Prince William flies to Afghanistan
Prince William made a top secret 30-hour flying visit to Afghanistan last week, it has now emerged.
A Royal spokesman said, “He flew out as part of the air crew of a C-17 transport plane on Sunday morning, and landed in Kandahar where he spent about three hours on the ground being briefed on the operations of the RAF and the base there.”
The spokesman added that Prince William then flew in another military transport plane to a Royal Air Force base in Qatar where he spent around two hours being briefed, before flying back to Britain on Monday afternoon. “He’s been on attachment with the RAF for three months, and learning how the RAF operates across the different aspects of the service. The culmination of that was to see the RAF in theatre.”
The trip “passed without a hitch”, the spokesman said.
Kandahar Airfield is the main air hub for British forces in Afghanistan, making it a high-risk target for the Taliban. Later William took his plane on to the Al Udeid air base in Qatar, the stop-off point for most British troops sent into the war zone. After staying the night on the base, he flew back to Britain with his two co-pilots, arriving on Monday afternoon.
We won’t speculate whether William landed the giant transport plane in Kate Middleton’s paddock on the way.
That more or less concludes his highly successful attachment to the RAF, during which he won his Wings and piloted a variety of aircraft on a range of missions.
Next stop the Royal Navy, beginning in June.
John, do we know how long William will be with the Royal Navy? The DM reports that plans are being made for William to serve on a destroyer in a “hot spot” for the last month. Will this be another 4-month tour, or will it be 6-months? Either way, he should be home for Christmas!
By Evelyn on April 30th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
I’m guessing it will be 4 months, Evelyn. They wouldn’t want to give preference to either of the other services. Although the Navy is the Senior Service.
By John on April 30th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
“Senior Service”– what does that mean? Is it considered “senior” because the Royal Navy has been in existence longer than the RAF?
By Evelyn on April 30th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Yes, the Navy was formed by Alfred the Great and redone under Henry VIII, so predates even a professional Army. The RAF has been going 90 years.
By John on April 30th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
He just went to Afghanistan because he’s jealous of Harry who wasn’t just playing at being soldier.
By ClassyCanuck on April 30th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Well done Prince William, now you can fully appreciate the Force in the Royal Air Force. It’s already been seen as a PR exercise to ‘coveer up’ the Chinook affair but don’t worry your RH your critics would not have the guts to do what you and Prince Harry have done-how your mother would be proud of ‘her boys’.
By Royalist on April 30th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
What’s the chance John of PW using his recently gained flying skills to fly a Royal Navy helicopter from the deck of a warship like his Uncle Andrew?
That would silence his critics.
By Royalist on April 30th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
I would imagine that’s all part of the plan, Royalist.
By John on April 30th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
ClassyCannuck, I do not agree with you. Prince William went to Afghanistan because he is anxious to have the experience of being in the forward areas. He will be C-in-C one day, and I also feel that Prince William wishes to feel solidarity with the military personnel who have sacrificed so much for the welfare of the Kingdom. On the flight back. Prince William brought with him the body of a fallen Lancer, and after landing, the Prince consoled the dead soldier’s parents. The Prince was quoted as saying it was his honor to do so. Prince William is a serving soldier and he has stood his post. To suggest otherwise is to totally misunderstand the Prince.
John, who is this annoying Max Clifford and why should anyone care about his negative opinions about the Royal Family? I find his comments to be quite offensive.
By Gigi on April 30th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Gigi, Max Clifford is the most famous publicist in Britain. The stars go to him when they want to publicize anything. He charges a lot and gets results.
He does poke his nose into other people’s affairs though, especially the Royal Family. But then it’s all part of getting publicity for himself.
By John on April 30th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
I have read that he js going to stay with the Navy only for two months-June and July. But that could be wrong of course.
I think prince William will “survive” the last few weeks’ witch-hunt and come out of it a stronger man. He hasn’t done much to deserve all the negative comments and he will go on doing more and more to prove that he isn’t a bad guy. But I do wish that the press would now stop trying to turn everything he does into some PR stunt or a waste of tax-payers’ money.
By dagga on April 30th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
True dagga, but unfortunately that’s the way the press works. Scandals (or better supposed scandals) sell papers. I’m sure the family of the fallen soldier appreciated William’s visit and I am also convinced that he’ll learn from the recent media episode. He’s doing exactly the right thing and continues his work ignoring all the unwarranted attacks.
By Isana on April 30th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Thank you for the information, John. I cannot abide self-aggrandizing people and I fear Max Clifford has just gone to the top of my list.
