I don’t really care about Prince Harry’s doing, except in how they affect others: there is some push to ban swastikas in Europe.
Now, I don’t know how far they will get with the proposal, but the Prince’s action is a pretty clear example of parody. Not to say that the rules of free speech are the same in the EU as in America, but this is one example where I think they should be. No one should be banned from exercising the right to whatever emblem they want to choose for themselves. If anything, it will help to out the troublemakers if they take themselves seriously.
If you read that article I posted you will see that since coming back from Africa he seems to be running wild and out of control. Also I have the impression sometimes that this type of meeting with Aids victims is just a photo opportunity to get him some good publicity. For instance last week he and his brother spent a day packing Red Cross parcels for the Asian disaster. All the press and TV stations were there to report on this event. What he should have done was go there and worked with no publicity and not just for a day but for a couple of weeks at least.
Taking inspiration from Miller, how do you know that he doesn’t do charitable work away from reporters? You’ve put him in a Catch-22. If reporters show up, he’s an attention whore. If they don’t, he’s up to no good.
All I can add is that when Harry on his own he might be a nice , well behaved guy. His troubles seem to arise when he gets involved in those upper-class morons mentioned in the article. His father (and probably other senior members of his family) should have been more involved in his upbringing. Perhaps when he finally joins the army in March he will see the error of his ways and become a nicer person.
Actually, the American system is quite an anomaly, given that presidents don’t generally have executive powers: for irony fans, the British monarchy is more like a hereditary presidency, while the American President is more akin to an elected “old school” monarch.
This is reflected in Hollywood movies such as Airforce One and Independence Day, in which the President assumes a mythic “warrior-king” role: in Britain, where the Prime Minister is regarded as purely an elected official, any movie attempting to depict him or her as an action hero would be hooted off the screen.
As for why the monarchy is still in place - well, for all its perceived inequalities, it works: the English had the sense to get their revolution over with in the 17th century, realise it didn’t work, and reinstate a monarchy checked by an elected parliament, which, compared with the rest of Europe {and indeed America: let’s not forget the Civil War}, has been a model of stability.
My head says “Republic”, but my gut feeling says “Monarchy”: you don’t lightly tamper with a system which has worked, despite all unfairnesses and inconsistencies, for over three hundred years. What Harry did was stupid and tasteless and he deserves a clout around the ear for it, but it doesn’t really matter: hell, his grandfather Prince Phillip {the Queen’s husband, lest we forget} was born with his foot in his mouth, and it hasn’t affected the functioning of the monarchy one iota.
Except he is going to Sandhurst , the officer training academy. So he will not be a private , but a Junior-Lieutenant. Never mind , it was a good joke.
