When was the last UK 'royal' KIA or WIA?

[a425couple]

Question, When was the last time a British / UK
'royal' (however close you care to argue) family member
was KIA or WIA in a 'war' zone?

Yeah, I know, I could do as I normally do, just go off
quietly reading up on this topic, but in the broader sense,
it might be a worthwhile topic.

[tom c]

"a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:k2nrj...@news3.newsguy.com...

Richard III At Bosworth Field as the last King. Mountbatten was killed by
the IRA but that was an act of terror not in a recognized war zone.

Do the German relatives count?

[Bradipus]

tom c, 19:53, martedￜ 11 settembre 2012:

Czar Nicholas?


--
+ +
L
___

[Halmyre]

The Duke of Kent (George VI's brother) was killed in a Sunderland in
1942, but it wasn't a 'war zone' as such.

--
Halmyre

[Keith W]

He died on active service on his way to Iceland which was smack
bang in the middle of one of the most critical 'war zones' of WW2

Churchill himself opined that the Battle of the Atlantic was
"the dominating factor all through the war..."

While we are discussing the royals and naval matters its worth
recalling that the future George VI was aboard HMS Collingwood
as a turret officer during the Battle of Jutland.

While not a royal at the time Prince Philip served in the Mediterranean
including the actions around Crete, the Battle of Cape Matapan
and the invasion of Sicily before serving with the British Pacific Fleet
in the far east. He was aboard ship in Tokyo bay when the Japanese
surrendered.

Keith

[Bill]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:15:10 -0700, "a425couple"
<a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Question, When was the last time a British / UK
>'royal' (however close you care to argue) family member
>was KIA or WIA in a 'war' zone?
>

George VI (the king in 'The King's Speech') invalided out of an active
service post in the navy in WWI, ulcer, possibly stress induced.

[Halmyre]

On Sep 11, 8:56 pm, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Halmyre wrote:
> > On Sep 11, 6:16 pm, "a425couple" <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Question, When was the last time a British / UK
> >> 'royal' (however close you care to argue) family member
> >> was KIA or WIA in a 'war' zone?
>
> >> Yeah, I know, I could do as I normally do, just go off
> >> quietly reading up on this topic, but in the broader sense,
> >> it might be a worthwhile topic.
>
> > The Duke of Kent (George VI's brother) was killed in a Sunderland in
> > 1942, but it wasn't a 'war zone' as such.
>
> He died on active service on his way to Iceland which was smack
> bang in the middle of one of the most critical 'war zones' of WW2
>

Yes, but he crashed in the north of Scotland not long after take off.
Various conspiracy theories abound - he was at the controls when he
shouldn't have been, he wasn't on the plane at all, there was an extra
passenger on the plane, he was bisexual, he was got rid of because he
was a Nazi sympathiser, etc, etc...

--
Halmyre

[Keith W]

The reality is simpler, flying a 1930's heavily loaded aircraft was
dangerous.
There are are WW2 crash sites all across the Highlands and Northern
England. All those dead aircrew were just as much casualties of WW2
as those shot down attacking a u-boat.

Keith

[a425couple]

"Halmyre" <flashgord...@yahoo.com> wrote in message...

- "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Halmyre wrote:
> > "a425couple" <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Question, When was the last time a British / UK
> >> 'royal' (however close you care to argue) family member
> >> was KIA or WIA in a 'war' zone?
>
> >> Yeah, I know, I could do as I normally do, just go off
> >> quietly reading up on this topic, but in the broader sense,
> >> it might be a worthwhile topic.
>
> > The Duke of Kent (George VI's brother) was killed in a Sunderland in
> > 1942, but it wasn't a 'war zone' as such.
>
> He died on active service on his way to Iceland which was smack
> bang in the middle of one of the most critical 'war zones' of WW2
>

- Yes, but he crashed in the north of Scotland not long after take off.
- Various conspiracy theories abound - he was at the controls when
- he shouldn't have been, he wasn't on the plane at all, there was an
- extra passenger on the plane, he was bisexual, he was got rid of
- because he was a Nazi sympathiser, etc, etc...