By the way, Hello Magazine has wonderful photos of Prince William looking very handsome and “A. J. Squared Away” (as the American military say) in his khakis!
As for the entirely too opinionated Max Clifford, he shall be invited to our RA Gala Teas when elephants roost in trees! I am quite put out!
By Gigi on April 30th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Gigi, let’s hope elephants remain grounded them.
By John on May 1st, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Dagga/Isana, I don’t think the stories hurt William much. It’s not as if he did anything that wasn’t sanctioned by the RAF or actually stole an aircraft.
Pics of him staggering out of bars, however, do damage his reputation with anyone over 25.
By John on May 1st, 2008 at 12:44 pm
The DM and the Sun both report that Autumn Kelly has converted to the Church of England, and was confirmed as an Anglican several months ago. Peter Phillips will not need to renounce his place in the line of succession. The news was confirmed by a Buckingham Palace spokesperson.
By Evelyn on May 1st, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Good move by her. It gets her marriage off to positive start. If Peter had to give up his birthright, it might always rankle with him. So it’s an astute decision.
There’s not a lot of difference between the Anglican and Catholic Churches except in liturgy, especially as the Anglican variety derived from the Catholic and still has a High Church serving “Anglo-Catholics”.
I wonder, though, why we had all that stuff about Peter giving up his place in the succession. More disinformation, or wild guesses by journalists. Makes life complicated.
By John on May 1st, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Well, “giving up the succession” was something for journalists to report on for their newspapers.
The possibility of Peter’s losing his line in the succession may have been a factor in the recent discussions on changing the succession laws. Interesting that those suggestions were dropped by Parliament recently– I wonder if there’s a connection.
By Evelyn on May 1st, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Evelyn, Parliament would have looked at the practicalities of a change. Any changes to the historic constitutional documents cause a lot of heat and anger, but do nothing for the party in power. They are almost always dropped as soon as the implications become clear.
For Labour it would look like an attack on the Monarchy. As they are now 18pc behind the Conservatives, that would not be a good move.
By John on May 1st, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Oh dear, I have found a set of quite funny looking pictures of Kate arriving and leaving Boujis from last night. She is leaving with a man that they claim to have snapped her with before - not sure who he is. And there is one of her kissing Ed Taylor (club promoter) that makes her look just awful. I am a Kate fan but she doesn’t look her usual classy self in these pics really. Such as shame thought she had moved away from such events.
By SuffolkSim on May 1st, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Sim, Kate often goes out with William’s friends. There have also been cases of lookalikes being passed of as her. Which paper or mag did you see these in?
By John on May 1st, 2008 at 1:58 pm
I didn’t see anything wrong in those pictures. I wouldn’t judge anybody by how they look the second they are snapped kissing somebody on the cheek. Not easy to control how you look then, is it? And going to a night club now and then is totally normal for most people and not a shame at all in my opinion.
The guy is obviously somebody she is very comfortable being seen with, and no “secret lover” or anything like that. The paper knows that and isn’t even suggesting any foul play.
By dagga on May 1st, 2008 at 2:03 pm
The big question is will Kate accompany Prince William tonight at the ‘black tie’ Lord Mayor’s Sporting Heroes Dinner at the Guildhall hosted by Lord Coe? PW is patron of the Lord Mayor’s Appeal as was his mother, As John said his invitation includes a GUEST. If PW takes the bull by the horns and brings Kate, the worlds eyes will be on her and what she is wearing. It being a high profile event it’s bound to have media coverage, please please YRH bring Kate with you.
It would bd the next best thing to an engagement.
By Royalist on May 1st, 2008 at 3:14 pm
I’m afraid I don’t think he will take her. It’s too much of a public event. Things like these will have to wait until they are engaged. At least that how it has been in the past. I wouldn’t mind if I was wrong though. Actually, I would really like to be wrong:)
By dagga on May 1st, 2008 at 3:48 pm
I agree with you a little Dagga. I really don’t think they will have to be engaged for them to go out to an event like this. Charles & Camilla, Edward & Sophie, and Zara & Mike all did and do the same thing. But we just have to wait and see. William usually goes to evening events by himself but if would be great to see him bring Kate along. People are already speculating about her appearence with a William lookalike, which can be a friend of theirs or a relative. But you know how people can go way off on things like this.
By Claudius on May 1st, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Claudius, there’s a friend of William who looks so much like him he even played William in a TV film about Diana.
I suspect that Kate’s companion was this man (whose name escapes me). It was probably done as a joke.
