Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Rumor is the Queen didn't want to hurt Harry's feefees and decided that if he can't wear his uniform, then by golly, no one else will, either.
it looks ridiculous is the royal who served in combat is the only one not allowed to wear a uniform
I’m aware of zero countries where the criteria for whether you should wear a uniform is having served in combat. Do you know of any?
most democracies don't really care one way or the other
No. Many countries have protocol regarding which uniforms should be worn (including medals and other regalia) and by whom. It’s usually not a free for all where anything goes.
PP is correct. Even our country has rules regarding wear of the uniform when you are out of service:
e.g., https://www.ar670.com/2018/12/21/wear-of-the-uniform-by-retired-personnel/
+1. But it doesn't really matter in this case because none of them were really in harm's way. I recall that Harry explained that the reason he couldn't be in the middle of the action was because it would make his unit a target and that wouldn't be fair to the other men.
Anonymous wrote:He was quite the dapper dresser![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
rip
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Rumor is the Queen didn't want to hurt Harry's feefees and decided that if he can't wear his uniform, then by golly, no one else will, either.
Wait, without the royal titles and blah de blah Harry is still a veteran - he couldn’t wear a dress uniform just for that?
The U.K. has quite the hilarious rule that actual veterans under the label of Major cannot wear their dress uniforms...ever.
Prince Harry rose to the rank of Captain and the BRF pulled him from service because they knew if he rose one additional level he'd be able to wear his dress uniform in perpetuity. Not to mention outrank William.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Rumor is the Queen didn't want to hurt Harry's feefees and decided that if he can't wear his uniform, then by golly, no one else will, either.
The uniform thing was about Andrew.He asked to wear an admiral's suit and the outrage was uniform. So he wasn't getting what he wanted and on top of that he/Harry would have been the only royals without active military service not in uniform while the rest of the royals looked like idiots dressed up with 4 weeks in marine training between them.
It is just so funny how this uniform thing is so un-uniform..
ripAnonymous wrote:Rumor is the Queen didn't want to hurt Harry's feefees and decided that if he can't wear his uniform, then by golly, no one else will, either.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Rumor is the Queen didn't want to hurt Harry's feefees and decided that if he can't wear his uniform, then by golly, no one else will, either.
it looks ridiculous is the royal who served in combat is the only one not allowed to wear a uniform
I’m aware of zero countries where the criteria for whether you should wear a uniform is having served in combat. Do you know of any?
most democracies don't really care one way or the other
No. Many countries have protocol regarding which uniforms should be worn (including medals and other regalia) and by whom. It’s usually not a free for all where anything goes.
PP is correct. Even our country has rules regarding wear of the uniform when you are out of service:
e.g., https://www.ar670.com/2018/12/21/wear-of-the-uniform-by-retired-personnel/