Category: Let's talk
well, I think the world has gone mad. last night I switched on the news only to hear that some pictures had been published in the sun, for those of you who are not from round here, the sun is a trashy tabloid newspaper, of prince Harry wearing a Nazi outfit at a fancy dress party! and there being outcry that he should apologise for those that he has offended - most of Britain! Now, am i missing something here? or was this not a private party! Even if he is not a royal, should he not be able to do what he wants in private? and also, surely no one would have been offended if that newpsaper hadn't published the photos in the first place! i can almost see them now ... photographer: "here's a top photo of Prince Harry dressed as a Nazi!" editor: "this will offend millions of people! lets publish it!"
this works on a number of different levels though. It's not just the fact of what he's said, which shouldn't make a difference as we're all entitle to the right of free speech, but it addresses the long-standing issue of privacy in the royal family. Some may say they are in a position of high profile so should be scrutinised. I'd say they're individuals with private lives and, for goodness sakes, let them breathe without publishing everything.
You know, I think it would be a bit different if he were a politician who fought to get ellected into a high profile position. Well, even so, he should dress up as he likes at a private party, but the fact of the matter is he was born into this royal family and has never had a choice as to what lifestyle he wanted. I think it's somewhat absurd to have people born into a role like that, more often than not, I bet, one which they never desired in the first place, although you can never know.
There was also news on the bbc about a Frnech far right leader being urged to appologize for saing the Nazi occupation of France wasn't as brutal as history books would have it. I mean, I am not at all for the Nazis or any nonsense like that and strongly condemn those who would want to consider one race or religion above another, but, for goodness sake, people are entitled to their opinions and can't the cocupation of France be discussed objectively, who is to say he didn't have a point, I don't know the tuth of the matter so I won't speculate but I can't see how just saying this should ever spark an outcry, we're a civilized society with freedom of speech, that's our main asset (us being the western countries in general). Let's hope this political correctness factor will die down a bit in the near future.
cheers
-B
Nazi uniform eh? How kinky. Has anyone seen "Ilsa: She-Wolf of the SS"? Anyway, such outcries always make me chuckle. SUrely if you wear a uniform, display a painting in a gallery, praise one of the German philosophers of that time, read Nietszche, drive a Volkswagen, don't like potato latkes, enjoy collecting models of Luftwaffe aircraft, don't have any jewish friends, don't support the state of Israel...why then, hell and tarnation, you must be a Nazi!! right? right?
Hmm, oops, I don't like poatato latkes any more .. never realized I was a nazi .. well wholy pringles
FYI.January the 11th was Holocaust rememberence day and his choice of costume was insensitive in the extreme he should be taken to Auschwitz and given a guided tour of all of that charnal house! Then the idiot should meet survivors and here their horror stories because until you do you haven't heard anything to compare with it!.
Well, it's still popular today, at least in Scandinavia to dress up as a viking. Just a short history reading shows that they were famous for drinking, robbing, raping and pillaging, burning down houses and taking slaves, mostly in Ireland and the British isles. Still it's not considered offsneive, of course it was a long time ago. So, yes, it is insensitive, but my point is that it was a private party and he should feel free to dress whatever way he likes for those without making it onto newspaper front pages all over the world, and I really doubt he had any nazi intensions although I agree with goblin it sounds like an incredibly stupid choice of costume and I, personally, would not find anythig cool or funny about it.
yes goblin if he had gone to a public engagement in this costume I'd agree! but this was a private party for christ sake!
Yeah. He should be able to do what he likes, regardless. Maybe he set out deliberately to be insensitive? Who knows. FOr that matter, how do we know it's really him? The tabloids are not exactly above falsifying a bit of information for the sake of outcry and uproar and good sales. B..I think you are right, although I also think the raping/pillaging reputation of the vikings may have been exagerated a bit. Then again, who didn't rape and pillage back then..honestly..the brits and others did it too in the eastern lands around the same time, and they were all good christians weren't they?
