Harry's recent misstep

[wendy]

The news is full of articles concerning Prince Harry's most recently reported gaffe; i.e. calling a Pakistani fellow solider a "P***".

Mind you, this was recorded on a private video made three years ago. It seems like someone held it long enough and then leaked it at a "good" time just like the Squidgy tapes in the early 90's.

Harry seems to be impetuous and naiive and those two factors combine to get him into a pile of trouble. Yes, a member of the royal family should show respect to all cultures. Absolutely. But I personally feel that they're overrating the import of a three year old tape. Let's give him some credit for maturing since then!

Of course his ill-conceived Nazi costume of several years ago has also been mentioned as further evidence of his "insensitivity". The republicans are having a heyday with this seeming proof that the royal family are not worth having.

Does anyone have a comment concerning this topic?

[vittoria]

I agree, wendy, that a three-year-old tape probably isn't reflective of Prince Harry's views now (I hope it is not), though I'm not sure that the release of the tape was entirely "unfair." I am not a great proponent of "political correctness," but the reality is that the members of the royal family live in a very insular, hothouse atmosphere, and it's probably salutary for them to realize that what they say -- what anyone says -- matters, when it comes to ethnic/minority sensitivities. Teenagers and early 20-somethings do and say stupid things, we all know that. However, most of them -- if they're raised well, are well-educated, or have intelligent friends and relatives -- are brought up short when they behave badly. It doesn't hurt for Harry to realize that his cavalier, off-the-cuff remarks may get him into trouble, no matter how long ago they were made. He is under more scrutiny than his fellow soldiers, and he needs to accept that.

In other words, in return for great privilege, there are great obligations. That is, after all, the concept behind "noblesse oblige," which has gotten a bad rap. My guess is that Prince Harry has grown up a great deal since this tape was made, but it won't kill him to be reminded that he can't shoot his mouth off as his grandfather has so frequently done. The world has changed, whether we like it or not, and we must all -- royals, too -- adjust.

And if U.K. royals don't adjust, if they don't respectfully recognize that their constituents no longer comprise merely the Anglo-Saxon descendants of historical myth and preference, then what is the point of them, beyond pretty ceremonies and some focus for history, tradition, and patriotism?

[sullyo]

And now Prince Charles is in the news for his "sooty " remark.

[Cinderella]

Oh dear, time to update the news page again... I suppose I should thank them for keeping me so busy!

[paulchen]

OK, I agree that Prince Harry was maybe "ill-advised". We all know what happened.

However, what offends me more is the hypochracy of the press. If Prince Harry's remarks were so offensive why were they splashed on the front pages of every newspaper and reported on every news programme on radio and TV, every hour, on the hour, for days on end? And as for trying to make a story out of Prince Charles's nickname for a friend when that is everyone's nickname for him, words just fail me.

[telmaH]

We have all including the Crown been called things not agreed with.

As a member of a coalition completing a mission for peace under much pressure and strain does not make this right.

Freedom of expression and speech is what it is riddled from time to time with misunderstanding.

Moving forward.

Peace,

E-T

[vittoria]

Paulchen, I am a newspaper child. It is the JOB of the press to splash news, however trivial, on the front pages of newspapers. In the U.K., where the royals have no other function but to represent the country symbolically (let's face it; absolute monarchical rule died in the 17th century), what do you expect the press to do? The tabloid reporters and editors, and even the broadsheet commentators, are always looking for "royal stories." That's business, from their point of view; it sells papers. Indeed, some U.K. editors have admitted that if a good royal story doesn't exist, they will simply make one up.

Here in the U.S., we find this attitude appalling -- we don't have many real equivalents of the British tabloids, since here, "tabloid" usually refers to format, not content. Still, offensive remarks, racial epithets, made by royals really are stories, even in the U.S., where Americans are considerably less interested in the British royals than many Brits assume.

The Brits are paying taxes to support several members of the royal family and their privileged lifestyle. I suspect that the many British citizens of Pakistani ancestry were not thrilled by Prince Harry's late-adolescent stupidity, so I cannot imagine, Paulchen, why you think that the media should have downplayed the story.

Nor should they have been.

[briar69rose]

hmm and here i thought this ws new news...........I guess 3 years ago is quite some time ago

[paulchen]

vittoria: I completely missed this response to my entry and perhaps it would have been a good thing if I hadn't noticed it. I'm sorry Vittoria but you completely miss the point I was making.

OK, the press and media have a job to do. But, if “Society” finds what HRH Prince Harry or anyone within or outside any Royal Family says is so bad [rightly or wrongly], why do the press and media get away with repeating those same offensive words, etc verbatim and ad nausea?

No, I am not thrilled by Prince Harry's late-adolescent stupidity. But neither, are the many British citizens of Pakistani ancestry [amongst my friends and colleagues] thrilled at having the same offensive words repeated every hour, on the hour by the media.

As for “The Brits [sic] are paying taxes to support several members of the royal family and their privileged lifestyle”, please be aware that HM The Queen hands over more money from the Crown Estates to the Treasury than she receives back from the Government in the form of the Civil List which finances the Royal Family as a “Firm”. She was also happily persuaded by the Government to pay income tax. Her private income is as much her business as any other business person. Please also be aware that the increase in The Prince of Wales’s expenses, a recent non-story in the press and media, are on record as being as a direct result of the Government’s requirements of him as an Ambassador for this country at a time when many professional men would be contemplating retirement. And all this against the background of British Members of Parliament fiddling expenses for non-existent mortgages and irrelevant duck-houses. As a British taxpayer myself I resent more that my money is being mishandled by a Government whose Leader, and therefore our Prime Minister, is in an electable position and who we haven’t even elected.

[Sorry Cinderella, but I just thought I ought to answer Vittoria’s assertions.]

[Cinderella]

No need to apologize, Paulchen. I'm glad you shared your views.

Added: I guess I should clarify by saying that, of course, political arguments aren't allowed on the board. But people can't always agree on everything, so it's mostly a matter of tone. As always, I'm grateful to board members for helping to keep things polite and pleasant around here.

[briar69rose]

Sometimes we say things that we dont realize were saying