Ship of Fools: Prince Harry

Thread: Prince Harry Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023392

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

The internet is awash with pictures of a naked Harry cavorting in a Las Vegas hotel.

The British press refuses to print pictures.

And public opinion seems to be on Harry's side. A Prince merely letting off steam.

Nowhere have I seen or heard any comment on the morality of what he did.

So what do Shipmates think?

Is is behaviour acceptable, excusable or immoral?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Don't give a toss about what he did. Just for the lack of foresight or sense of propriety. Not surprised, after all, he is the one who wore the Nazi uniform.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

It's that word cavorting....... Covers a multitude of sins!

[Killing me]

Ian J.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

I always find it outrageous whenever anyone carries on like a member of Congress...

--Tom Clune

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

A prince has genitals. Wooo.

He was in a private party, in his room. As long as he doesn't do anything with lasting consequences - like getting someone pregnant - I don't give a toss what he gets up to. If he wants to cavort naked, then so what? I am sure he is not the first military person to have cavorted naked.

I think the real issues are a) that we actually see that the royals are no different to anyone else and b) that someone who was invited to a private party with a distinguished guest should take photos and sell them. I think that is bad etiquette.

I think he will probably gain respect in the UK rather than anything else.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

We don't actually know what he did of course. But I was never under the illusion that Prince Harry was likely to preserve his virginity until wedlock, and he's not married. Therefore my shock is limited.

I think he should probably choose his friends a bit more carefully.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
It's that word cavorting....... Covers a multitude of sins!

Ian J.

As Laura said elsewhere,"There should be more cavorting in the world."

My comment was "strip billiards sounds kinda fun."

Other than this being yet one more thing Harry's friends are bound to ride him about till the end of time, I don't get the fuss.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
[QB
I think he should probably choose his friends a bit more carefully. [/QB]

If you'll excuse the pun ...

That's about the size of it.

[As an issue, I mean]

[ 23. August 2012, 19:41: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
The British press refuses to print pictures.

There's one on the front page of today's Sun. It's the only paper that ran any of them.

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :

I think it is so sad that he should behave in this way, after all that his sainted mother, Diana Princess of Wales and Queen of hearts(PBUH) sacrificed to ensure he was brought up correctly. She must be turning in her flower-strewn island grave.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

I should have thought , considering the ease with which photos can now be taken, Prince Harry knew full well the possible outcome of his frivolity .

He's got away with it again , but I don't think this Royal wild card will be allowed too many more indiscretions without being called to account.

As it stands young Harry has supplied satirists with new material and no-one's that bothered.
Strip-billiards ? Hmmm , that's a new one on me [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

What exactly are we criticizing him for in this case ? Being naked ? Playing strip billiards ? Or our assumption that he also had sex ?

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

I think what he used as a cue stick matters a great deal.

That, and whether or not he chalked the tip before shooting.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
What exactly are we criticizing him for in this case ?

Getting caught?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I think what he used as a cue stick matters a great deal.

That, and whether or not he chalked the tip before shooting.

See? That's the kind of thing he's going to hear for the next five or six weeks...

[ 23. August 2012, 20:14: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

I like Harry, and I'll always remember the dignified way he walked with his brother and dad at his mum's funeral. But he can be a bit of a twit sometimes!

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

I have a soft spot for Harry. He seems fun and human (unlike William...who seems to thirty-going-on-sixty-five bless'em). Even if one holds to a reasonably conservative sexual ethic, a few consenting adults stripping off in the privacy of their hotel suite is hardly the sin of the century. Didn't C. S. Lewis say somewhere that sexual sin was the least worst form of sinfulness (obviously he was talking about sex outside marriage rather than abuse)

[ 23. August 2012, 20:29: Message edited by: Yerevan ]

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

PS I think I probably committed a bigger sin by hurrying off to google the pics the minute I heard about them [Razz]

(Ok I may have a *little* crush on Harry)

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

He hasn't done anything out of line with past royal behaviour.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

His only crime has been naïvté, which is not wholly unbecoming in a young man.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

Yes the House of Windsor, or Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Hannover-yadda-yadda as it was in the good old days, has always alternated wildly between staidness (Victoria, George III and IV - V, Prince William) and party-party-party (Edward VII, George IV, the-one-who-abdicated, Prince Harry). That, bug eyes and not being very bright are pretty much the family's definiting characteristics.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

It seems that his antics are being excused as "letting off steam" befoe a new posting.

There's a whiff of hypocrisy in the reaction: picture a single mother from a run down estate in the same circumstances - the approbrium from the Daily Toilet papers would be along the lines of "Feckless chavs scum etc."

Most employment contracts now have a clause of "conduct" which, if any behaviour is deemed demaning or disrespectful to the employer, renders the individual liable to discipline for misconduct or gross misconduct. Picture a teacher from Markland High School caught in the same way wearing the school tie and plastered over facebook. Good bye career.

Why is Harry Battenburg treated differently? He's not exactly a good advert for the armed forces.

As teachers used to say "You've let me down, you've let the school down, you've let the head down and you've let yourself down."

Not exactly the brightest is he, doing this stuff with girls he's just met in front of someone with a camera. Aha I forgot: his 2 A levels aren't his at all... bright doesn't come into it.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

I've never been a huge fan of Harry's but I think the fuss is pathetic. It represents huge progress on his part (no uniform). And what, if anything, is actually wrong with cavorting naked in a private room with other consenting adults?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I think that what people do in private hotel rooms is their own business. How would you like someone with a camera photographing your cavorting Shamwari?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
His only crime has been naïvté, which is not wholly unbecoming in a young man.

Naive? He is 28 - if he's that bad then he's in no fit state to lead men or fly an aircraft.

He's just a thicko with what few brains he has living in hbis undertpants. Level of responsibility - see previous paragraph.

[ 23. August 2012, 20:55: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

What is inexcusable??

Eta: That question was added because the previous post originally suggested that what Harry did was inexcusable.

[ 23. August 2012, 20:57: Message edited by: QLib ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think that what people do in private hotel rooms is their own business. How would you like someone with a camera photographing your cavorting Shamwari?

It is their own business to a certain extent but not when you make claims for sainthood at other times (cue orphans etc).

He's just the kind of guy on the razz who is found in every english town on a friday or saturday night. Difference being is that if they behaved like that it'd be cause for condemnation not an opportunity to say "Ah there he goes - the liddle nudie princie letting his hair down."

Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :

When does Harry claim sainthood? He does stuff but I'm not aware he wants me to think he is special. He was born to a way of life and lives it.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

Harry has never to my knowledge claimed to be a saint, nor has anyone else claimed it for him. How would prancing around naked prevent you caring about orphans anyway?

And he was not misbehaving in a public place.

[X-posted with The Rogue]

[ 23. August 2012, 21:06: Message edited by: QLib ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

I think Prince Harry's behaviour is shocking and inexcusable, particularly coming so soon after he represented the Queen at the Closing Ceremony of the Olympic Games.

He should be aware that, whether he likes it or not, when he goes abroad he is representing his country. I don't begrudge him playing sport when abroad - even a niche one such as strip billiards - but as a representative of his country I expect to win. I can only surmise that given the state of his undress he lost badly. Shocking.

(Though I also think he won in ways many men can only dream of.)

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :

Oh, honestly. He's a doofus, for sure, but at least he wasn't wearing a Nazi uniform. More cavorting! More cavorting!

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
And what, if anything, is actually wrong with cavorting naked in a private room with other consenting adults?

What is wrong is that he didn't take precautions to ensure he couldn't be photographed!

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
How would prancing around naked prevent you caring about orphans anyway?

Exactly.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
What is wrong is that he didn't take precautions to ensure he couldn't be photographed!

A little difficult in a world where everyone carries mobile phones. Though actually, maybe getting everybody naked was a ploy to try and stop people secretly wielding mobiles.

[ 23. August 2012, 21:23: Message edited by: QLib ]

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Oh, honestly. He's a doofus, for sure, but at least he wasn't wearing a Nazi uniform.

Perhaps on this occasion, it would have been better if he had been!

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Harry has never to my knowledge claimed to be a saint, nor has anyone else claimed it for him. How would prancing around naked prevent you caring about orphans anyway?

And he was not misbehaving in a public place.

[X-posted with The Rogue]

No he hasn't made the claim but his "publicity" has implied as much. We had been fed a diet of "nice young man" to counterbalance the nazi uniform debacle.

No he wasn't misbehaving in a public place but it has become public and made him (and by extendion his family and his nation) a laughing stock. For goodness sake who wants to be ruled by a dynasty who can put their crown jewels into ONE cupped hand?

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Oh, honestly. He's a doofus, for sure, but at least he wasn't wearing a Nazi uniform.
Perhaps on this occasion, it would have been better if he had been!

