?

Question

The last royal to be on the front line was Prince Andrew in the Falklands but that is never going to happen again is it?

Answer 1

Quote: "That is never going to happen again is it..?"

What do you mean or hope by that statement?  It would be nice to think you have found some way to abolish armed conflict in the world, because the United Nations has failed ever since it was founded, and the present government seems to find wars to join, in places where others fail to reach.

Answer 2

Charles and William will one day be titular heads of the military services,so they have and will serve in all of the branches. As long as a royal is well-known and considered a prime target,I don't see them being put into active services at this time. Less-known members of the Royal Family have done active service in the past,with less fan-fare.

Answer 3

No point, and no point to the monarchy as well.

Answer 4

Probably because Queen Charlie was busy with his dress, uh, er, I mean his dress uniform!

Answer 5

Its simply this, they are going to be the "head" of the military one day she they need to know what it's like, the reason they experience service of all branches. The President was never in the military but he is the Commander of All Armed Forces, does that seem right? No, but that's just the title they get. Now if there were to go to war, which Prince Harry wanted to do, don't you think you are putting everyone in that regiment, battalion in danger because who are the terrorists going to go after. Little ol' you and me who have no "real impact" on our countries, or are they going to go after a member of the royal family? Think about it.

Answer 6

I agree! But i wouldn't want my partner being with that Royal coz it just makes them a bigger target in my opinion. I don't think they should be allowed to join the forces full stop - it just endangers everyone else.

Answer 7

And how do you know that they are'nt put on the front line? my husband was and fortunately he came back to tell me what happened

Answer 8

keeps 'em off the street.  what else are they going to do ?

Answer 9

Firstly, it derives from a concept known as the nobless obligee.  That's French for the obligation of the nobles.  This concept comes from the idea that those who have been given the most by the state should also be willing to sacrifice for that state.  I support this concept and I think that many countries would benefit from it.  

President Kennedy put it in layman's terms when he said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."  They Kennedy's expemplified the nobless obligee.  Several of Joseph Kennedy's sons (JFK and his older brother included) served in WWII, and one  died.  Since they were exceedingly wealthy and powerful, they didn't have to serve.  Joe Kennedy could have easily gotten them out of it.  Nonetheless, they did serve and both served quite heroically.

As for the house of Windsor, I have to commend they all for serving, even thought they don't have to.  Even HM the Queen was a subaltern mechanic during WWII.  Will they ever be on the front line again?  Possibly.  There arn't really "front lines" anymore, as any area in a combat zone can become hostile in an instant, but in any case, it's hard to say if they Royals will ever be in a combat zone again. I know that Harry desperately wanted to go to Iraq, but the government thought that it was too risky.   This was such a BS situation become first they said he couldn't go, then they said he could, they they said he couldn't again.  F***ing Labor party.

Answer 10

I think it has something to do with making their battalion or regiment a target for terrorists and getting shot at/blown up and all that jazz.

Answer 11

They ask our children to fight for our country, so it is the right thing to do.

Pity Blair or the American government didn't take a leaf out of their book.... how many politician's sons are in Iraq or Afghanistan........ the answer is 0!

Answer 12

Good question. I think the idea is to scam people into thinking that the Royals have served their countries when in actual fact Royalty is about serving oneself.

   By doing military service they are perceived to have toughness and grit, when in actual fact they lead a cushy, mollycoddled life.

Answer 13

Its simply a job that they can do which is in their heritage.  They merely do it to appear that they have done/ are doing something when inevitably they quit and do nothing.

Answer 14

Never say never.

Royalties go into military service to learn what it means, because the monarch is usually the head of military and needs to know what to ask of his subjects in the time of military needs.

The king, the crown prince and the prince heir (Crown prince's oldest son) and their female counterparts are not allowed to participate in war, but the rest of the princes and princesses may well do so if they so choose.

Answer 15

It's traditional good for there image..And Prince Andrew was never on the "front line" in the Falklands, he spent the war "looking" for a non existent Argentine submarine on board the carrier Invincible hundred of Miles from the front line and well out of the range of Argentine missiles

Answer 16

Well they need to have a uniform to strut around in!

Answer 17

I quite agree. There is no point. It is an insult to ordinary men and women who put their lives to the forefront and get killed.

They are not fit to wear the uniform!

Prince Harry should have gone and thats that.

Answer 18

you get me!!

Answer 19

The questioner is obviously unaware that every officer in the armed forces of the UK has his/her commission from the Queen, and swears allegiance to her.  The same mey be true of 'other ranks', but no doubt someone can put me right on this.

Members of the Royal family are honorary Colonels of many army regiments, as well as being honorary Admirals and/or Air Marshalls (I think), so without a detailed understanding of how the armed forces work, how are the 'Royals' to carry out their duties properly?

Incidentally, as subjects loyal to the Queen, the armed forces are ultimately responsible not to the government, but to the Crown.  It has been said that were there a coup in the UK, the army would not automatically rally round the government, but obey the Queen in restoring proper democracy to the nation.  Not many countries can boast such a system

Answer 20

Dupe the public