Yes. Here is a site that gives an "interesting" background,
and barely hints at various "interesting" explanations
about Prince George, Duke of Kent.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWkentD.htm

[Bill]

It says the surviving crewman from the crashed aircraft was 'forced to
sign the 'Official Secrets Act'.'

Leaving aside the idea of forcing a rear gunner on an aircraft to do
anything (What do you threaten him with? A nice comfy cell with three
meals day as opposed to getting shot at.), all active service aircrew
would have signed that as a matter of routine when joining.

Everybody in UK Government Service does, and has done for about 100
years now...

If the bloody postmen sign it you can bet some guy flying about in a
plane full of secret papers and royal princes does...

[a425couple]

"Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message...

> Halmyre wrote:
>> On Sep 11, 6:16 pm, "a425couple" <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Question, When was the last time a British / UK
>>> 'royal' (however close you care to argue) family member
>>> was KIA or WIA in a 'war' zone?
>

> While not a royal at the time Prince Philip served in the Mediterranean
> including the actions around Crete, the Battle of Cape Matapan
> and the invasion of Sicily before serving with the British Pacific Fleet
> in the far east. He was aboard ship in Tokyo bay when the Japanese
> surrendered.

Yes. As I kind'a understand, he was a Greek & Danish
royal, exiled, and entered the British Navy and did very well.
(While other close realitives, went to the German side.)

Just my humble opinion, but if he had not done such,
the 'managers' would probably have not allowed him to
be close enough to court the young "Lilibet".
Or,,,,, perhaps,,, there is an expectation, that British
royals demonstrate the trait of "service".

More at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh

Does anyone care to explain,
"King George VI --- on Philip, and on the morning of the wedding,
20 November 1947, he was made the Duke of Edinburgh,
Earl of Merioneth, and Baron Greenwich of Greenwich in the
County of London." ?
What is the real significance of naming him a "Duke", an "Earl",
and "Baron" ?

[Nightjar]

The aircraft was heavily laden and gained height only slowly, they ran
into fog 15 minutes after take-off and thereafter had to fly on
instruments and navigate by dead reckoning. There was a strong on-shore
wind that would have caused the aircraft to drift westwards. There
really isn't any mystery about it being somewhere other than where they
thought and flying into a hill.

Colin Bignell

[a425couple]

"tom c" <rv6f...@hotmail.comie> wrote in message...
> "a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message...

>> Question, When was the last time a British / UK 'royal' (however close
>> you care to argue) family member
>> was KIA or WIA in a 'war' zone?
>> Yeah, I know, I could do as I normally do, just go off quietly reading up
>> on this topic, but in the broader sense, it might be a worthwhile topic.
>
> Richard III At Bosworth Field as the last King. Mountbatten was killed by
> the IRA but that was an act of terror not in a recognized war zone.

Yes. IMHO quite despicable.

> Do the German relatives count?

I'd be happy to read of any, that you care to tell us about.

[Bill]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:16:41 -0700, "a425couple"
<a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Does anyone care to explain,
>"King George VI --- on Philip, and on the morning of the wedding,
>20 November 1947, he was made the Duke of Edinburgh,
>Earl of Merioneth, and Baron Greenwich of Greenwich in the
>County of London." ?
>What is the real significance of naming him a "Duke", an "Earl",
>and "Baron" ?

Precedence at functions.

He held no titles in his 'own right'.

As a naval officer holding no 'neck orders' he was probably lower down
the formal chain of precedence than his own equerry.

Actually no, he was a royal equerry himself, to KGVI, and I think
is the only man alive with the right to wear the appropriate
aiguillettes.

But he's still behind a village postmistress who had just been awarded
an OBE for forty years of doing the flower arranging in the local
church...

[bob]

On Sep 11, 9:56 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:15:10 -0700, "a425couple"
>

> <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Question, When was the last time a British / UK
> >'royal' (however close you care to argue) family member
> >was KIA or WIA in a 'war' zone?
>
> George VI (the king in 'The King's Speech') invalided out of an active
> service post in the navy in WWI,  ulcer, possibly stress induced.