Ha, ha. Let's assume you didn't really meant that, because that would be indicative of a pretty sick sense of values.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
And what, if anything, is actually wrong with cavorting naked in a private room with other consenting adults?
What is wrong is that he didn't take precautions to ensure he couldn't be photographed!

What, he wasn't wearing a full body condom????????

The Royal protection squad didn't rise to the occasion there, then.

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :

It's at times like this that we republicans can permit themselves a bit of a snigger, an "I told you so", and a "who cares anyway?" But I'm sure that if we did, the scabrous Daily Mail and its allies would be telling us how awful we were for insulting Royalty, while simultaneously squeezing every detail of the events into the public arena, and while simultaneously also vilifying those who publish the pictures. Oh the, crapulent fetid nonsense of the UK media's obsession with the anachronistic institution called monarchy...

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
It's at times like this that we republicans can permit themselves a bit of a snigger

I think we monarchists can, too.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
How would prancing around naked prevent you caring about orphans anyway?

Exactly.

Nothing - except when it destroys a carefully cultivated image of sainthood - a nice boy who spents quiet evenings at home.

Frankly his antics only prompt an interest when they are disproportionately excused when, for other people, they'd result in severe criticism not silly grins (usual TV respponse to a Buck House family story).

What kind of example does this give to disadvantaged children in this inner city council estate? What's he going to do next - photocopy his bottom for a laugh? Wear a funny uniform? Make inappropriate racial remarks?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
It's at times like this that we republicans can permit themselves a bit of a snigger, an "I told you so", and a "who cares anyway?" But I'm sure that if we did, the scabrous Daily Mail and its allies would be telling us how awful we were for insulting Royalty, while simultaneously squeezing every detail of the events into the public arena, and while simultaneously also vilifying those who publish the pictures. Oh the, crapulent fetid nonsense of the UK media's obsession with the anachronistic institution called monarchy...

Careful pete - u know what the senior manager did to you last time!

Fetid ..... isn't that something in the drains???

Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :

I'm not aware of any carefully cultivated image of Harry's. I am British and live in Britain so have I had my eyes closed for the last few years?

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :

Most of the journalists who write about this stuff inhabit the gutters and the drains...

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
I'm not aware of any carefully cultivated image of Harry's. I am British and live in Britain so have I had my eyes closed for the last few years?

That's how I see it with, shall we say, a little knowledge of the 4th estate. YMMV and obviously does - but hey, that's fine. It's your truth, not mine.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

As somebody said up-thread it is the sort of behaviour that many young men get up to on a night out. While it may not be the sort of behaviour we like to see. I don’t see any difference with Harry doing it to any other young man doing it. He is single, on holiday, and it was done in private.

I have too many youthful indiscretions myself, to be holier than though about it – I’m just grateful that there were no mobile phones back then, strip poker anybody [Devil]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Most of the journalists who write about this stuff inhabit the gutters and the drains...

Yes.... I do wonder what they do the rest of the time. As if a lot of us really care -- it doesn't exactly impact the lives of people around me at the junction of 2 very large social housing complexes .... holiday for them is a day at Weston if they are lucky.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
He is single, on holiday, and it was done in private.

But in front of someone who had a camera and who he allowed to photograph him (One can only imagine the reason - perhaps to move things on a step).

This is the issue: a lack of wisdom, control and poor decision making. Not the kind of stuff we want in our officers is it.

Anyway presumably Charles wanted it stopped (and got it stopped - there's another question) because it involved the wrong "type" of people. It's usually members of their own "set" who can be relied on not to talk or servants for the if past rumours are correct.

[ 23. August 2012, 21:50: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
I'm not aware of any carefully cultivated image of Harry's. I am British and live in Britain so have I had my eyes closed for the last few years?

Thank you for that, I thought I was going buggy for a sec.

And anyway, what is the implication of "think of the role model", only saintly perfect people can speak up for kids? As someone in the kid field, I want everyone who has vocal chords speaking up for kids.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
I have too many youthful indiscretions myself, to be holier than though about it

Yes and we have to live with it, don't we. What makes him different in not working through the consequences of stupid behaviour? He's hardly youthful at 28 is he -- but since a few people on here keep going on about it, let's accept he is naive and ask why at 28 he is still doing such things and whether that makes him competant enough to lead others. When will he grow up?

[ 23. August 2012, 21:53: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
I'm not aware of any carefully cultivated image of Harry's. I am British and live in Britain so have I had my eyes closed for the last few years?
Thank you for that, I thought I was going buggy for a sec.

And anyway, what is the implication of "think of the role model", only saintly perfect people can speak up for kids? As someone in the kid field, I want everyone who has vocal chords speaking up for kids.

No - but with someone who works with children and/or vulnerable people, you might appreciate the safeguarding/child protection aspects of someone who behaves like that.

Evidence of that kind of behaviour would be automatic disqualifier for most school posts even if no offence was committed. You'd question decision making skills, maturity, response to peer pressure to name a few.

Yes it was private but made photographically public. At the very least it demonstrates a lack of maturity that isn't becoming for a children's role model.

You might like to try and turn it round and use it as an example of someone who done something they regret and now apologises for -- we'll just have to wait for H to do it won't we. I'm not holding my breath though.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
This is the issue: a lack of wisdom, control and poor decision making. Not the kind of stuff we want in our officers is it.

If we sacked every officer who let his hair down a bit too much at a party, I suspect that we'd have to disband the army.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
This is the issue: a lack of wisdom, control and poor decision making. Not the kind of stuff we want in our officers is it.

If we sacked every officer who let his hair down a bit too much at a party, I suspect that we'd have to disband the army.

And certainly the entire navy!

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
This is the issue: a lack of wisdom, control and poor decision making. Not the kind of stuff we want in our officers is it.

If we sacked every officer who let his hair down a bit too much at a party, I suspect that we'd have to disband the army.

How many of them do it in front of a photographer? The "hair down" bit isn't the issue - it's the circumstances and the lack of observation.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

In this day and age of mobile phones, everybody who lets their hair down, is doing it in front of a camera.

And while I'm not standing up for what Harry did - I don't see it as any different to any other person doing something daft on holiday.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
In this day and age of mobile phones, everybody who lets their hair down, is doing it in front of a camera.

And while I'm not standing up for what Harry did - I don't see it as any different to any other person doing something daft on holiday.

We're not all in the public eye and we're not all tagged by the media. A lot of people don't do daft stuff but still get pilloried - I'm helping a lot of them everyday.

As I've said up post is's not so much the action as the unseemingly bias and partiality in harry's favour that sticks. Money and position talks - but it shouldn't.

Take the example Duke of Edinburgh - he gets a very quick entree for treatment, I've been with people waiting weeks for the same thing. Wrong and sickening.

Mary Archer has an op for bladder cancer, she is seen and has the op in a week on the NHS. Great -she talks about it to the Times. Trouble is other people wait 3 months for the same treatment from the same surgeon.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I think what he used as a cue stick matters a great deal.

That, and whether or not he chalked the tip before shooting.
See? That's the kind of thing he's going to hear for the next five or six weeks...

Hey. Some things just have to be said.

Posted by Mr Tambourine Man (# 15361) on :

I've little time for the monarchy but it sickens me that for all people's criticism of the press for their harassment of Diana, they lap up the same intrusiveness when it comes to her sons.

Interestingly enough, when I first heard the story on the radio it was immediately after a story about Jordanian athletes being charged with voyeurism...

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

The only feeling this affair (snigger) provokes in me is intense gratitude that we can get all het up about it instead of something horrible that could've happened to drown it out, but didn't. Slow news days are always a cause for rejoicing.

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
I think it is so sad that he should behave in this way, after all that his sainted mother, Diana Princess of Wales and Queen of hearts(PBUH) sacrificed to ensure he was brought up correctly. She must be turning in her flower-strewn island grave.

I seem to recall that Diana was no prude and liked to party.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
No - but with someone who works with children and/or vulnerable people, you might appreciate the safeguarding/child protection aspects of someone who behaves like that.

Evidence of that kind of behaviour would be automatic disqualifier for most school posts even if no offence was committed.

Really? 3/4 of the people in my state would never get a teaching job, if that were the case. Since the behavior in question is simply having fairly vanilla sex with other consenting adults.

I don't know how to break this to you, but I can think of several people of both genders, who I have worked with, who are very likely candidates for a nekkid billiard party. (Big Ups to M. And C, at ___ ___ Preschool) With other adults.And I can't think of one I would have had a problem with babysitting my nephew.

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:

[/QUOTE]And certainly the entire navy! [/QUOTE]

Heard that. [Overused]

[ 23. August 2012, 22:52: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Harry has never to my knowledge claimed to be a saint, nor has anyone else claimed it for him. How would prancing around naked prevent you caring about orphans anyway?

And he was not misbehaving in a public place.

[X-posted with The Rogue]
No he hasn't made the claim but his "publicity" has implied as much. We had been fed a diet of "nice young man" to counterbalance the nazi uniform debacle.