By John on May 1st, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I don’t think he looks that much like Prince William actually. Not a real look-a-like, so I don’t think they were trying to fool anybody. At least they didn’t fool me;)
By dagga on May 1st, 2008 at 5:01 pm
He doesn’t look like a William impersonator though he’s blond and handsome. However nothing in the pics indicates that there’s anything going on between them. But then leave it to the tabs to make a big deal out of it.
What I found strange though is that she didn’t wear the friendship ring William gave her. I’m not sure but I hardly ever saw pics of her without it. She even wore it during their “break-up” last year.
By Isana on May 1st, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Well it looks like he didn’t take Kate along, which I’m suprised. He just usually goes alone but it would have been nice to see her go.
By Claudius on May 1st, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Yes it looks like he did not bring her along, but only a few more weeks until the Philips/Kelly wedding when we will see Chelsy and Kate in attendance
Many of the news papers are reporting that PW escorted a fallen solider back from Afghanistan on his return trip.
By jackie Mccoy on May 1st, 2008 at 11:37 pm
I feel very sad for Autumn Kelly. She has surrended her faith, something very important to her according to her mother, due to the archaic requirements of the 1701 Act of Settlement.
From the time he was born, the public has been told Peter Phillips is not Royal, he does not carry out official engagements, and he lives a private life. However, when it comes to marrying a Roman Catholic, all of a sudden Peter becomes very Royal.
Peter is currently 11th in the line of succession and barring a catastrophic event that wipes out the Queen and ten other members of the Royal family, he will never inherit the throne. Nevertheless, Autumn Kelly felt it necessary to give up her faith so Peter could hold onto a birthright that will, most likely, never come to pass.
It is 2008, but nothing has changed. Anyone marrying into the Royal family will never be accepted for who they truly are. Autumn was a papist and that was unacceptable for the Queen’s granddaughter-in-law.
King Edward VIII abdicated the throne of England for the woman he loved, a much greater sacrifice than Peter Phillips would have to make to marry Autumn Kelly.
By Arthur on May 1st, 2008 at 11:55 pm
My dear Arthur, I understand all you say, but let’s try to see both sides of this. As a person who was raised a devout Presbyterian, is descended from the family of John Knox, who founded the Presbyterian Church in Scotland, and later converted to Catholicism, I believe I can see both sides. For one thing, it is in the best interests of all for the bride and groom to share one faith, if possible, as it greatly facilitates rearing children in one faith practice without confusion. Secondly, no one in their right mind ever dreamed prior to the death of Princess Charlotte and her unborn son, that little Princess Victoria of Kent would become Queen Victoria of England. Anything can happen, however farfetched. Princess Anne, the Princess Royal, had a personal agenda in declaring her children to be not Royal, but no matter what she said or says, trueborn grandchildren of the sovereign ARE Royal, just as Royal as their cousins, and lineage to the throne is their birthright. In every relationship and marriage, there must be give and take. Autumn clearly saw that it was in everyone’s best interest if she converted so that she and Peter could worship together, have no complications regarding the faith in which their children would be raised, and suffer no disaffection within British society where anti-Catholic sentiments are not unknown. The Reform Church differs from the Catholic Church chiefly in the number of sacraments (2 as opposed to 7), monthly Communion versus daily Eucharistic Rite, and symbolic elements of Communion versus Transubstantiation. Each person must follow their own conscience in faith practice and I believe Autumn has done so. I feel sure that this is for the best. Her conversion does not change her relationship with God, her belief in Jesus Christ as her Savior and Lord, nor her promises to Trust in God and to serve Him, made for her by her Godparents at her baptism and confirmed by her at her Confirmation.
By Gigi on May 2nd, 2008 at 3:26 am
Such a shame to see William without Kate last night - and instead we get to see pictures of William trying to avoid glances at an older womans hideous cleavage in an unappropriate dress!
I wasn’t trying to say there was anything going on with Kate and this other guy. What I simply meant was that in these photos she didn’t look her composed usual self. And the one where she is kissing Ed Taylor makes her look so thin.
Seems to be nothing in tabs this morning to speak of so hopefully they are not trying to make links where links don’t exist. Sorry for any confusion.
By SuffolkSim on May 2nd, 2008 at 5:48 am
Gigi, I understand what you are saying and you say it so beautifully, but nothing will convince me that the 1701 Act of Settlement wasn’t the driving force behind Autumn’s conversion. I only wish the real reason was so Peter and Autumn could worship together on Sunday and rear future children in the same faith as their parents. However, the question of will Peter or won’t Peter give up his place in the line of succession, to marry a Roman Catholic, has been whispered about since the engagement was announced. Now we know the answer.