Snorkers, good-oh

Robin

[a425couple]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message...

> "a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Does anyone care to explain,
>>"King George VI --- on Philip, and on the morning of the wedding,
>>20 November 1947, he was made the Duke of Edinburgh,
>>Earl of Merioneth, and Baron Greenwich of Greenwich in the
>>County of London." ?
>>What is the real significance of naming him a "Duke", an "Earl",
>>and "Baron" ?
>
> Precedence at functions.

> He held no titles in his 'own right'. ----

OK, but why all 3 ?
Why not just the top one (assume that was "Duke")
and leave it at that?

Does being all 3, let him on each occasion pick and
chose? (One day he choses title "Duke" to be at
head of the table/line, and next day chose as a
"Baron" to sit down next to an interesting person
he thinks as good company?)

[Paul J. Adam]

Young George fought at Jutland, if memory serves - a junior turret
officer on HMS Collingwood.


--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

[Nightjar]

As Duke of Edinburgh, there would be 28 other Dukes who would take
precedence by virtue of the age of their titles. Rather, he takes
precedence over all men in the Kingdom, apart from, in some cases, the
Prince of Wales, by virtue of a Queen's Order in Council.

Colin Bignell

[Bill]

As a general rule the lesser titles are used by the male children.

They wouldn't get their own 'proper' titles until they came of age.

[Bill]

Tradition/rumour says he levered himself out of the top hatch of the
turret to watch the engagement as he had nothing to do unless the
ship's director was out of action, despite being in theoretical
command of the turret...

[a425couple]

"a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message...

Since others have shown interest in the family members
who have served "in harms way", I'll add one:

from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Andrew,_Duke_of_York
"Prince Andrew, Duke of York ---- (born 19 February 1960),
is the second son, and third child of Queen Elizabeth II"
"It was announced in November 1978 that Prince Andrew
would join the Royal Navy"
"After being awarded his "Wings", he moved onto more advanced
training on the Sea King helicopter, and conducted operational
flying training until 1982, when he joined his first front-line unit,
820 Naval Air Squadron, serving aboard the aircraft carrier,
HMS Invincible."
"Falklands War --- the Cabinet desired -- The Queen, though,
insisted that her son be allowed to remain with his ship, meaning
Prince Andrew remained on board Invincible to serve as a
Sea King helicopter co-pilot, flying on missions that included
anti-submarine warfare and anti-surface warfare, Exocet missile decoy,
casualty evacuation, transport, and search and air rescue. He
witnessed the Argentinian attack on the SS Atlantic Conveyor,
and was one of the first to take off survivors."
"The Argentinean military government reportedly planned, but
did not attempt, to assassinate the prince on Mustique in July 1982."

[Bill]

Where'd you get that last bit from?

While the Argentine junta was as nasty a set of swine as ever murdered
a man for political reasons, I very much doubt they'd have even
considered bumping off a serving officer of a foreign country.

And on searching for it I find it's a Wiki quote from a reasonably
dodgy source, especially as by July 1982 Argentina had suffered a
change of government...

[Ian B MacLure]

"a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:k2nrj...@news3.newsguy.com:

I suspect the answer might be HRH Prince George, 4th son of George V.
he was killed in the crash of a Sunderland enroute from Iceland to
Scotland.
Admittedly he was a passenger but he was on active service in a war
zone (RAF Group Captain).
Wikipedia says he was bent as the proverbial 9 bob note but I
digress...

[Ian B MacLure]

"a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:k2q5h...@news3.newsguy.com:

Scottish Dukedom
Welsh Earldom
English Barony
Probably weren't hanging Irish titles on folks after 1922

[Ian B MacLure]

Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1o7158li3ocnms6u8...@4ax.com:

[snip]

>
> Precedence at functions.
>
> He held no titles in his 'own right'.
>
> As a naval officer holding no 'neck orders' he was probably lower down
> the formal chain of precedence than his own equerry.
>
> Actually no, he was a royal equerry himself, to KGVI, and I think
> is the only man alive with the right to wear the appropriate
> aiguillettes.
>
> But he's still behind a village postmistress who had just been awarded
> an OBE for forty years of doing the flower arranging in the local
> church...