No he wasn't misbehaving in a public place but it has become public and made him (and by extendion his family and his nation) a laughing stock. For goodness sake who wants to be ruled by a dynasty who can put their crown jewels into ONE cupped hand?

EM - you have just got yourself another hell-call.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

Ah, yes, "a lack of wisdom, control and poor decision making," in places where strangers are around and cameras are likely to be. All while people rush to the defense siting youth, naivity, and kindness to orphans, in spite of the fact that it's is a full grown adult whose main role in life is to represent the country well.

He's just like his mum then, isn't he?

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

I miss Princess Margaret.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

Me too. She was a class act who used her own hands to cover the nakedness of her male friends. [Votive]

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Before the Victorian era and the promotion of the Royal Family as the ideal example of good British Christian values, few people expected the Royals to be paragons of moral virtue. Good Charles II was well known for his multiple affairs and we all know Henry VIII's luck with women.

Harry's recent incident is tame compared to the incident where he was photographed wearing a Nazi uniform. I'm more amazed by his chutzpah at thinking he could outswim American gold medalist Ryan Lochte in Las Vegas than the photos of him in his birthday suit.

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :

Surely this offsets the Nazi uniform incident though -- getting snapped with a communist star stuck to his bum?

[ 24. August 2012, 01:11: Message edited by: kankucho ]

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

He's having fun and enjoying life. If you're not the heir but the spare why not say wtf? He probably had more fun than most of us that night.

Posted by Matariki (# 14380) on :

Big deal! What is particularly craven is the British press towing the line; not that it would have made me buy a paper anyway. There is no such thing as privacy anymore and I would have thought he would know this all too well.

One argument I always give for my republicanism is that monarchy is cruel on the royals. I fear we might re-visit the old question; "What is Princess Margaret for?" Apparantly getting pissed a lot, being for ever on holiday and the odd dodgy shag. That's a Club 18-30 fortnight in Ibiza; not a life.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

At least he's attractive enough to get away with it. Rather cute, in fact. [Big Grin]

Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :

Young man gets nekkid, in private, in company of other adults consenting to the activity, in Vegas.

Bonus: young man has a form worthy of admiration [Big Grin]

.

I wouldn't have done it in my own youth (much less now), but I am so not seeing what the fuss is about. That's Vegas, baby.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
So what do Shipmates think?

Is is behaviour acceptable, excusable or immoral?

Whatever the answer is, it ought to have precisely zero to do with the individual case. The answer is exactly the same for Prince Harry as it is for you, me, our neighbours, the local supermarket manager and the postman.

Frankly, only asking this question when a high profile person is involved gives credence to the notion that somehow it's more important to answer this question for that person than it is for the general populace. A notion I emphatically disagree with. "Man naked in hotel room" is simply not news. And it doesn't become news just because (1) cameras are now ubiquitous and sitting in everybody's pocket 24/7 and (2) someone without a conscience realised they could make a lot of money just because of who the man in the hotel room happened to be.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Ah, yes, "a lack of wisdom, control and poor decision making," in places where strangers are around and cameras are likely to be.

Exactly how many strangers with cameras do you expect to be in a hotel room with you, Twilight? Suddenly it feels like your behaviour on vacation might be a good deal more interesting than the prince's.

Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :

Perhaps the more apt question is, Is taking a photo of a naked well-known person in a private hotel bedroom and selling it to the press acceptable, excusable or immoral?

Answer: No, no and yes.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Suddenly it feels like your behaviour on vacation might be a good deal more interesting than the prince's.

I should certainly hope so.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
Perhaps the more apt question is, Is taking a photo of a naked well-known person in a private hotel bedroom and selling it to the press acceptable, excusable or immoral?

Answer: No, no and yes.

Indeed. Whoever is responsible can reasonably expect to be taken off the Christmas card list this year.

Mind you, it's possible that the person who gave the photo to the media is NOT the person who originally took the photo. There is at least one precedent here in Australia involving a photo of a footballer, and the photo was effectively copied/stolen from the original phone by an opportunist. That is, someone who wasn't actually a friend of the photo's subject and therefore didn't have any ties of friendship to break.

Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :

True, but I'd have thought that taking a photo of a person playing nudie billiards and passing that photo to anyone else is rather to the wrong side of acceptable.

Even the taking of the photo is dodgy.

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
[...] Harry's friends are bound to ride him [...]

Or he them.

But as some say, at least he wasn't wearing a Nazi uniform. Seems he is learning.

[ 24. August 2012, 03:48: Message edited by: Wesley J ]

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
As teachers used to say "You've let me down, you've let the school down, you've let the head down and you've let yourself down."

And here I was thinking that letting the head down would mitigate the offence somewhat.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

1. Nice Bod

2. He is really a redhead

3. He is more of a sinner than a saint, here.

4. He needs to grow up.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It seems that his antics are being excused as "letting off steam" befoe a new posting.

There's a whiff of hypocrisy in the reaction: picture a single mother from a run down estate in the same circumstances - the approbrium from the Daily Toilet papers would be along the lines of "Feckless chavs scum etc."

Most employment contracts now have a clause of "conduct" which, if any behaviour is deemed demaning or disrespectful to the employer, renders the individual liable to discipline for misconduct or gross misconduct. Picture a teacher from Markland High School caught in the same way wearing the school tie and plastered over facebook. Good bye career.

Why is Harry Battenburg treated differently? He's not exactly a good advert for the armed forces.

Bollocks. Can you imagine a single mother from a run-down estate holidaying in Las Vegas?

Posted by St Everild (# 3626) on :

There is a wider issue here regarding error of judgement. Is it really wise for a person in his position (potential leader of men kin the military, member of the royal family ect etc) to get so drunk that this should appear like acceptable behaviour.

It shows a certain level of naïveté to think that if you are who he is and behave in that way, then people will not take photographs and sell them for not insignificant amounts of money. AFAIK, anyone else behaving in at way doesn't have his behaviour and genitals plastered all over the press in quite the same way.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
I've never been a huge fan of Harry's but

You missed the final 't'.

Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :

Meh, it's no one's business. So he gets down and gets dirty with the gals. Big deal.

It would be bad enough having cameras dog you all day in public, and much worse to have your buddies snap you tackle-out over a harmless game of nude pool.

The problem is everyone thinking that he ought to be completely different from your average 20 something bloke.

The royals have bedroom romps, wee, poo, fart, pick their noses and do all the other stuff that their loyal and disloyal subjects do in private (and "in private" can mean "with a few close friends"). It may come as a surprise to learn that, when a Prince and a Princess love each other very much and want to have a little baby, they do what everyone else does - take off their Nazi uniforms and shag on the billiard table. The only difference is, everyone seems to want to watch.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
So what do Shipmates think?

Is is behaviour acceptable, excusable or immoral?
Whatever the answer is, it ought to have precisely zero to do with the individual case. The answer is exactly the same for Prince Harry as it is for you, me, our neighbours, the local supermarket manager and the postman.

Frankly, only asking this question when a high profile person is involved gives credence to the notion that somehow it's more important to answer this question for that person than it is for the general populace. A notion I emphatically disagree with. "Man naked in hotel room" is simply not news. And it doesn't become news just because (1) cameras are now ubiquitous and sitting in everybody's pocket 24/7 and (2) someone without a conscience realised they could make a lot of money just because of who the man in the hotel room happened to be.

Exactly my point. The inexcusable behaviour is from those who took the photos and especially those who sold and distributed them.

The Sun has now printed them - shame on them. "In the public interest"?

Utter nonsense.

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:

quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
I think it is so sad that he should behave in this way, after all that his sainted mother, Diana Princess of Wales and Queen of hearts(PBUH) sacrificed to ensure he was brought up correctly. She must be turning in her flower-strewn island grave.
I seem to recall that Diana was no prude and liked to party.

Yeees. Keep up.

This morning The Sun have printed one of the photos, citing freedom of the press. I love the way they try to justify smut with their high-sounding ideals. Opportunistic money-grubbing scumbags.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Someone way up the thread said William was a 30 going on 60. I think that is a critical point. If it had been William, even before his marriage, it would have been more of a problem. William is expected to maintain the dignity of his position as the family.

Harry, OTOH, is not. He is in the impossible position of being a spare, having no real life plan, unless some disaster happens. If things go according to plan, he has to find his own role in life, while having most possibilities denied him.

And, for those who have forgotten our history, Edward VIII was a party creature not unlike Harry. He caused chaos because he was in line, and George VI had to take on the challenge. That was a difficult situation, but if they had been the other way round, it would not have caused any real constitutional problems.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
This morning The Sun have printed one of the photos, citing freedom of the press. I love the way they try to justify smut with their high-sounding ideals. Opportunistic money-grubbing scumbags.