B if you read your history the Northmen were famous for so much more and I for 1 fail to see the correlation between the Northmen and Nazis .
...........................................................
Sugar...So it would be fine for me host a party and invite my Jewish neighbour who lost her parents in Auschwitz and expect her to sit in a room full of eejits shouting Seig Heil! for a final touch I could possibly borrow LL's recording of Hitler in full flow that's acceptable is it... you are beyond a joke!.
dear me, people are letting their passions run away with them heree aren't they? Let's get this in perspective with a few concrete facts: 1. the most popular fancy dress characters in whose style people choose to dress up are Saddam Hussein, Ossama Bin Laden and Hitler. all right, there are some good guys on that list I saw on the news some time last year as well as the bad guys I mentioned, but this shows us that non-royals also dress in this manner. 2. People who go to Madam Toussauds and who choose to be photographed standing next to the wax works are far more interested in being photographed with Saddam Hussein, John earl Haigh (The acid bath murderer), Stalin and co than with Florrence Nightingale and St francis. 3. Prince Harry is a royal, but also a human, and therefore has his right to privacy guaranteed under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. as sugarbaby quite rightly said, this was a private party, and as facts 1 and 2 above show, people do dress as bad characters, so we can't object on the rather superficial grounds that Goblin chooses to base his condemnation on. However, let's add a couple of rurther considerations into the mix: Harry is about to join the army, first of all. secondly, Hitler might be said to command a special place in british history, as the greatest threat this country has known for centuries (Although one might put Napoleon on a similar level in terms of threat to this country's sovereignty). it follows that, Harry's status combined with Hitler's may have made this an unwise choice, and Harry's advisors ought to have known that the gutter press might seek to photograph him as he went about his private business. In view of this I think the most mature response is this: Harry is a young man, and all young men make mistakes, and he was quite possibly badly advised in this matter. So, I think that an apology to anyone he might have offended would do him great credit and say a lot about him. However, any ridiculous sensationalist nonsense about making him withdraw his application from the officer training college at Sandhurst, and other such rubbish, is manifestly wrong. I repeat, it does not follow that just because he was dressed in this way, he was doing wrong. there may be other circumstances which convert such a costume into an act of carelessness, and there is an argument for saying they exist here, but let's not get carried away. Far more important, as far as I am concerned, are the anti-Jewish remarks made by Mike O'Brion, a government minister, in a paper last week, about which you can read in the how can they stoop so low!' topic on the rant board. take a look; it might help get this indiscretion in perspective.
Goblin, yes, granted itis true the Vikings wer famous for a lot more, ship building for instance, discovering Greenland (although on second thought that was probably a mistake, should've left the eskomos there in peace, hunting and enjoying their lifestyle .. now they've been moderinized and have the highest drinking and suicide rate in Europe).
I think there is a huge difference between dressing up as a nazi and host a fully fledged Nazi party honestly, the difference between illuding to something and doing it. I mean, just listen e.g. to death metal lyrics, all about killing and sodomy and incest and war etc etc, not all but a big majority you must admit, Cannibal Corpse for instance, Sodom even has a song called Insest from their Agent Orange album, now can you imagine the horrible pain the types of things they talk about and inflicts on people, still we listen to it, I'm not saying they glorify those things necessarily, but some band actually do. Isn't that, in a way similar to dressing up as a nazi, you get enjoyment out of the suffering in one way or another through expression whether it is the clothes you were or the music you listen to, both are inspired by events in history and are associated with pain of millions. I think both are acceptible, acting on those things or glorifying them is completely different and, yes, for the sake of argument, there is absolutely nothing preventing you legally from hosting a nazi party like you described if you desire to do so and if you want to invite Jewish friends (although I doubt they'd enjoy it) why not? And why just Jews, Russians were killed actually over 20 million of them, the whole war was an attrocity for the majority of Europe regardless of race. Ideally it should be something to remember only to learn from the mistakes made and learn to stop the extremism that leads to the types of events that happened. I still fail to see how dressing up as a Nazi conveys Nazi intensions and at a private party why that would be our concern.