Religion is a very personal matter and the decision to convert was Autumn’s to make, not mine. But, it makes my blood boil that Autumn was heavily influenced by an Act that is nothing more than Government sanctioned religious bigotry.
By Arthur on May 2nd, 2008 at 5:55 am
Arthur, I hear what you say, but you really have to look at the history of this to understand the Act of Settlement. In those days the Church of Rome and its support network of Kings around Europe were the authoritarian bigots who demanded absolute obedience from everyone, rather in the way that jihadist Islam treats “unbelievers” today.
The Protestants were the forces of enlightenment then, allowing science and democracy to flourish. Had the Roman Church prevailed we would be different people today, even in America.
I know Rome is not like that now, but it was influenced by the Reformation and became less political and more “user friendly”, if you like.
Good result all round, I think.
The Monarchy here has a long memory, and even our politicians are afraid of reigniting old sores and enmities. That’s why even Labour tends to leave well alone. Some very deep atavistic forces are just below the surface.
All the Christian churches get along very well in England now. The Cardinal and the Archbishop are like blood brothers in many ways and do a lot of joint work together. In some ways the Cardinal is stronger on moral issues and has stood up for all kinds of people that the Anglicans have shied away from. We need both churches here to make a united stand against modern forms of barbarism.
As for Autumn’s decision. I’ve no doubt it was hers. She knew from the beginning what it would entail, so can’t be said to have been forced into it. It means at least their children will be brought up in the faith of their parents and of the Queen.
By John on May 2nd, 2008 at 8:37 am
I’m with Arthur on this one. I do understand Gigi and John’s view that it will make life easier if both parents have the same faith and I have to agree with that notion but I think also that would make Peter less ‘royal’ in a weird sense if he was taken out of the line of succession and I think both he and Autumn didn’t want that.
It was a decision that they made and they were entitled to make it but alot of the reasoning behind it was certainly because of Peter having to renounce his birthright.
John, I can’t agree with your notion that the network of kings in the 1700s were authoritrian bigots solely because they were catholic, they were authoritarian because they were of their time and were dictators with absolute power. Some of them were enlightened some of them weren’t but to suggest that the split was protestant king good - roman catholic ruler bad is a touch simplistic.
And I really can’t condone your comment that ‘Had the Roman Church prevailed we would be different people today, even in America’. What do you mean by prevailed? That the church would be rulers of the ‘free world’ and we would be living in a closed society?
I can’t accept that, we are a secular and enlightened society because of cultural and scientific developments down through the ages and everybody has contributed to that.
By Eliza on May 2nd, 2008 at 11:38 am
I agree, Eliza, but it was the Protestant ethos that opened the way to what we are today, despite a few bigots on that side of things.
The Church eventually moved in that direction too, but in the face of enormous opposition and the use of the inquisition, which still survives today.
Generally, we now have an enlightened relationship between the two churches, which is good, and , as I say, the Cardinal often contributes more to maintaining moral standards than the Archbishop.
By John on May 2nd, 2008 at 12:51 pm
I agree with Arthur on this one. As a catholic I think she didn’t had to renounce her catholic faith, since Peter is not even “royal”.
She will never in a million years be queen, so i don’t get it.
By Marilyn on May 2nd, 2008 at 7:49 pm
My dears, the material point is that the decision has been made, and evidently Autumn Kelly is content with her decision. No one can see inside the heart of another and fully understand the relationship another person has with God and their comfort level regarding faith practice. We must trust that Autumn and Peter made this decision after carefully considering all the options and hope that it will be for the best. Regarding the comments posted here, I have been both a Protestant and a Catholic, which I still am, and I do not criticize either. Both the Catholic Church and the Reform Church have their place in Christianity and are faithful adherents to the Covenant and to the example set by Christ Jesus for us while He was personally present on earth. If there is fault to find, in the past or in the present, it is not because someone was Catholic or Protestant, but because someone was human, with human faults and failings.
By Gigi on May 2nd, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Marilyn, the interesting thing is that had the proposed change to the primogeniture law gone through, Peter would be 5th in line to the Throne. At the time she made the decision, that was very possible.
By John on May 3rd, 2008 at 12:08 pm
As a person of faith who made the prayerful decision nearly 20 years ago to convert to Catholicism from Presbyterianism, I can testify that such a decison is made only after the most grave and thorough heart-searchings. I have no doubt that Amber Kelly did the same, with Peter’s assistance and support. I admire Amber for her courageous and unselfish decision.
By Gigi on May 4th, 2008 at 2:39 am