Yes, well, News International thought the "freedom of the press" meant that they could tap into the mobile phones of anyone they pleased, even murder victims.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
[QB

Nowhere have I seen or heard any comment on the morality of what he did.

[/QB]

Moralality? To quote a former tennis star 'are you serious?' Perhaps we should cover our piano legs as it is only 2012.

To bring in 'morality', perhaps we ought to have the identity of the person who decided to sell the photographs and earn about £10,000 out of them. Publish a photo of the person(s). Let's see.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
[QUOTE]1. Bollocks.

2. Can you imagine a single mother from a run-down estate holidaying in Las Vegas?

1. Quite right - that's what he appeared to be grasping.

2. Location and actual behaviour are immaterial. it's the differential response that is the worst part about the whole thing. Perhaps one person's high jinks and skinny dipping really is another's feckless behaviour, bad example and obnoxious nudity.

The other point - that few people have picked up on - is that Prince Charles allegedly asked for the pictures not to be reported. They weren't, at least until the Sun broke ranks. I'm surprised that the Express hasn't run a Diana story on the back of it.

What gives him the right to make those kind of demands - no "ordinary" UK citizen has that opportunity or even that power. That has made the whole sad issue even sadder.

[ 24. August 2012, 08:32: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :

If someone handed photos of me starkers to the press, I think I'd ask for them not to be published too.

Demand and ask are not quite the same.

I think every person has the right to ask that nude photos of them are kept off the front page.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Let's publish a photo of the person who SOLD the pictures to the press. And publish their address.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
What gives him the right to make those kind of demands?

**NEWSFLASH**
Charles is Harry's dad in case anyone was unaware!

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

It's probably worth pointing out that HRH never wore a 'Nazi uniform', i.e. a uniform that was ever at any point in history associated with membership of the NSDP. What he did wear was an Afrika Korps uniform. It's an important distinction, because the Afrika Korps was a regular army unit and its commander was never a member of the Nazi Party and was indeed no great fan of Adolf Hitler. Indeed, the Afrika Korps was perhaps the only major unit of the German armed forces during the Second World War that has been treated largely sympathetically by Anglo-American popular culture, and not wholly undeservedly so. Rommel's claim that the North African campaign was 'Krieg ohne Hass [war without hatred]' was, of course, not true — there has never been a war without hatred — but efforts were made to ensure that it was fought with greater respect for humanitarian conventions than was normal during the Second World War.

Rommel is widely admired amongst professional soldiers, as he was admired by his contemporary enemies, so an officer cadet like Henry Wales would certainly know all of this.

As a choice of costume, it didn't show great judgement, but it is emphatically not the case that he went around dressed as a Concentration Camp guard or something like that.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
...Prince Charles allegedly asked for the pictures not to be reported. They weren't, at least until the Sun broke ranks. ... What gives him the right to make those kind of demands - no "ordinary" UK citizen has that opportunity or even that power. That has made the whole sad issue even sadder.

To ask is one thing, to demand is another and to have the power to force people to comply is yet another. He was entitled to ask; he did not have the power to insist.

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Evidence of that kind of behaviour would be automatic disqualifier for most school posts even if no offence was committed. You'd question decision making skills, maturity, response to peer pressure to name a few.

IWell, It shouldn't be.

But I'm just grumpy that I have to go to a lot of pains to make sure that no photos are taken of me when I'm cavorting naked in hotel rooms. (Step 1 generally involves not cavorting with random girls picked up in the hotel bar)

[ 24. August 2012, 10:05: Message edited by: ecumaniac ]

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
I'm not aware of any carefully cultivated image of Harry's. I am British and live in Britain so have I had my eyes closed for the last few years?
Thank you for that, I thought I was going buggy for a sec.

And anyway, what is the implication of "think of the role model", only saintly perfect people can speak up for kids? As someone in the kid field, I want everyone who has vocal chords speaking up for kids.
No - but with someone who works with children and/or vulnerable people, you might appreciate the safeguarding/child protection aspects of someone who behaves like that.

Evidence of that kind of behaviour would be automatic disqualifier for most school posts even if no offence was committed. You'd question decision making skills, maturity, response to peer pressure to name a few.

It might well disqualify for school posts these days - as such a view is such neo-Victorian bollocks.

I didn't need to do anything more than a quick scan of the post to know that the phrases 'vulnerable' and 'safe-guarding' would appear somewhere in quick and breathless succession.

Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :

I was wondering if the Royal Bodyguards were doing during this. Where i work you can't get into some parts of the organisation without handing over your phones to security, so wouldnt it have made sense for HRH's goons to confiscate any phones - preumably they are Special Branch and would have had a good idea of what was happening - they are picked for being smart. They should certainly have done so afterwards if it was known that photographs were actually taken. (Doesnt exclude the possibility of MMS being sent out though).
Although its quite possible they were not aware of it which is even more of a glitch. Now its known you can get to this member of the Royals with a simple 'Honey Trap', potential kidnappers will no doubt have taken note carefully.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Harry is fast-becoming this generation of Royals' Randy Andy.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

Harry is a very silly young man who has made too many bad choices. I think it is time the Family pulled him into line.

Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :

His family?

His father wished he was a tampon.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St Everild:
There is a wider issue here regarding error of judgement. Is it really wise for a person in his position (potential leader of men kin the military, member of the royal family ect etc) to get so drunk that this should appear like acceptable behaviour.

I'm stone-cold sober, and I think it's acceptable behaviour. And there's no law against getting drunk, either; his only military/royal obligation is not to do it while he's on duty or in public.

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

If you're going to have naked pictures of yourself published worldwide better to have it happen while you're in your 20s.

But I truly can't understand how Prince Harry could not know that people are waiting to take advantage of him. You would think this is something he would've learned from earliest childhood.

My understanding is that this is why his father and grandmother pretty much only socialize with people of similar backgrounds to theirs whom they've known since childhood and trust. Not casual pick ups at a resort hotel swimming pool.

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

I think that it should be forbidden to take and public the photos of anyone who are not at that time wearing no clothes, particularly of young ones. Just because he belongs in the Queen and King family, there seems to be lots of publicity about them. It's more available than it used to be before computers and mobiles and TV etc etc.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
I was wondering if the Royal Bodyguards were doing during this. Where i work you can't get into some parts of the organisation without handing over your phones to security, so wouldnt it have made sense for HRH's goons to confiscate any phones - preumably they are Special Branch and would have had a good idea of what was happening - they are picked for being smart. They should certainly have done so afterwards if it was known that photographs were actually taken. (Doesnt exclude the possibility of MMS being sent out though).
Although its quite possible they were not aware of it which is even more of a glitch. Now its known you can get to this member of the Royals with a simple 'Honey Trap', potential kidnappers will no doubt have taken note carefully.

It is probably time for Harry's polics special protection team to bow out in favour of something more professional run by the military.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Daisy May, do you quite mean what you actually said ... that it should be forbidden to take photos of people who are not wearing no clothes?

The mind boggles! I can certainly think of many politicians and celebs who I would far rather see clothed, thank you very much.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

haha agreed. But this is 2012 not 1897 (VICTORIA's diamond jubilee).

If one doesn't like naked pictures then don't take any. Or use the off button. Or don't pull magazines off the top shelf guiltily looking around to see if anyone is watching.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
I truly can't understand how Prince Harry could not know that people are waiting to take advantage of him. You would think this is something he would've learned from earliest childhood.

Yes, but he might have decided not to let that fact rule his life. Ok, so it was still unwise but, as long as we in Britain have royals, do we really prefer them to have the kind of narrow and restricted circle you describe?

quote:
... only socialize with people of similar backgrounds to theirs whom they've known since childhood and trust.

I think that's intolerable in twenty-first century society - besides, if that had been the case, William would never have married Kate.

It's possible that Harry has over-relaxed a bit, following the phone-hacking revelations, which meant that they had wrongly been suspecting friends and other acquaintances of at best indiscretion and at worst betrayal. If he made a conscious decision to trust people and take the risk that goes with that, then I take my hat off to him (or would do, if it wasn't for the Quaker 'hat honour' thing. [Smile]

)

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
It's probably worth pointing out that HRH never wore a 'Nazi uniform', i.e. a uniform that was ever at any point in history associated with membership of the NSDP. What he did wear was an Afrika Korps uniform. It's an important distinction, because the Afrika Korps was a regular army unit and its commander was never a member of the Nazi Party and was indeed no great fan of Adolf Hitler. Indeed, the Afrika Korps was perhaps the only major unit of the German armed forces during the Second World War that has been treated largely sympathetically by Anglo-American popular culture, and not wholly undeservedly so. Rommel's claim that the North African campaign was 'Krieg ohne Hass [war without hatred]' was, of course, not true — there has never been a war without hatred — but efforts were made to ensure that it was fought with greater respect for humanitarian conventions than was normal during the Second World War.

Rommel is widely admired amongst professional soldiers, as he was admired by his contemporary enemies, so an officer cadet like Henry Wales would certainly know all of this.