Cheers
-B
the Eskimo's drinkings is hardly due to the Northmen and they left for Greenland becuase of tryranny and oppression.B .The post was ironic ok and I have listened to Cradle of Filth & Marilyn Manson so far their lyrics have not affected me at all ..they just appeal to the darker side of my personality plus they help to put things in perspective...I would never dream of having a party where my guests dressed up like the SS its unthinkable and disgusting I was just trying to get past the frivilous attitude expressed here...some seem to assume as it was a party there's no harm done by HRH chose to dress up as a Nazi at the worst possible time {is there ever a good 1}
furthermore the fact that no one thought to take any kind of preventative action really angers me this stupidity proves how out of touch and insensitive HRH and his entire family are..
Goblin, agreed on that level.
I guess what I just find kind of silly/stupid is to have a royal family. The idea that some people are thrust into the spot light and are supposed to be leading the nation simply by birth right (or birth curse as it were). And the fact that they have to be judged differently. I think growing up like this in public is not necessarily a nice experience and I really don't think the prince was thinking or perhaps he's even rebelling against this constant observation by doing something outrageous. It was stupid, yes, definitely, but no one would really comment on that if he had been a .. well "commoner".
Famous actors/musicians/politicians etc, well, it's different, they earn their way there, this is what they want and once they're in the spot light I feel they should have realized the disadvantages, manemly to deal with the increased responsibility and fame by being role models. Of course it's not necessarily a logical view, but the whole royalty idea I just find very strange and having a president makes a lot more sense to me .. talk about getting off topic .
cheers
-B
Absolutely I have long advocated the abolition of those parasites and have been called a Bolshevik in the process..{shrugs shoulders} I think Harry is rebelling apparently he has a reputation for troublemaking concerning booze in as much as he cant handle it,but he has upset a section of society who have been throught the most horrendous experience and I hate to think of him getting away with it.
ah well there are some that would argue that harry potentially isn't a royal anyway - by all accounts he is the image of James Hewitt! lol
Hey B, cudos to you for referring to "Agent Orange", one of the best thrash albums to come out of Europe. i'd just like to point out thought aht Sodom and Cannibal COrpse have very differnt lyrical approaches. CC is out mostl to shock with their brutal lyrics, like a sick horror film or whathaveyou, whereas Sodom are very much anti-war and so on, and I've no doubt that Tom Angelripper was condemning somethingorother in "Incest", though I haven't read the lyrics in a while..I'l have to check. Ah, now I feel like blasting some hearty teutonic thrash!
Anyway, Goblin, stop jumping the gun. Who said there were any jews at this party? For that matter, do we know anything about the party at all? Though LL probably has the right idea, I can't blame the man for wanting to do something a little risky...it's unfortunate that he's going to be followed around everywhere he goes by cameras and so on merely because of a dubious "birthright".
well ... by all accounts the only reason there was a photo at all was because someone at the party rang a mate of his who was a photographer to come and take a picture of William who was in some crap outfit ... not sure what it was now, but course when the photographer arrived he spotted harry and ... bingo! 100 grand from the sun for a nice picky of hrh dressed in a nazi outfit. It's true, he was bloody stupid, but he's apologised now, i think that should be the end of it
JM, indeed, Agent Orange .. the Fire that Doesn't Burn is a brilliant album, too bad they never got anywhere close with their latter albums. And, yes, I wasn't saying that they celebrated these subjects, their lyrics were actually very good, but just by mentioning those, well, some people might get offended, apparently.
but lets face it everyone can get offended at whatever they like these days. We're not supposed to have the gollywogs any more because they're racist, not supposed to put "black marks" against someone's name, again for fear of upsetting people, big ears in the childrens' programme Noddy might be against disabled people ... i know, lets just not say or do anything for fear of provoking a response!
