Not that it’s proof of course. Prince Battenberg was doing an excellent job as First Sea Lord in 1913. But one of those things we might think of as indicative:
Take Uganda as an example, where the president’s son, Lieutenant General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, announced
When the military’s run by the kids of the politicians in power we might want to think just a little bit about the freedom, democracy and devolved power nature of the place.
As opposed to the UK, where the military is run by the great-great-great-x-granddaughter of someone who was in power 800 years ago?
OK, I know only in theory, but still worth the snark.
True BitFR, it did take us a while to reach our present state.
But when I think about that I do wonder whether we’ve gone up or down. Still, we’re richer. Of course I attribute that to good old technology and the fossil fuels used to run it.
On one interminable journey up towards the (then) Sudanese border, where various bands of psychopathic maniacs were murdering one another, Johnson spent the entire time singing to himself Dire Straits’s Money for Nothing
Wtf I love Boris Johnson now 🙁
The depth of the hatred this has inspired can be gauged by the degree to which they are cheering from the sidelines for Russia in its invasion of Ukraine. Russia, the great liberator. We tell ourselves a little smugly that the “world” agrees with us about Putin’s wickedness, but it patently does not.
BBC’s Facebook page is full of African and Arab chappies openly supporting Russia to the amusing annoyance of white Western libs.
But why shouldn’t Africa hate the ‘West’? The West hates itself.
Politicians children don’t go into the military in Anglo Saxon countries, unless conscripted. There’s no money in it.
But why shouldn’t Africa hate the ‘West’? The West hates itself.
Let’s see who they’re hating after a decade or two of Belt and Road.
‘Let’s see who they’re hating after a decade or two of Belt and Road.’
No doubt they’ll hate the West even worse. After all they’ve got to hate the West; otherwise they might have to hate themselves.
I am confident that the Chinese can make themselves astonishingly well hated over the next couple of decades. It will take a while, because they are dealing with corrupt nations filled with morons, but the open contempt is bound to be noticed eventually.
Perhaps not though, Africans still look favourably on Russia due to the Soviet Union’s work to destroy Western colonial powers. They seem happy to overlook the Russians’ utter disregard for them and also the depredations of the ‘leaders’ whom the Russkis helped gain power.
Still, fuck ’em. I reckon I can get in a couple more trips to South Africa before the ANC ruins it and I hope the money I spend there helps goes towards funding an exit for a few white families.
@ BiFR
IIRC, Charles commanded a (fairly small) boat, Andrew flew a helicopter during the Falklands War, as did Harry in Afghanistan. George VI when Duke of York served aboard (not commanding) a warship in WW1. The last British Royal to command an army was George II.
The Plantagenets did have princes commanding armies (*some* of them were quite good at it) but we’ve preferred to appoint professional soldiers to command our armies since Bonny Prince Charlie made a mess of Culloden as more of our soldiers survive
Apologies, George II was the last *King* to command an army in battle. Cumberland was the last prince.
Prince Frederick, the Grand old Duke of York, led an army in the French Revolutionary Wars, but wasnt very successful. He and John Moore hugely reformed the Army afterwards.
George Duke of Cambridge was in the Crimea and laterwas CinC of the army.
Prince Rupert of the Rhine outdoes Mountbatten by seeing action both as a general and an admiral
Also
To be fair to Boney Ponce Charlie. He did have proper generals with him. He didn’t understand tactics and left it to them. The problem at Culloden was the poor discipline and organisation of the clans who had not deserted after Falkirk.
@ Ottokring
When Charlie followed the advice of his professional generals he won. Historians attribute the disaster at Culloden to Charles ignoring their advice.
I confess that I had never heard of that Duke of Cambridge – history is not my strong point – and I admit that I was in error.
Prince Rupert by the way was not a bad admiral. He just happened to be up against the greatest naval leader of his age in de Ruyter.
@BiFR
great-great-great-x-granddaughter of someone who was in power 800 years ago?
If the theory about Victoria’s parentage is true any royal-ish blood she has comes from Albert and the Saxe-Coburg-etc clan were “only” dukes. IOW, the British line to power 800 years ago was broken in 1837, and if not, cerainly in 1714 when George 1 came from Hanover.
Ottokring said:
“George Duke of Cambridge was in the Crimea and laterwas CinC of the army.”
Yes, for about 40 years, most of Victoria’s reign.
But isn’t he generally thought to have been a disaster? Blocked much-needed reform for decades, particularly by supporting the purchase of commissions rather than promoting competent but poor officers, and insisting on rigid parade ground drill when warfare was moving away from formation attacks and counter-attacks.
I’ve seen claims that he was responsible for the disasters of the Boer War – even though he had finally been forced out of office beforehand, the army of the time was still his legacy.
Oh yeah Richard. I didn’,t say that he was any good 🙂
Cumberland was also one of those “lacking in skill making up in enthusiasm” types.
George I was 51st in line on Anne’s death. Anyway Henry VII’s claim to the throne was hardly strong. Trying to justify/deny rights to the throne after Richard II is a minefield full of deep rabbitholes.
@ Ottokring
Trying to justify rights to the throne in/after 1066 is a minefield – William the Bastard had no legal claim (even *IF* Harold had promised to give it to William that meant *nothing* as Harold had no power or right to do so).