As a choice of costume, it didn't show great judgement, but it is emphatically not the case that he went around dressed as a Concentration Camp guard or something like that.

For heavens sake he was at a fancy dress party - does it really matter if he went as an Afrika Corps soldier, Rommel, Adolf Hitler, Eva Braun or the devil himself?

I once went to one as Che Guevara but I can assure you I was not identifying myself with his politics in doing so. Slightly annoyingly most of the other guests thought I was Frank Spencer.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Ah, yes, "a lack of wisdom, control and poor decision making," in places where strangers are around and cameras are likely to be.
Exactly how many strangers with cameras do you expect to be in a hotel room with you, Twilight? Suddenly it feels like your behaviour on vacation might be a good deal more interesting than the prince's.

See, I wouldn't invite all my new best friends I'd just met in the hotel bar up to my room and trust them not to take my picture after I took all my clothes off. And I'm not even a famous person and as far as I know AARP magazine doesn't do centerfolds so there wouldn't be all that much money in it for the photographer.

Irregardless of Henry VIII's cavorting and Adam and Eve's swiving in the nude, Prince Harry, God bless his freckled bum, has every reason in the world to know that every single thing he does is of interest to the press and possibly embarrassing to his family. He's just dumb sometimes is all.

Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :

1. Irregardless isn't a word. At least, not a proper word.

2. Why should he not be able to get his kit off without fear of it being on the front page of a rag the next day?

3. How do you know he just met them?

4. Even if you were famous, no one would want to take snaps of you in the nuddy. Me neither. So we are hardly qualified to judge.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Both Prince Charles and Angela Merkel were (separately) nude victims of photography, albeit with telefoto lenses, so it is nothing too revolutionary--- although perhaps Prince Harry's physique would attract more interest among the prurient and curious.

Photographs of the Passion-bearing saints Nicholas and Alexei taken while skinnydipping are also available. There is a photograph of the nude Pierre Trudeau emerging from the lake on one of his canoeing trips but it is not in the public domain, owing to its pre-digital existence and the care with which it is guarded.

Still, as our local barista noted after she had posed for a photography student friend, she takes satisfaction in knowing that she is no longer blackmailable. When asked what she would do should they surface on the net, she told the two of us waiting for our cortados that she would insist on an archival-quality print for her files. I think that this is useful advice.

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:

quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
I truly can't understand how Prince Harry could not know that people are waiting to take advantage of him. You would think this is something he would've learned from earliest childhood.
Yes, but he might have decided not to let that fact rule his life. Ok, so it was still unwise but, as long as we in Britain have royals, do we really prefer them to have the kind of narrow and restricted circle you describe?

"Not letting that fact rule his life" sounds great but reminds me of gay friends in the 80s who said they wouldn't use condoms because "You wouldn't take a shower wearing a raincoat." Of course they're all dead now. Sometimes those catchy phrases don't work out so well in practice. I agree there certainly should be a balance between button-downed fear and reasonable prudence. In his position I would want to err on the side of caution because the fall out from lack of caution surely cancels out the fun of throwing caution to the wind. Of course if he was drunk he was making crappy decisions anyway. I've done plenty of things drunk I knew better than to do sober.

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:

quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
... only socialize with people of similar backgrounds to theirs whom they've known since childhood and trust.
I think that's intolerable in twenty-first century society - besides, if that had been the case, William would never have married Kate.

Intolerable to whom? To your idea of whom the royal family should be friends with? My best friends are certainly drawn from people I grew up with. Frankly the fact that there's never been a 'tell all' book about the queen shows (to me) that she picks her friends wisely. As to William and Kate, he took his time there ("Waity Katie") presumably to be sure. And he did meet her at university, not at a hotel pool in Vegas.

William and Harry do seem to be replaying Lilibet and Margaret Rose. Good prince/Bad prince.

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
2. Why should he not be able to get his kit off without fear of it being on the front page of a rag the next day?

That's disingenuous, LATA. There are plenty of ways he could get his kit off without fear of it being on the front page of a rag the next day. This wasn't one of them however and he was foolish to think it was.

(I know 'irregardless' isn't a proper word, but it should be.)

((Nice to see you!))

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
1. Irregardless isn't a word. At least, not a proper word.

Now I see why you can't bring yourself to admit that Harry did a silly thing. You've saved all your judgmentalism for people who use incorrect words.

quote:

2. Why should he not be able to get his kit off without fear of it being on the front page of a rag the next day?

Because he's a member of the British royal family. Why can't I live in a castle with lots of servants and have tons of money? Because I'm not.

quote:
3. How do you know he just met them?

Said so in the paper.

quote:
4. Even if you were famous, no one would want to take snaps of you in the nuddy. Me neither. So we are hardly qualified to judge.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Bollocks. Can you imagine a single mother from a run-down estate holidaying in Las Vegas?

Probably not (I've lost track of what point one is trying to make with this image), because she can't afford to go there. But millions of people can and do. It must be said that many of these people do things in Las Vegas that they wouldn't do elsewhere. Las Vegas does that to people.

If you have never been in Las Vegas, you have no idea of the atmosphere deliberately created by the towering casinos and other corporate influences out to bleed you white. In this playground, the power of Vance Packard's "hidden persuaders" is focused on its visitors by some of the wiliest and most well-heeled corporate interests in the world. It can be seen at its most intense and insidious. Needless to say, not all of it is even hidden. Some of it is inescapably blatent, but be assured that everything you can see is just the tip of an iceberg.

Part of the process is a bidding to kick up your heels and see what you can get away with. I remember, having been there at about Harry's age and done a thing or two myself that I'd rather not think about.

[ 24. August 2012, 14:38: Message edited by: Alogon ]

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

(I keep hoping someone will try and sneak a picture of me in the locker room of the Y so I can be outraged and flattered all at the same time, but there does indeed seem to be a lack of interest, more's the pity.)

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
His family?

His father wished he was a tampon.

Wished he were a tampon. Please use the proper subjunctive form.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Skipping whether he should have done what he did, the location of said actions does not excuse anything.
Las Vegas is not like The Hangover, it is not like the commercials. Buying into any of that says more about the customer than the salesman.

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
the location of said actions does not excuse anything.

No, but strip pool in Southend-on-Sea doesn't sound nearly as sinful – or exciting.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Whether his action was prudent or not is one thing, but all he did was take his clothes off and get pissed.

We all know he is royal, and popular, but he is doing no more than soldiers do off duty.

I remember decompression after returning from Afghanistan in Cyprus. The stage was rushed by most of 40 Commando Royal Marines stark naked. They stayed like that the whole evening and so did their officers. Photos were taken. No officers on that occasion happened to be royal, so there was no media or prurient public interest. There was no violence, no unpleasantness, and as there was a five can rule, no drunkeness. Oh, to please those who want to be morally outraged so easily in 2012, I think a few people...how can I dare tell you?...smoked cigarettes.

When the army trains in BATUS (British Army Training Unit Suffield) in Canada for a couple of months or longer at a time, it is quite common for squaddies to go to Las Vagas and sometimes blow the whole month's salary or more. They are not particularly privileged financially, as they are paid less than traffic wardens.

It may well have been that Harry had just finished his time in BATUS. He has certainly trained there, and done his own fair share of cleaning floors and non glamorous non royal (but military) admin.

As for making it a case of good prince/bad prince, or slurring his character, just lighten up a bit. I doubt that many shipmates (male) wear stained cardigans and shuffle around in slippers and are called Victor Meldrew, or (female) have buns and thick specs, thick black stockings, flat shoes and a school marmish manner, but the posts on this topic do suggest it somewhat.

So Harry showed his willy. Big deal - and I gather it wasn't.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

Being naked with another adult in a hotel room can disqualify you from working with children? Is this true?

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Being naked with another adult in a hotel room can disqualify you from working with children? Is this true?

As far as I am aware - not yet. But I am not entirely sure.

However it just might be that there are a few human beings, not many but in Britain at least quite noisy and sometimes influential, who have either (a) inherited a rather nasty malicious gene or (b) been the product of a fairly distorted nurture or a combination of both, who would like to see this as true.

Now that homosexuality is seen - certainly amongst most of the young - as no big deal and a part of the variety of the human condition, the muggles who suffer from (a) or (b) or both, seem to have transferred their loathing and dislike from gay people and non married consensing adults, to seeing a child molester under every bed, or a potential abuser lurking behind the visage of anyone they might regard as having a more interesting life than themselves.

They are skillful in harnessing a contemporary obesssion with anything that has the word 'child' or 'vulnerable' in it to their own prejudice and po-facedness, to produce an atmosphere of suspicion and nastiness that some - some - have take seriously.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Skipping whether he should have done what he did, the location of said actions does not excuse anything.