Maybe as a junior naval officer but I have to think that having
multiple GC*'s ( Garter, Bath, Victorian Order, ... ) puts him ahead
of said flower arranger today.

IBM

[Ian B MacLure]

Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:l472589nrhirvu8dv...@4ax.com:

[snip]

>
> Tradition/rumour says he levered himself out of the top hatch of the
> turret to watch the engagement as he had nothing to do unless the
> ship's director was out of action, despite being in theoretical
> command of the turret...

Top hatch on a dreadnought main battery turret?
Unlikely as thats just the sort of thing the wiley Hun would
be shooting artillery of the 11-15 inch class at.

IBM

[bob]

On Sep 11, 7:16 pm, "a425couple" <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Question, When was the last time a British / UK
> 'royal' (however close you care to argue) family member
> was KIA or WIA in a 'war' zone?
>

> Yeah, I know, I could do as I normally do, just go off
> quietly reading up on this topic, but in the broader sense,
> it might be a worthwhile topic.

Harry's off to Afghan again, and I'll bet he'll manage to give himself
a bit of a hangover at some point while out there. Does that count?

Robin

[Bill]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 02:39:42 -0700 (PDT), bob <rcp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sep 11, 7:16�pm, "a425couple" <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Question, When was the last time a British / UK
>> 'royal' (however close you care to argue) family member
>> was KIA or WIA in a 'war' zone?
>>
>> Yeah, I know, I could do as I normally do, just go off
>> quietly reading up on this topic, but in the broader sense,
>> it might be a worthwhile topic.
>
>Harry's off to Afghan again

Already there...

[a425couple]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message...

> "a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message...
>>> Question, When was the last time a British / UK
>>> 'royal' (however close you care to argue) family member

>>> was KIA or WIA in a 'war' zone? ---

>>Since others have shown interest in the family members
>>who have served "in harms way", I'll add one:
>>
>>from:
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Andrew,_Duke_of_York
>>"Prince Andrew, Duke of York ---- (born 19 February 1960),

>>---- serving aboard the aircraft carrier, HMS Invincible."

>>"Falklands War --- the Cabinet desired -- The Queen, though,
>>insisted that her son be allowed to remain with his ship, meaning
>>Prince Andrew remained on board Invincible to serve as a
>>Sea King helicopter co-pilot, flying on missions that included
>>anti-submarine warfare and anti-surface warfare, Exocet missile decoy,
>>casualty evacuation, transport, and search and air rescue. He
>>witnessed the Argentinian attack on the SS Atlantic Conveyor,
>>and was one of the first to take off survivors."
>>"The Argentinean military government reportedly planned, but
>>did not attempt, to assassinate the prince on Mustique in July 1982."
>
> Where'd you get that last bit from?

That was direct quote from the cited wiki
(IMHO, tidbit, not worth much but interesting).

> And on searching for it I find it's a Wiki quote from a reasonably
> dodgy source

Ok, just a newspaper, I & we could search more,
but ON THE FACE of it, just a "plan",
I've no reason to particularly doubt it.
I've seen some pretty crazy military contigency plans!!

> While the Argentine junta was as nasty a set of swine as ever murdered
> a man for political reasons, I very much doubt they'd have even
> considered bumping off a serving officer of a foreign country.

Come, come,, lots of things get "considered".
I can sure imagine one of the junta members, or anyone
of the many generals or top colonels sometime mentioning,
"I think it would really hurt those damn Britisher's morale
and willingness to fight if we could just kill that SOB prince."

And, there are often overeager company grade officers
around (picture a panting retiriever dog, saying,
"Throw me a ball! Let me go fetch something!!" ) *
And, over time, in someone's mind and a few pieces
of paper,, a "plan" develops.

> especially as by July 1982 Argentina had suffered a
> change of government...

Yep. And as happens so often, once a "plan"
is possible, it gets brought up for consideration,
and by then, saner heads prevail
(or even the same head - just over his momentary pique!
(("Where in the world did you get that crazy idea from??"
"It was from you, Sir!"
"Ohhh, Never mind, forget about it.")) )
and it is rejected.