Although I can't say i agree with dressing up as a Nazi as an expression of individualitty, I kind of feel bad for the guy. He was probably just having some fun and not expecting it to end up as an international headline. (my government teacher brouhgt it up briefly in class today) The apologies that have to be made here should be to Prince Harry for an invasion of his privacy.
Well said my man, well said. :)
Yeah, you know, slavery was bad, the holocost was bad, the vikings raping pillages against Ireland were bad, the crucades, the invasion of Iraq, the Israeli / Palestinian war .. the point is everyone has a grievance and an associated bad memory at almost any symbol and I'm sick and tired of the political correctness that has to follow every single word uttered, I have friends of all races and religions and I never censor myself when talking to them, they know that and they know I couldn't care less what color/etchnicity/religion they are and they sometimes correct me if they feel I'm saying something inapproriate but they never take an offense at what I say. Like black peopl have black skin therefore it makes sense to me to use the word, African Americans .. I mean, sure they originated out of Africa but so did all the people of the planet, I don't find the word "black" at all offensive and I'd never even dream of being rude to a person based on race, only if someone is rude to me shall I treat that person with no respect. :)
Bottomline, I feel we have to break out of this political correctness idea, at least out of the excess with which it seems to permiate our lives at the moment, isn't that what freedom of speech and exrpession is all about isn't that, supposedlythe idea we're crucading into the middle east to promote, I sometimes feel we're not promoting anything as this hardly appears to exist.
Right! I knew that this topic would be hijacked by the anti-royalist lobby before long! Wildebrew I regret to say that I manifestly disagree with your statements about the royal family and Goblin I'm afraid you have been as sensationalist and spurious as normal, demonstrating the analytical skill of a tabloid newspaper. There are some very good reasons for having a royal family rather than a president: for one, the queen is an apolitical head of state, and that cannot be said about Mr Bush. Secondly, this is of great importance when counterbalancing the caprices of whichever political faction are in power at any given time - the queen is a far more experienced head of state than any prime minister or president could hope to be and therefore acts as a useful advisory or warning influence on prime ministers, including Margaret thatcher according to Mrs Thatcher's colleagues. Thirdly, the royals bring in more money to the country than they take out of it through tourism. Fourthly, the army are not answerable to parliament but to Her Majesty, which is an invaluable guard against any future civil war. Fifthly, the monarch is a potential safeguard against any political dictatorship that may come along: in 1935, for instance, King George V was beseeched to consider not dissolving parliament for fear of allowing Oswald Mosely's Fascist party to seize power by force. Now, I'm afraid that to suggest that 'Prince Harry and all his family are out of touch' is stuff of nonsense I'm afraid: I repeat, all young men make mistakes, and sometimes stupid mistakes, but at least Prince Harry hasn't committed crimes like that young Tear-away Ewan Blair did, or indeed the son of foreign secretary Jack Straw. Furthermore, however angry you may feel about what Prince Harry did, it is a fact, is it not, that he has spent the last year in the more impoverished parts of the world helping to improve facilities there? Next, remember that certain members of the royal family aree very much in touch with the hardships and problems of everyday life: Prince charles founded the prince's trust, which helps young people achieve academic and non-academic goals; Princess Ann is president of save the Children and that charity carries out marvellous work and continues its programmes in africa at the same time as helping the Tsunami victims; the queen was a lorry driver during the second world war, and the late queen-mother inspired and lived with Londoners through the blitz. so before we start saying 'Oh what's the point of a royal family?' and 'Off with their heads!' why don't we stop and ask ourselves whether this is now turning into somewhat of a witch-hunt? I respect anyone who is not pro-monarchist, don't get me wrong, but that isn't the issue and it's certainly wrong to jump from a fancy dress party to a spurious and general claim that the royals are out of couch. i notice that those who support this claim conveniently ignored the fact that ordinary people like you and me dress up as bad guys all the time. I've never dressed up as Hitler, but I did dress up as Napoleon once, and I know a good number of other people who have dressed up as dictators and tyrannical rulers, as well as serial killers and gangsters. Are they all out of touch too? I'm happy to debate the merits and demerits of the monarchy, but don't dream up a fictional correlation between fancy dress and constitutional change.