Why doesn't it, at least in part? We're not talking about breaking the law, you know. All I'm saying is that people don't just happen to do silly things in Las Vegas. They are systematically inveigled to let down their guard by sophisticated means that we can barely appreciate without a degree in marketing psychology. This is by careful design. Only the success of these techniques can explain the existence of this burgeoning metropolis in a desert in the middle of nowhere, with merely finding enough water for everyone to drink a major headache. It's the biggest monument to frivolous folly in the western hemisphere, of not the world.

The larger question to ask is what business a member of the British royal family has there in the first place. Is he there officially? Whose idea was it? Never to vacation in such a useless place would be my advice to anyone.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Skipping whether he should have done what he did, the location of said actions does not excuse anything.
The larger question to ask is what business a member of the British royal family has there in the first place. Is he there officially? Whose idea was it? Never to vacation in such a useless place would be my advice to anyone.

See a couple of posts back.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Harry is a very silly young man who has made too many bad choices. I think it is time the Family pulled him into line.

Why? He's not behaving any differently from many of his ancestors.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

Sodom and Gomorrah should consider themselves distinctly hard done by considering what Las Vegas seems to get away with.

If Prince Harry wanted to frolic with other billiards playing naturists he would have been better served by a German spa where nobody would have batted an eye. Bad Staffelstein is very nice and low key and is close to his ancestral home of Coburg.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Can you imagine a single mother from a run-down estate holidaying in Las Vegas?

If she lived in the American equivalent near me, definitely, especially this time of year. Right now you can get a room for one adult and two children at Circus Circus (very kid-friendly place) for $24/night, and the round-trip drive from SoCal would cost $65 in gas (that's in my 21-year-old car -- it would be more in a car with a/c). I know lots of people who don't have much money who go to Vegas; it can be a very affordable vacation.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

ISTM that Harry is doing exactly what royal second sons have done for centuries: fill up the non-official time with entertainment

For instance, that was the job that the man who became Henry VIII had until his older brother died.

In other times, the actual heir had to do this, Edward VII because he had to wait for over 50 years, and Charles II because he had to something while in exile.

Similarly, ISTM that officers are just as likely as "other ranks" to let off steam, as has been pointed out upthread. Even your basic mess dinner has been known to get a little strange on occasion.

Strip billiards is a bit of a new twist, but times have changed somewhat. Any of the above-mentioned wpould have throughly enjoyed it, I'm sure.

And what else would they do to keep the rest of "us" interested? Read excerpts from Hansard?

There is an issue with the taking and publicising of the photos, but the royal participation is just "business as usual".

At least, unlike the rest of his family, and too many of the posters here, he is relentlessly cheerful.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

@Sine Nomine

That has got to be the most confused comparison I have ever heard in my entire life. Not letting the press dictate how you live your life is like dyeing of aids because you decided not to wear a condom?

Really?

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

No. I was talking about snappy rejoinders that sound great but really aren't.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Harry is a very silly young man who has made too many bad choices. I think it is time the Family pulled him into line.
Why? He's not behaving any differently from many of his ancestors.

.. including some very recent ones. Wisdom and restraint are rare in the British royal family and Harry has a bit of a track record: what's the news story?

I expect his commanding officer will have a quiet word with him, and he may find a 'miscellaneous item' on his mess bill.

eta: Horseman Bree posted:

'Similarly, ISTM that officers are just as likely as "other ranks" to let off steam, as has been pointed out upthread. Even your basic mess dinner has been known to get a little strange on occasion.'

I have more knowledge of the goings-on in RAF Sergeants' messes, and they tend to be older and more staid than the young bucks in the Blue and Royals, but a 'German Night' during the South Atlantic war was pretty chaotic. Something to do with a consignment of schnappes and an announcement that Goose Green had been retaken.

[ 24. August 2012, 16:42: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
What gives him the right to make those kind of demands?
**NEWSFLASH**
Charles is Harry's dad in case anyone was unaware!

There has been speculation as to whether that is the case.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
**NEWSFLASH**.....

No pun intended, in case anyone was wondering.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

It seems there is speculation that the photos may have been doctored.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
What gives him the right to make those kind of demands?
**NEWSFLASH**
Charles is Harry's dad in case anyone was unaware!
There has been speculation as to whether that is the case.

Oh yes, I'd forgotten about the ginger Major James Hewitt - and he was pretty thick as well! Then again, there's nothing other than wild rumours in the public domain, so it's only fair to presume these are groundless. If you really want to put an end to it once and for all, invite Charles and Harry onto the Jeremy Kyle Show for DNA results.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Perhaps it is time for +Richard of London, as Dean of the Chapels Royal (and catechizer of HRH), to dig up some Hanoverian sermons exhorting Continence Among Princes as the theme for a course of Advent addresses. Prebendary Scott, as the sub-dean and Her Majesty's Domestic Chaplain, can handle daily addresses at Matins and Vespers. At the same time, the chaplain of the Blues and Royals (the regiment in which HRH serves) will likely eagerly grasp the opportunity to preach a course of sermons on Sobriety and Avoidance of Loose Women-- surely texts are lying around in the archives crying out to be brought back into service.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
What gives him the right to make those kind of demands?
**NEWSFLASH**
Charles is Harry's dad in case anyone was unaware!
There has been speculation as to whether that is the case.
Oh yes, I'd forgotten about the ginger Major James Hewitt - and he was pretty thick as well! Then again, there's nothing other than wild rumours in the public domain, so it's only fair to presume these are groundless. If you really want to put an end to it once and for all, invite Charles and Harry onto the Jeremy Kyle Show for DNA results.

I'm pretty sure that if there was serious doubt about the paternity of HRH, the Royal Family could easily arrange for DNA tests.

Prince Andrew BTW, has red hair, so the red-hair gene is in the Royal Family so red hair alone does not suffice for questioning Prince Harry's paternity.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

I think Major Hewitt's military record shows that he wasn't even in the country when Prince Harry was conceived.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
I think Major Hewitt's military record shows that he wasn't even in the country when Prince Harry was conceived.

... and military service records are never wrong.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
It seems there is speculation that the photos may have been doctored.

Brilliant, thanks for this [Killing me]

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

What we REALLY need is for him to get so worried about the press that he starts employing decoys and using back exits. Let’s hope he doesn’t make a mistake one night and a/ use a drunken driver b/ let the driver get distracted c/ forget to put his seat belt on d/ piss off MI5.

God forbid our puerile hunger for titillation should kill another one. Oh the drama! Murdoch (the pimp to our desires) killing royals for 2 decades, catchy huh?

AtB Pyx_e

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

[Tangent]

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
ISTM that Harry is doing exactly what royal second sons have done for centuries: fill up the non-official time with entertainment

For instance, that was the job that the man who became Henry VIII had until his older brother died.

Wasn't Henry just under 11 when his brother died? [/Tangent]

I bet Prince Hal would have played strip billiards in Las Vegas.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

Originally posted by QLib:

quote:
I bet Prince Hal would have played strip billiards in Las Vegas.

Damn right.

[Tangent]Henry Fitzroy?[/Tangent]

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Having started this thread with a series of questions and in all seriousness it seems to me that one issue above all others emerges.

What constitutes morality?

So, in order not to derail this thread which might run and run I am starting another on what I see is a fundamental question.

Surprisingly the heart of morality (as far as I am concerned) has little to do with sexual misdeamours.

But I think it is also more than whether you vote GOP/Tories.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

Time was when an officer and a chap caught like this would have been led to an empty room with a loaded revolver and a bottle of whiskey. He'd know what to do.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Time was when an officer and a chap caught like this would have been led to an empty room with a loaded revolver and a bottle of whiskey. He'd know what to do

Er... What time?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Time was when an officer and a chap caught like this would have been led to an empty room with a loaded revolver and a bottle of whiskey. He'd know what to do.

Any officer and gentleman given the option would give the paparazzi a stiff drink, then shoot him.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Time was when an officer and a chap caught like this would have been led to an empty room with a loaded revolver and a bottle of whiskey. He'd know what to do.

Was this before or after making love to prostitutes on the regimental colours? That used to be a sport in the 19th Century.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:

Oh, to please those who want to be morally outraged so easily in 2012, I think a few people...how can I dare tell you?...smoked cigarettes.

It may well have been that Harry had just finished his time in BATUS. He has certainly trained there, and done his own fair share of cleaning floors and non glamorous non royal (but military) admin.

As for making it a case of good prince/bad prince, or slurring his character, just lighten up a bit. I doubt that many shipmates (male) wear stained cardigans and shuffle around in slippers and are called Victor Meldrew, or (female) have buns and thick specs, thick black stockings, flat shoes and a school marmish manner, but the posts on this topic do suggest it somewhat.

Remember that scandal in Columbia a short while back where some U.S. Secret Service men had hired some (legal) prostitutes? Eleven men were either fired or reprimanded. Harry isn't the only military officer ever expected to conduct himself in a manner becoming. Not that I think the prince did anything worth getting in trouble at his job, but this idea that military men with stressful jobs should be excused from normal rules of society is a very slippery slope.

