harry the nazi

[jvd]

eh , i take more offence that they let star jones on e than any swatsitca ,i mean who cares . Even if he does believe in that and it wasn't just a costume why should we care ? He is has a right to say whatever he wants however he wnats . I'm sure through out history many can find something that the catholic church had done that is almost as bad as the nazis but we would never get upset if someone wore a cross .


Or is that just a united states thing

 

[epicstruggle]

i mean who cares .

probably not very many, but the ones that do are more than likely survivors of concentration camps or relatives of those who were in it. If they said it was no big deal and that they had accept the appology, then it would be a different thing.

epic

 

[Captain Chickenpants]

In the context of a private individual going to a private fancy-dress party it's no big deal really. Trouble is that Hazza isn't a private individual, he's a member of teh Royal Family, and therefore (justifiably or not) different rules apply to him. So it's unfair on him, tough, he's perfectly at liberty to renounce his title.

No, he's perfectly at liberty to not give a fuck about what anyone says, like he has done since he was born. And he knows the only people who will give him grief are the journalist at higly renowned papers like The Sun, The Daily Express and The Daily Mirror.

Hmm, no I disagree. As far as I am concerned the only use for the Royal Family (for which WE pay them a great deal) is to act as ambassadors for this country, ambassadors are expected to act with tact and diplomacy, this was neither.

Say all you like about this being private party, but it was obvious that there were going to be cameras there, and a good chance that any juicy pics would make their way to the press. Not just Harry's fault as it should have been pointed out by minders/advisors.

CC

 

[Simon F]

Hmm, no I disagree. As far as I am concerned the only use for the Royal Family (for which WE pay them a great deal) is to act as ambassadors for this country
CC

They should also act as ambassadors for the whole Commenwealth, which I consider a more important role.

 

[London Geezer]

In the context of a private individual going to a private fancy-dress party it's no big deal really. Trouble is that Hazza isn't a private individual, he's a member of teh Royal Family, and therefore (justifiably or not) different rules apply to him. So it's unfair on him, tough, he's perfectly at liberty to renounce his title.

No, he's perfectly at liberty to not give a fuck about what anyone says, like he has done since he was born. And he knows the only people who will give him grief are the journalist at higly renowned papers like The Sun, The Daily Express and The Daily Mirror.

Hmm, no I disagree. As far as I am concerned the only use for the Royal Family (for which WE pay them a great deal) is to act as ambassadors for this country, ambassadors are expected to act with tact and diplomacy, this was neither.

Say all you like about this being private party, but it was obvious that there were going to be cameras there, and a good chance that any juicy pics would make their way to the press. Not just Harry's fault as it should have been pointed out by minders/advisors.

CC

He's a kid for God's sake (rather cute too, both of them, god they're 2 cute brothers.. anyway) let him do kid's stuff. Then when he's old enough to do ambassador stuff, he will have to do that, if he wants to.
No one should be forced to do something they don't want to do, just because of what family they're in. And that stays true for the royal family. Why should he "renounce his title", it's his family. He has every right to stay in the family and be a Prince, even if he decides that being an Ambassador of Peace is not what he wants to do. He never signed a contract when he was born, and it's ridiculous to keep expecting stuff from the Royal Family, because i'm sure that 99% of their (very many) issues stem from the fact that the people "expect" things from them.

 

[epicstruggle]

He's a kid for God's sake (..) let him do kid's stuff.

Isnt he like 20? seems like he is old enough to start thinking about the ramifications of his actions.

epic

 

[Captain Chickenpants]

He's a kid for God's sake (rather cute too, both of them, god they're 2 cute brothers.. anyway) let him do kid's stuff. Then when he's old enough to do ambassador stuff, he will have to do that, if he wants to.
No one should be forced to do something they don't want to do, just because of what family they're in. And that stays true for the royal family. Why should he "renounce his title", it's his family. He has every right to stay in the family and be a Prince, even if he decides that being an Ambassador of Peace is not what he wants to do. He never signed a contract when he was born, and it's ridiculous to keep expecting stuff from the Royal Family, because i'm sure that 99% of their (very many) issues stem from the fact that the people "expect" things from them.

Yes he is a kid, and kids should be (at his age) guided by their parents as to what is acceptable behaviour, which is why I said it is not just his fault. If someone elses kid does something anti-social or inappropriate then it reflects badly on the parents. In this case his parent is a representative of this country and the commonwealth, so it can easily be taken to reflect badly on the country.

Yes this is blown out of proportion by the media, but the unwashed masses tend to believe much of what the media says. What gets reported one way in this country, may get reported differently in another country simply to push a message that they want to sell.

The reason that there are expectations on the Royal Family is that we support them. It isn't fair that he has basically been born into a job that he may not want, and he shouldn't be judged as a representative of the country until he is an adult and fully responsible for his actions, but the fact of the matter is that he will be judged and it is the job of his family and their aides etc. to make sure that his behaviour doesn't make this country look like a bunch of racially intolerant idiots.

CC

 

[London Geezer]

Well, in the end it's always the parents' fault. Or in this case, the whole family.

 

[PatrickL]

If you ask nicely, we may still have a Guillotine stored somewhere

 

[epicstruggle]

 

[Captain Chickenpants]

If you ask nicely, we may still have a Guillotine stored somewhere

LOL

 

[nutball]

If you ask nicely, we may still have a Guillotine stored somewhere

Hehe, you guys had the right idea. We did it to one of ours once, but let the buggers back.

 

[London Geezer]

Ordered to see Holocaust movie "The Shindler's List"

It's wonderful to see The Sun journalists having some imagination.

 

[akira888]

Epic:
By that logic, couldn't black slaves or formerly colonized third world peoples demand that the Star Spangled Banner, Union Jack or Le Drapeau Tricolore be removed from all public settings? Were those incidents in our/their history really that morally distinct from what Germany did to the Jews?

I've never fully understood the totemic significance awarded the swastika. It's funny how the symbol of ideal and absolute evil is the insignia not of the Bolsheviks but of the Nazis, after all, the Marxists were the worst mass-murderers of the 20th century by far: 110 million victims of the Sino-Soviet Gulag versus a relatively paltry 9 million victims of Jewish-Gypsy Genocide. No doubt Harry's swastika was a pathetic attempt at hipster irony as are the millions of ridiculous Che Guevara shirts worn in the US and Europe; except one is perfectly acceptable by nearly everyone while the other is enough to set off a total shit storm.

Simon:
The old Greek royal family had not a drop of Greek blood to their name; they weren't even Orthodox until the early 20th century. And that is why they are the deposed Greek Royal Line.