Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Prince William to leave the armed services

259 replies

baffledmum · 12/09/2013 12:07

I am a fan of the monarchy but this has just made me stop and think...

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24065166

Hmmm – not going to a “full time royal” = part-time royal then. What's he doing with the rest of his time?

I'd be happy to give up my job to focus on royal work and charity duties if someone can tell me where to apply! Or am I just being mean and unreasonable that he can afford to? Envy

OP posts:
diddl · 12/09/2013 19:55

"I was astounded William thought Kate was a good idea."

But she hung around, was always there & has never done anything contraversial!

And he's taking a year to decide what to do & be "eased into Royal duties"??

He's thirty years old FFS!

And Kate's had a number of years to be prepared, as well!!

LtEveDallas · 12/09/2013 20:01

Butwilliseeyouagain, The decision to privatise at least 2 of the ASR came last November. It has been fought ever since. Yes he could do something else, maybe he will. Maybe his father is going to abdicate his responsibilities and William is leading up to taking over.

Who knows. He has only just made the announcement that he is going to leave, give him a chance.

I've known for 4 years that my Service finishes next Aug, be buggered if I know what I'm going to do next. My DH retired at 41 in 2006 and hasn't gone back to work - so what?

Tabliope · 12/09/2013 20:02

I don't think she was a big love match for him. I think he tried to learn from his parents' mistakes so chose someone that was a friend, his age, someone not emotionally vulnerable etc. They met too young but she wanted to cling on and somehow managed it. It just would have been great to see her doing something with her life after university. It would also be great to see her getting stuck into something after she has her kids. She's so safe and is determined not to put a step wrong. I don't suppose bringing someone into the "firm" with a strong personality would have been a good idea though. I don't really care that much but I don't understand the adulation for them that a lot of people seem to have.

Butwilliseeyouagain · 12/09/2013 20:03

I'm assuming though LtEve that you and your husband are not living in unimaginable luxury on the taxpayer's dime.

Tabliope · 12/09/2013 20:04

There was even a Royal Historian on the news earlier saying public opinion of William could turn if they're not seen to be doing something and start being seen more in the role of celebrities. I agree.

LtEveDallas · 12/09/2013 20:04

The head of the military might not be important to you butwilliseeyou, but it is very important to those of us in the Military. Having someone there who actually understands, who is more than just a figurehead is very important.

Butwilliseeyouagain · 12/09/2013 20:05

But he IS just a figurehead LtEve, whether you like it or not. He will run the military to the extent that the queen runs the country, ie not at all.

LtEveDallas · 12/09/2013 20:06

...in your opinion, not mine, and I'm the one if actually effects, so...

Butwilliseeyouagain · 12/09/2013 20:08

Affects.

And I'm more than happy to agree to disagree. But I think it's silly to call somebody the head of the military when they are not responsible for any major decisions whatsoever. That to me is the definition of figurehead. Obviously to you it isn't.

LtEveDallas · 12/09/2013 20:14

Don't be a dick.

Actually the head of the Army has the power of veto. I don't know about the other two services.

When Col Comdt of a Regiment I have seen first hand Prince Charles 'strongly disagree' with a decision. A decision that, strangely, was then reversed. It can be done, maybe not often, but it happens (and that decision would have had very significant repercussions for the Regt. The reversal was a good thing)

LookingForwardToSalmon · 12/09/2013 20:19

That's even better!

So we are actually awarding powers over our military to humans based on what bloodline they were born into now?

Marvellous.

littlemisswise · 12/09/2013 20:19

Prince William privately lobbied David Cameron not to privatise the Air Sea Rescue when they were working on the bid for the World Cup. He was worried about himself then, he wasn't bothered about the rapid and sudden early decommissioning of the Harriers.

There is a photo going round Fb asking people to like and share to say thanks to Prince Wiliam for serving. I won't be sharing, DH has spent more time away from home than William has spent serving. I would find it much easier to cope as a military wife with all the support Kate has too.

I wish them both well, but I don't sit here thinking they have a difficult life.

Butwilliseeyouagain · 12/09/2013 20:19

Ha! It is dickish of me but I have a thing about affects/effects.

Look, ultimately if PC had opposed the invasion of Iraq, for example, it would not have made any difference whatsoever. The invasion would still have gone ahead. Tony Blair would not have gone back to Dick Cheney and said 'Sorry it's all off, PC just won't sign on the dotted line.' In my opinion that makes him a figurehead.He doesn't make any decsions.

LtEveDallas · 12/09/2013 20:25

Well obviously. We are a democracy, we vote in our Government to make decisions like that. He is a figurehead to you, but to someone serving he is more than that.

The point was that the serving military would rather have someone who had actually served as the head of the military than someone who hadn't. Even the Queen was in the ATS.

William didnt have to join the services. He was never going to be allowed to actually 'serve' in the way his brother was. The fact that he did it and then the fact that he extended that service is respected.

LeGavrOrf · 12/09/2013 20:28

Whoops sorry lteve, I thought that pilots had to have 20-20 vision. I will blame my dd for that misinformation.

Original poster
baffledmum · 12/09/2013 20:31

It's me - the OP! Back after a hard day at work... Can someone tell me what happens if Prince Charles predeceases his mother? Does the throne pass to the eldest son still, in which case Andrew is in line followed by his daughters or has something changed in our constitution?

OP posts:
Tabliope · 12/09/2013 20:33

William would be next as he's of age and is the direct line. If William were to die as well it would go to Harry until George was of age.

FrankelInFoal · 12/09/2013 20:36

No if Charles dies then William becomes next in line. For Andrew to become King, Charles, William, George and Harry would have to die.

Original poster
baffledmum · 12/09/2013 20:39

Thank you for the quick responses. We have been talking about the departure from the services this afternoon at work. The split of opinion here on the thread pretty much reflected my colleagues' views.

OP posts:
kim147 · 12/09/2013 21:01

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

kim147 · 12/09/2013 21:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

StitchingMoss · 12/09/2013 21:03

I'll say one thing for the royals - they have the most incredible PR imaginable. They really do manage to pull the wool over the eyes of so many people it's staggering.

If the Republicans had the money to employ PR even half as good the monarchy would be history by now Grin.

Onesleeptillwembley · 12/09/2013 21:09

Though to be fair, Kim, look at what the last president that had served did with his power and forces. Scary.

LookingForwardToSalmon · 12/09/2013 21:12

stitching Maybe we should have a fundraiser?

diddl · 12/09/2013 21:14

They don't have to join the military, but I'm not sure what else they could do on order to be seen to be doing something tbh.