As for those who "want to be morally outraged," where exactly are you finding this?
A small minority of people on this thread have suggested that Harry might be a bit immature for his age but I haven't seen one hint of moral outrage.

What I actually do see is lots of people who want to be the voice of modern, forward thinking, open mindedness -- trying to make a big stand against the badly dressed prudes of their imagination. Sadly for you and Left-at-the Altar that ship sailed in 1967.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Prince Harry letting off steam?

He was last (on a very short and safe posting) to Afghanistan many moons ago.

Since then he has officiated at the London Olympics closing ceremony which was, no doubt, a very stressful job.

And now a holiday on Richard Branson's island plus Las Vegas. Stressful in the extreme.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Remember that scandal in Columbia a short while back where some U.S. Secret Service men had hired some (legal) prostitutes?

The Secret service involves, you know, secrecy. The danger of consorting with prostitutes on the part of custodians of state secrets-- spies and the like-- is that they can easily be enemy agents themselves and, in the course of intimacies, glean some of the secrets. They can also blackmail a target with threats to their marriages and families if not their careers. These dangers to the state do not apply so much to army men except in the highest ranks.

Of course, military folk have always been as highly disciplined as possible, and steeled to endure hardships, but I've never gathered that they are forbidden to relax and enjoy themselves, perhaps rather riotously, when off duty. This wouldn't be because generals are as morally lax as privates, but because experience has shown what makes for the best soldiers. I don't know about you, but I'd tend to trust their judgment as to what it takes.

Early scenes in the film Das Boot, acclaimed for realism, portrayed a really shocking bacchanal on the part of a U-boat crew on shore leave and soon to set sail. Perhaps this partly reflected an underlying desperation and fatalism on the part of fighting men who sensed that the war was beginning to go against them. But we all know that once underway, they were fearsome adversaries.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Unfortunately not. It has little to do with Officers Behaving Badly (what a good name for a novel or especially a film) but 'morality' does occur a few times here, and 'slippery slope' when invoked usually prefixes a specious argument. Try harder.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by sebby:
[qb]

What I actually do see is lots of people who want to be the voice of modern, forward thinking, open mindedness -- trying to make a big stand against the badly dressed prudes of their imagination. Sadly for you and Left-at-the Altar that ship sailed in 1967.

See above: an example of moralising under a thin veneer of hauteur.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
... but all he did was take his clothes off and get pissed.

Got a feeling the getting pissed bit came first .

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Haha probably.

Interestingly on FB was a message : 'didn't think much of you before but Harry, you're a real legend'.

There were scores of 'likes'

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

( uncomfortable grunt.)

Just for the record, I have not seen the video, nor do I intend to. The whole point to me is that what happens on it is precisely none of my damn business. Just because someone posted a video does not mean I have to hit "Play."

Having said that, Sine, your various points about Harry needing to learn to protect himself are very wise.

Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :

On the plus side - it might generate new interest in the sport of Billiards which previously had a bit of a low profile compared to Snooker.

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Daisy May, do you quite mean what you actually said ... that it should be forbidden to take photos of people who are not wearing no clothes?

The mind boggles! I can certainly think of many politicians and celebs who I would far rather see clothed, thank you very much.

Oops, I meant not wearing any clothes, having the picture of someone did it, of just the body... not in safety because it's difficult to let everyone see that of us...

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Could have been worse, they could have being playing nutball - not safe for most people's work.

Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
His family?

His father wished he was a tampon.
Wished he were a tampon. Please use the proper subjunctive form.

Yes, yes, I did realise that. But too late. The time to edit were over.

Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:

quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
2. Why should he not be able to get his kit off without fear of it being on the front page of a rag the next day?
That's disingenuous, LATA. There are plenty of ways he could get his kit off without fear of it being on the front page of a rag the next day. This wasn't one of them however and he was foolish to think it was.

(I know 'irregardless' isn't a proper word, but it should be.)

((Nice to see you!))

Well, yes, it was a bit disingenuous. I'm like that.
But getting his kit off at home with with the family wouldn't be half as much fun.

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
1. Irregardless isn't a word. At least, not a proper word.
Now I see why you can't bring yourself to admit that Harry did a silly thing. You've saved all your judgmentalism for people who use incorrect words.

Well, only you so far. It was a bit mean. Sorry. But I never said he wasn't silly. He is silly. But I don't think it's anyone's business that he's silly. My son is silly. My husband used to be silly. I was as silly as they get. Why is anyone surprised or outraged that he's silly?

....

quote:
4. Even if you were famous, no one would want to take snaps of you in the nuddy. Me neither. So we are hardly qualified to judge.

I already said as much, no need to rub it in, although I don't see how no one wanting to take our pictures makes us less qualified to judge. You sound as though you think Harry posed willingly in exchange for money. Are you confusing him with this month's Playmate?

Whoa! Where did I sound like he posed for payment? I thought I was running the argument that he should be able to get his kit off and not be shown butt naked on the front of The Sun.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Time was when an officer and a chap caught like this would have been led to an empty room with a loaded revolver and a bottle of whiskey. He'd know what to do.

Pointed the loaded revolver at the door so the next fool with a camera wouldn't get away with it.

Oh, and as far as I can tell, whatever time you're talking about was probably when paparazzi had to be armed with an easel and a paintbrush.

[ 25. August 2012, 00:10: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
No. I was talking about snappy rejoinders that sound great but really aren't.

Ah my mistake. Still not having your life dictated to you by the tabloids didn't sound like a snappy rejoinder. It sounded perfectly reasonable to me.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
ISTM that Harry is doing exactly what royal second sons have done for centuries: fill up the non-official time with entertainment

Agree. God's in his heaven, junior royals are out on the razz, all's right with the world.

quote:
For instance, that was the job that the man who became Henry VIII had until his older brother died.

Buff Prince Hal. [Snigger]

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Buff Prince Hal.

Has nobody used that as a headline yet?

[ 25. August 2012, 10:50: Message edited by: Trudy Scrumptious ]

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :

I think that you'll find that the literary allusion might be lost on devotees of the gutter press (and would require a level of erudition not known among Daily Mail and Sun journalists).

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
ISTM that Harry is doing exactly what royal second sons have done for centuries: fill up the non-official time with entertainment

For instance, that was the job that the man who became Henry VIII had until his older brother died.

In that case I'm a little worried for the young women who've been taking his picture. [Eek!]

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
No. I was talking about snappy rejoinders that sound great but really aren't.
Ah my mistake. Still not having your life dictated to you by the tabloids didn't sound like a snappy rejoinder. It sounded perfectly reasonable to me.

If he thinks the fallout is worth his one night of "pleasure" then I suppose you are right.

I wouldn't think it would be though.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
No. I was talking about snappy rejoinders that sound great but really aren't.
Ah my mistake. Still not having your life dictated to you by the tabloids didn't sound like a snappy rejoinder. It sounded perfectly reasonable to me.
If he thinks the fallout is worth his one night of "pleasure" then I suppose you are right.

I wouldn't think it would be though.

Well let's be clear it's the photographer and the newspaper that are in the wrong here.

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

Absolutely. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't of known there was a good chance of that happening.

Getting naked in a hotel room with strangers present. Good idea? Not so good idea?

Turns out the answer is "B".

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

So people should live their lives to fit in with people who are in the wrong?

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Sounds like Jesus to me.

He certainly hed no trouble with people who "lost" their clothes on at least two occasions

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
So people should live their lives to fit in with people who are in the wrong?

Bingo. This encapsulates perfectly what I have found so bothersome about the 'he should have known' crowd.

Even if he DOES know, he has - amazingly enough - the same right to live his ordinary life away from the spotlight that everybody else does. If I was in his position I would be intensely upset at the suggestion that I forfeit the right to be treated like a normal human being in private just because of my public position.

And the same goes, frankly, for all 'public figures' whether they be musicians or movie stars. Can we all stop treating these people as if they are performing seals whose sole role in life is to provide "real people" with entertainment and titillation?

[ 25. August 2012, 13:45: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
So people should live their lives to fit in with people who are in the wrong?

What does "fit in" have to do with it? It's about protecting oneself and one's reputation.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Sounds like Jesus to me.

He certainly hed no trouble with people who "lost" their clothes on at least two occasions

The Lord Krishna had a track record on this one too.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
So people should live their lives to fit in with people who are in the wrong?
What does "fit in" have to do with it? It's about protecting oneself and one's reputation.

It seems such a defeatist attitude to take. Just rolling over and letting the bad guys dictate how you live.

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

I'm not sure how you got from "reasonable caution" to "letting the bad guys dictate how you live" but I think it's a pretty big jump.