I apologise if for some that post seems confrontational and not to do your contentions justice. However, my view is that this is getting slightly silly now and there is, of course, another paradox to this argument. The paradox is that people on the one hand complain that the royals do not act like ordinary folk and that they are privileged and out of touch. Yet on the other, when Prince Harry misbehaves in a way that was stupid, but far less brainless than a lot of young men of his age, and when he dresses up as a nasty piece of work like ordinary people, at a private party into the bargain, we say he is out of touch. Which way do you want it, folks, for you can't have both?
Michael Howard, the leader of the Conservative party, is calling for Harry ot make a televised apology at a press conference. I hope that he does so, and if he does, I hope that the sensationalists who love it when something like this happens as it adds fuel to their bandwagon will leave him alone. I'm sure he has learnt a lot from this, just as we all did from our mistakes when we were younger.
Well if it was a private party why were there photographers in the place? I mean surely if you have someone of a high profile in a private party shouldn't photographers working for the tabloids be prohibited? Or wait did they gate crash the place? The poor guy has a right to dress as whomever he wants. It was a private affair and he got photographed. I guess now if you're in the public spotlight like that alot shouldn't you watch what you wear anyways? Even if it's for a masscerade party?
Maybe you should, maybe you shouldn't, but if as I think most people believe it was an unwise and rather insensitive choice of costume, we just have to remember that young men make mistakes. I daresay that Prince Harry has learnt a lot from this experience and after all, there are others who have done a lot worse.
SugarBaby the so called apology was cobbled together by some lackey in the palace how naive can you be, do you honestly think that cretin has any intention of apologising he couldn't care less.
LawLord
Interesting observations regarding the royal family. I've never understood its merits but you make some interesting points regarding this issue. I still think myoriginal point is valid that the poor guy is born into a world that he may not at all choose to live in and wants to rebel against and I think it's not an easy life to deal with. Of course it's really just like the rest of us, some have poor parents, some have parents with drinking problems, but most of us can work our way out of things and make our own way in life whereas his royal blessing/curse is pretty much a mandatory life long thing. To me that seems kind of silly but, as you pointed out, having monarchy actually may have its political benefits and I certainly dn't have many nice things to say about president Bush although it should be noted that, in my view, the idea of a president is not bad but he has way too much political power (or his position I shoould say) in e.g. Iceland and Finalnd the persident only has the power to refuse to sign law passed by parliament which forces it into a national vote. And I think the transition in the discussion is somewhat logical, surely these two things are not related but I think this case just brings up the question of monarchy, its merits and problems and this would be as good a discussion as any other to address that issue.
Cheers
-B
I'm afraid that once again I disagree. I can't see how this has anything to do with the merits and demerits of the monarchy, just as i can't see how the misdeeds of Ewan Blair, the prime minister's son, have anything to do with whether the prime minister is fit to hold office. I take your point to an extent about royals born into a world they might not like very much. However, firstly I don't thik that this is Harry's attitude, and secondly, I don't see what he has done as an act of rebellion against the world he is born into. even if it were, it wouldn't in itself be a reason for getting rid of the royal family. Goblin it's a little unjust to calle Prince Harry a Crettin, there is no basis upon which you can say that he doesn't give a damn. he is not being allowed to apologise on television.
Well, here is the reasoning that led me to the question of the monarchy.
The prince decides to dress up in a "silly" costume, he ends up on front pages all over the world. If he were not a part of the royal family no one wuld have noticed. Now, did he choose to be part of the royal family so is he morally responsible for maintaining the royal image .. well, yes and no, I think if he had specifically asked to be who he is he would have more of a moral obligation to "behave himself" as it is it is basically thrust on him by "birth right" and therefore this is not something that he persued or particuarly wanted (whether he likes to be in this family or not I cannot say) so that led me to the question of whether it's right or what implications it has to have duties or jobs that are inhertied through birth right alone, no merits or no competiotion, and monarchy is basically the only thing I can think of that falls under this category.