*Did you ever hear the song -
I'm bringing home a baby bumblebee,
Won't my mommy be so proud of me,
I'm bringing home a baby bumblebee,
Ouch! It stung me!

[ Lyrics from:
http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/c/child/baby_bumblebee.html ]
I'm squishing up the baby bumblebee,
Won't my mommy be so proud of me,
I'm squishing up a baby bumblebee,
Ooh! It's yucky!

I'm wiping off the baby bumblebee,
Won't my mommy be so proud of me,
I'm wiping off the baby bumblebee,
Now my mommy won't be mad at me!

[Alistair Gunn]

In sci.military.naval a425couple twisted the electrons to say:

> OK, but why all 3 ?

One title for England, one for Wales and one for Scotland. In the Dukes
case the Scottish one is the more senior and hence is his title.

> Does being all 3, let him on each occasion pick and chose?

It seems he's generally referred to as the Duke, however Prince Charles'
title in Scotland is the Duke of Rothesay rather than either the Prince
of Wales or the Duke of Cornwall.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[a425couple]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message...

> bob <rcp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "a425couple" <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Question, When was the last time a British / UK
>>> 'royal' (however close you care to argue) family member
>>> was KIA or WIA in a 'war' zone?
>>

>>Harry's off to Afghan again
>
> Already there...

Yes. And my sincere best wishes for a successful mission
and safe return, go to him, and to every UK person, and
all other 'allies', and to every USA person so assigned.

[Weatherlawyer]

On Sep 11, 6:16 pm, "a425couple" <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Question, When was the last time a British / UK
> 'royal' (however close you care to argue) family member
> was KIA or WIA in a 'war' zone?
>

> Yeah, I know, I could do as I normally do, just go off
> quietly reading up on this topic, but in the broader sense,
> it might be a worthwhile topic.

How about what do you do with a man in charge of a torpedo boat who
doesn't notice the torpedoes don't work?

Yes I know people like that are a safe bet in the Oval Office but
let's be sensible.

Or how about: Why didn't George the Thickest turn up for military
service?

Because you can't buy a drink in... no... that's not the reason.
The truth is that he was being trained to go missing in action. Rumour
has it that when they whispered to him: "America is being attacked"
what they really meant was: "You are feeling sleepy. You are feeling
sleepy."

[ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article
<13bbdc00-959f-44ab...@t4g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,

weathe...@gmail.com (Weatherlawyer) wrote:

> Or how about: Why didn't George the Thickest turn up for military
> service?

George I and II were actually at major battles. George I was on the
fleet in 1688. George II was in nominal command at Dettigen. y the time
the Napoleonic wars started George III was showing signs of insanity.
The Prince Regent later George the IV liked to think he had been present
at major actions. While all Hanovarians were considered by general
opinion to be unpleasant nobody has ever offered an opinion on which was
the thickest.

Ken Young

[Andrew Chaplin]

ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote in
news:tfmdnXReCIw9RcnN...@giganews.com:

Through the waist? George IV, by far.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Don P]

> On Sep 11, 6:16 pm, "a425couple" <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Question, When was the last time a British / UK
>> 'royal' (however close you care to argue) family member
>> was KIA or WIA in a 'war' zone?

On 11-Sep-2012 3:19 PM, Halmyre wrote:

> The Duke of Kent (George VI's brother) was killed in a Sunderland in
> 1942, but it wasn't a 'war zone' as such.

Southeast suburban London (a half hour's bus ride from
the Royal Docks where my father worked) certainly felt
like a "war zone." Doors and windows on the front side
of our house were blown out and the children slept in
a Morrison shelter (giant steel box) throughout the V1
and V2 period (about 10 months.)

[Ian B MacLure]

Don P <ey...@ncf.ca> wrote in news:kr9ton$1v1$1...@news.albasani.net:

I think you'll find that the Duke of Kent wasn't killed
anywhere near South London albeit that area would be considered
a war zone for some value of war zone.