But yes, I suppose it would restrict one's ability to play strip pool with strangers in a hotel room. If that's more important to one then one's reputation as a prince of the United Kingdom, then I say go for it and let the chips fall where they may.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

And the same goes, frankly, for all 'public figures' whether they be musicians or movie stars. Can we all stop treating these people as if they are performing seals whose sole role in life is to provide "real people" with entertainment and titillation?

You do realize don't you that if we all started treating these people the same as everyone else they would be paid union scale and not the millions per picture that goes with being a "star?" Part of being a star, of screen, sports, or stage is that the people who think you're worth the huge ticket prices are the same ones who find you so fascinating they will buy tabloids and magazines just because your picture is on the cover.

These celebrities are all free to retire from their roles that have caused such a furor and take up teaching in a village by the sea. There are many stars who have done just that sort of thing.

I don't think the photographers and journalists are the most admirable people in the world but they are just trying to earn a living and making a pittance compared to what their "victims" are earning so I'm not ready to send them to the lowest level of Hell quite yet. Princess Diana could have pulled the curtains in her limo and ordered the driver to slow down.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Ginger nuts - nice biscuits.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

And the same goes, frankly, for all 'public figures' whether they be musicians or movie stars. Can we all stop treating these people as if they are performing seals whose sole role in life is to provide "real people" with entertainment and titillation?

If they are in 'showbiz' then they are 'performing seals. I have little sympathy for other celebrities either as they all depend on publicity for their wealth and income, and they could use some of it to buy some bit of privacy, that those who aren't of public curiosity can afford.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If they are in 'showbiz' then they are 'performing seals.

Not 24 hours a day they're not. I get to clock off from my job (although not this weekend, I had to bring some of the damn stuff home). The notion that people in 'showbiz' aren't allowed to get any downtime is simply preposterous. When they are working, they are working. When they're not, they're not.

Otherwise you're turning the viewing public into the equivalent of the boss who thinks he can ring you at any time of the night or in the middle of the weekend to do his bidding.

Frankly, the only reason it's like this is because other people have a constant supply of magazine pages and websites to fill. We all get so terribly BORED if the seals aren't performing today.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

I don't think the photographers and journalists are the most admirable people in the world but they are just trying to earn a living and making a pittance compared to what their "victims" are earning so I'm not ready to send them to the lowest level of Hell quite yet.

Among other people trying to earn a living are low level drug pushers, and the people in India who have taken jobs ringing up Westerners and trying to con them into giving remote access to their computers by claiming to be from a Microsoft service centre.

I suppose the journalists and photographers are at least sticking to the bounds of the law, but that's about the most some of them have going for them.

I wonder, does anyone actually grow up with an interest in journalism and photography thinking "yeah, I really want to make it big in vacuous celebrity gossip"? That's how I'm going to make my mark on the world, by showing people that Posh has gained weight or lost weight or had a row with Becks (well, not really but it made a dramatic headline)?

Yes. It's all fine so long as you make less money than the people whose lives you're stuffing around with. I do NOT think.

[ 25. August 2012, 18:50: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

Yes. It's all fine so long as you make less money than the people whose lives you're stuffing around with. I do NOT think.

Well you have a good point, Orfeo and I don't really think that exactly either. I really just meant to say that if you're, say, Will Smith and someone is paying you ten million for six months work playing the same character you've been playing since you were 16 and the only downside is having to put-up with photographers whenever you leave your gated, secure mansion, then I'm not going to lose sleep over your plight.

Because it's not true that they never have a moment's privacy. They do in their homes, on their yachts, on their private islands and on their private planes. Meanwhile the rest of us aren't able to live entirely private lives either. Where I live every traffic ticket is reported in the newspaper and the hospital staff gossips all over town. Regular people have to share hospital rooms with other people and live in apartments with paper thin walls. Just because no one wants to publish pictures of us in the nude doesn't mean we might not end up on candid TV making a cake of ourselves.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
These celebrities are all free to retire from their roles that have caused such a furor and take up teaching in a village by the sea. There are many stars who have done just that sort of thing.

I'm pretty sure that wouldn't work for Prince Harry, even if he could get the family to agree to letting him try it.

Posted by Sighthound (# 15185) on :

This is only an issue because he is part of the 'royal family'. If he was an ordinary rich guy doing the same thing, no one would give a damn.

The 'royal family' concept puts its members in a straitjacket that can often cause personal misery. See for example the experiences of Diana, Princess of Wales. They are, in effect, forced to live two lives, one of public image polished with PR, the other (quite possibly) with dark secrets and frustrations.

Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on :

Nice piece

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

What's nice about it? I can't actually tell what the POINT of it is. Tremendously clever, but completely lacking a punchline.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Buff Prince Hal.
Has nobody used that as a headline yet?

I was thinkin "Flash Harry" .

The Sun think tank has no doubt come up with something far more witty .
For some odd reason I always remembered the Sun's headline re. the Queen's Annus Horriblus ...... "Mum's Bum Year"
[Projectile]

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Sorry, you may have to reread it, orfeo. I got the point the first time through.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
. I really just meant to say that if you're, say, Will Smith and someone is paying you ten million for six months work playing the same character you've been playing since you were 16 and the only downside is having to put-up with photographers whenever you leave your gated, secure mansion, then I'm not going to lose sleep over your plight.

Because it's not true that they never have a moment's privacy. They do in their homes, on their yachts, on their private islands and on their private planes.

Right. Anyone attempting to become an intentional celebrity should understand from the outset that their life is no longer entirely their own. However, the level of intrusion some have to deal with is insane, regardless of the salary.
Private mansion? Private Island? Do you know what small fraction of celebrities can afford this? Most actors are lucky to make a workman's wage. Same for sport, for authors, etc.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Sorry, you may have to reread it, orfeo. I got the point the first time through.

To be fair I've read it twice now and I'm still a complete loss as to what point the author was trying to make. I mean we get the Hans Christian Anderson reference but what's that got to do with the news story?

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Do you know what small fraction of celebrities can afford this? Most actors are lucky to make a workman's wage. Same for sport, for authors, etc.

Right, and the tabloids aren't paying big bucks for their photoes so they get to lead a quiet life. That's what I said up thread, when I said most actors work for union scale. It's only the "stars," who are followed everywhere by the press and they're the ones who can afford to live in very secure, private places.

In my small town we have a major league baseball player and a well known, retired, actress. No one pays any attention to them in Walmart.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Do you know what small fraction of celebrities can afford this? Most actors are lucky to make a workman's wage. Same for sport, for authors, etc.
Right, and the tabloids aren't paying big bucks for their photoes so they get to lead a quiet life. That's what I said up thread, when I said most actors work for union scale. It's only the "stars," who are followed everywhere by the press and they're the ones who can afford to live in very secure, private places.

No, even many people who are 'known' are not actually making the amount of money that affords you a super-private location.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

In my small town we have a major league baseball player and a well known, retired, actress. No one pays any attention to them in Walmart.

sigh this is not true universally. Believe what you will, I am likely done with this tangent.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

In my small town we have a major league baseball player and a well known, retired, actress. No one pays any attention to them in Walmart.
sigh this is not true universally. Believe what you will, I am likely done with this tangent.

I have noticed that there are certain celebrities who do lead private lives and are in the press only when they want to be, which means privacy isn't out of reach. Other celebrities seem to be in the press all the time for all the wrong reasons. Sadly, the public demands every salacious detail of the ones who seem to be constant screw ups. I once complained to a friend of mine who works in TV news broadcasting about the amount of news time given them and she informed me that every time they tried to not to cover them their ratings plummeted. Blame the public, not the journalists. I have to add that the worst decision ever made in U.S. TV broadcasting was putting the news divisions under entertainment.

With respect to Harry, on the one hand I feel for him as unlike most celebrities he had no choice with respect to fame and celebrity. He also gets bashed for things that anyone else wouldn't be. On the other hand, he doesn't seem to have picked up wisdom about activities and people who are certain to bring him and his family grief.

[ 27. August 2012, 09:38: Message edited by: Niteowl ]

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I think that you'll find that the literary allusion might be lost on devotees of the gutter press (and would require a level of erudition not known among Daily Mail and Sun journalists).

It would seem to be the case that journalists - and frequently editorial teams - for these publications are really quite bright, and move from newspaper to newspaper adopting he required style. Many would pick up the reference.

When writing for The Sun, or more especially The Daily Mail the more silly of the two, they know how to manipulate and respond to a stupid readership.

An analysis of The Sun's more snappy headlines shows quite a witty ingenuity, although probably not favouried by those on the Ship. This was certainly believed by one distinguished Professor of Old Testament history, Fellow of Oriel and a translator of the NEB.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
[QUOTE]
When writing for The Sun, or more especially The Daily Mail the more silly of the two, they know how to manipulate and respond to a stupid readership.

This is quite true . History has proven on more than one occasion that the gutter press is best left to dig it's own grave.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0