Statue of dead Prince Harry honours those unable to serve

Discussion in 'Films, Music and All Things Artsy' started by the_boy_syrup, Oct 5, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. the_boy_syrup

    the_boy_syrup LE Book Reviewer

    A statue of a "dead" Prince Harry clutching a cameo locket of his late mother, Princess Diana, and a bloodied flag of Wales is to go on display next week.

    The statue is intended to be seen as a memorial to honour those who are willing but unable to serve the Iraq, artist Daniel Edwards said.

    The memorial, which features the Prince laid out before the Union Jack with pennies placed over his eyes and his head rested on the bible, will go on show at the Trafalgar Hotel in central London next Thursday as part of the Bridge Art Fair.
    The memorial statue of a dead Prince Harry is intended as a tribute to the 'brave at heart' says the artist

    Mr Edwards, who is based in New York, said: "Prince Harry's spirit must have died the day they told him he couldn't serve.
    The memorial features Prince Harry, with his unfired gun still holstered, laid out in front of the Union Jack while a desert vulture perches on his boot.
    The Prince's head is earless, in reference to reports that militia leaders said they planned to send him back to his grandmother "without his ears".

    Full story
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=485721&in_page_id=1770

    Very strange
     
  2. mysteron

    mysteron LE Book Reviewer

    I am afraid that this, like the Diana - Conspiracy or not? Thread is none of our business. This is a serving officer we are talking about here, not just someone who is known in the tabloid gutter press.

    As a serving member of the Armed Forces, his right to as much persec as we can give is the same as anyone else.

    I feel that none of us have an opinion that matters regarding the death of a serving officer's mother other than his family.
     
  3. What are you on?

    This thread is about a tacky, tasteless statue made by some idiot yank 'artist', and has nothing to do with Prince Harry. Inanimate objects don't have persec issues.
     
  4. What a bone thread! And a bone statue!
     
  5. Oh.....and one last morning "have-a-go".........Why does everyone harp on about OPSEC/PERSEC all the f:cking time?!?!?
     
  6. I take it that Mr Edwards is going to angle-grind the ears off later then?
     
  7. Because PERSEC and OPSEC are important and people on ARRSE sometimes blurt out names etc. of serving personnel? :D

    What a stupid statue.
     
  8. I take it that Mr Edwards is going to angle-grind the ears off later then?
     
  9. My name's David Smith, there's millions of us. There's also probably a few thousand of every name combination you can think of! Unless you're giving out names/locations together there's nothing to worry about.
     
  10. Fantastic, why don't you post it again? :roll:

    Oh yes, and perhaps you should read the article too.

     
  11. General Melchett

    General Melchett LE Moderator

    Aye, looking at the picture of the statue in the link I see the following:

    A. It has ears.
    B. The webbing is wrong for a British soldier.
    C. The combats look wrong for a British soldier.
    D. It looks nothing like Prince Harry.

    The sentiment may seem great to all those left wing civvie arrses, but what about a statue for those who can serve and never come back or come back injured and forgotten?

    A Bridge Art Fair too far maybe?

    And by the way Daily Mail, it's UNION FLAG not friggin Union Jack.
     
  12. IMO, HRH should sue the ass off them (artist, organisers, hotel etc..) & give the money to the ABF, SSAFA etc..
    If the artist is a Yank & has displayed the item in the USA, sue them over there as well - money's better! :D
    Can an "artist" do this kind of thing without permission from the victim, especially a serving member of the Armed Forces? Isn't it invasion of privacy or something?? :?
     
  13. mysteron

    mysteron LE Book Reviewer

    I am not disagreeing with you, but you are talking about a serving officer.

    Anything to do with the farce surrounding 'people whose lives were so affected by Princess Diana' - like this idiot is not worthy of comment. Indeed have you thought that Prince Harry may read ARRSE and may not appreciate everyone second guessing how he feels about this sh!te.

    Most people don't like having their lives aired in public and as a member of the Royal Family, he gets more than his fair share. He is a fellow serving member of the Armed Forces. Let's leave it out here.

    That is my point.
     
  14. Surely he's talking about a statue of a serving officer?
     
  15. I've always suspected that he is Sergei
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.