Hence my broadening of the discussion. One does not directly has to do with the other but one creates an opportunity to bring up a separate question. Strictly speaking it should have been posted in another topic but there is a fairly logical chain of thought from one to the other.
Look he can't help it he's just a bit of a twerp like the rest of the Royals, not a cretin though, wouldn't go that far....
wildebrew I would almost accept that reasoning were it not for the following: you seem to connect choise with obligations. Obligations, you seem to suggest, are based on the voluntary assumption thereof. So it is with contracts and indeed with many obligations. However, we all have obligations that we do not assume. The prime minister's wife has a duty to behave in a certain way, even if that duty is not express, and yet she does not assume that duty voluntarily unless she married the prime minister after he became prime minister, which she didn't. In the wider world, we all come under obligations to look after relatives or children, sometimes in involuntary circumstances. Yet they are still as much obligations as are those assumed voluntarily, and we are rightly condemned for not adhering to them. So, you are right in saying that the birth of Prince Harry into the Royal family is in a sense unique in immediately giving rise to constitutional obligations - obligations which, of course, are in suspense during the prince's minority - but that argument only avails you if the notion of obligation is dependent on a voluntary act before one comes under the obligation. Quite clearly, I suggest, it does not, as we all come under moral and other types of obligation without offering any voluntary act on our part. so the disparity you point to between Harry's situation as a royal, and the way the rest of the world of obligations works, is not as striking as it might first seem.
And I should add that our birth does influence the nature of obligations incumbent on us. quite apart from the family we are born into, there is the state we are born into as well. Very very few people are stateless, and different states impose different obligations of course. To do something about thos obligations consequent on our rirth, we must act to change the situation by, perhaps, emigrating. Prince Harry can also do the same; his royal status is not permanent and may be removed or disclaimed.
LL
Good points. Regarding your prior post though, I think there is a slight difference between prince Harry's situation and what we're terming "obligations" here. Even if we have the obligation to e.g. adapt relatives or their children during time of tgedy it is still a morale/conscious choice or act to do so and we have the option of opting out. It would be failing a close relative and it would be inhumane etc but it is still an action that we are entitled to. Same with being e.g. a wife of a politician. Supposedly they make the decission together that he runs for a position or seat in parliament, thereby she is, in a way, committing to her obligation, she could encourage her husband not to run or express her dissatisfaction with it. Granted marrying a politician is already at least a partial declaration of desire to go along with his career plans but then the marriage in the first lace is also an informed choice and a conscious decission. In the prince's case he never had the choice of assuming the role/duty that he was born into. I don't know how easy it is for him to disown those rights, I would imagine it is possible but it would be a huge issue for the family and I'm sure would send shock waves through the tabloids all over the world. But, I still think being born into such a socially high profile role is interesting and quite unique toroyalty. Even e.g. John Lennon's Son managed to escape the spot light attention for the most part and most pop star and actor kids actually apparently manage to escape the media as well for the most part.
But, all that being said, of course you're right in that we are born into a life style, we don't choose our parents jobs or income (jobs might require them to travel a bit and for you, as their child, to change schools every few years) problems in the family are not your fault when you're initially born into it, however being a world celebrity from birth, I think, is very unique. :) And not to repeat myself too often I shall quit this post
cheers
-B
is it really a conscious choice when the forces of compulsion are so overwhelming as to act as an overbearing influence on the will? There is a degree of uniqueness to Prince Harry's situation, but I think you strain the notion of conscious choice a little too far in this instance. In any event, the conscious choice thesis does not treat the cases of the prime minister's son, and the fact that one can choose not to honour obligations doesn't have any bearing on their creation in any case.