To All Price Harry Bashers and Media Suckers

[hollywood926]

Back away from the Kool Aid!

When the freeper media tells you what you should be fake angry about, please stop embarrassingly falling for it. Maybe ask yourself, "Hmmm, what are they trying to keep me from thinking about today?"

Prince Harry can wear whatever the fuck he wants whenever the fuck he wants. Period.

God, this is embarrassing. This whole country has gone mad with political correctness. Both sides.

P.S. How many of you have written letters to Mel Brooks admonishing him for wearing a Nazi uniform - or are only Jews allowed to do that?

And how many of you have scolded friends for wearing Saddam Hussein masks? Or is that OK because his victims were just Arabs?

[Maple]

1. The royal family

is not your head of state. They are to others...who find it important.

And no, Harry can't wear 'whatever the fuck he wants'

[hollywood926]

2. Umm, but yes he can. n/t

[Maple]

7. Ummm but no he can't

[hollywood926]

13. He DID. So he can. n/t

[Maple]

16. He did...

so he can also get his family's ass booted out of their position.

Lot of anti-monarchists in the UK, and they play up things like this.

And after all the shenanigans of the last few years, they don't need many more excuses to remove them.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Speak for yerself...

Last time I checked Lizzie (channeling via the GG) was our head of state here and I find the whole thing so unimportant...

Harry can't wear whatever the fuck he wants when he's in private? Isn't he allowed to have a private life or something?

Violet...

[sui generis]

3. I agree - much ado about not much

Yeah it was a dumb thing to do for someone in his position. So what, get over it - kids are allowed to do dumb things; it's how they learn (if they survive).

[Behind the Aegis]

4. And yet...

Would you be as against all this "fake anger" if Jenna Bush had gone to a party in black-face? And, trust me...my anger is neither fake nor inspired by the media.

[smbolisnch]

10. Good Point.

I haven't gotten all worked up over prince Harry.....
It has nothing to do with the kool aid, what he did was inappropriate. My granny was Welsh..I can remember being a kid and seeing how proud and excited she was when Diana and Charles were married, and then when the princes were born etc. You get the idea. I am sure she is rolling in her grave over the whole thing. He knew exactly what he was doing.

[hollywood926]

12. if you believe that...

then you must think he is a genuinely bad person, right? "He knew exactly what he was doing." What does that mean?

[smbolisnch]

32. Uh, no I don't, not at all actually....

Why would you assume I thought that?

It means, he wanted to shock people, he wanted to upset people. Do you honestly believe that when he put that on he didn't think that some people may be hurt/offended/angry about it? He just sisn't give a shit.

I don't give a damn if people are offended by my sticker that says * sucks, but it is completely different.

[hollywood926]

11. I don't care what Jenna Bush does at parties!

And frankly, I suspect what she does at parties is far worse than wear black-face.

No, of course I wouldn't care. Why would I care?
She can do whatever she wants at her parties with her friends.

Of course your anger is fake. Please....go get a mirror and look at yourself and say, "I am truly angry that a man I have never met in my life went to a party dressed as a Nazi."

You MUST be joking.

[Behind the Aegis]

17. Good for you!

Why should you care? Well, I can't tell you how to feel; although who seem to feel qualified to tell me how I feel. I care because they are role-models and have a responsibility not to act like asses. I can forgive mistakes. It was irresponsible.

My anger is real. He didn't think and made a poor choice. But, I am not as angry at him as I am at people like you, who are dismissive of the symbolism of hate. I don't feel he needs to be taken out and shot, imprisoned, or anything else, other then have a quick history lesson about why wearing Nazi regalia is not smart!

You will know when I am joking...I do not joke about Nazis in this context.

[Violet_Crumble]

26. Hogans Heroes - using the symbolism of hate!

And it jokes about Nazis. Do you have problems with that show as well?

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

28. No

Because those jokes denigrate Nazis, not like wearing a costume, which could be seen as supportive. If he was trying to be humorous, he could have added to the costume. There is a difference between TV and real life. But, since you bring it up...would you think this was as trivial if he had dressed as an Israeli soldier carrying a "dead baby doll" wrapped in the Palestinian flag? Wouldn't that be a knee-slapper!?

[Violet_Crumble]

36. I never realised fancy dress parties were such serious affairs!

C'mon, surely people don't assume that because someone goes to a party dressed as something it means they are that thing or support it? Parties are supposed to be fun things I thought, and fancy dress costumes aren't *real life*. Now if Harry were to have turned up to some official function dressed as an SS or Gestapo officer or if there'd been a hint of a swastika around, that's a whole different story and would be incredibly offensive...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

38. The spotlight

When you are in the spotlight, your actions carry weight, for good or bad. It may not be fair, but that is "real life!" He is held to a different standard, and if you cannot see that; well, then you just won't understand. He is a PUBLIC figure and should be thoughtful about his choices, it is the burden he must bear. So, I guess it would have been OK at this dress party had he worn the costume I mentioned in my other post?

[Violet_Crumble]

42. What spotlight??

He was at a PRIVATE party. He is allowed to attend private things, y'know. Public figures are allowed to have privacy, or don't you agree with that? Fuck it. I don't just think he should have been more careful with his choice of costume, I think he was damn evil for even thinking he had any right to attend a fancy dress party at all. Not having any fun in his life at all is a burden he must bear. After all, he's a public figure and there's nothing wrong with people who are supposed to be friends taking a photo of him in a private setting and selling it to the media. It bothers me that some folk seem to think that a choice of costume for a fancy dress party is *real life*. And that should answer yr question, methinks...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

46. Dishonest

It was private and he HAS the right to attend, but he also is a PUBLIC figure and therefore, should be able to take the heat when he makes a poor choice, whether in the public or private arena. It is sad that famous people do not have more privacy, it is an awful price to pay for being famous. His choice was real life, he wasn't dressing up for a play. I don't think he is an anti-Semite because of his choice. I just think he made a poor decision. Whether he likes it or not, he will always be a target of the media.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. What's dishonest?

He and William have been public figures since the day they were born, but that does not at all mean that they're not entitled to enjoy some of their lives away from the media spotlight. After their mother died as a result of being a constant target of the media, the media was asked to let them grow up in privacy. So a line can be drawn between private and public when it comes to them. I don't care if Harry smokes dope, drinks, punches pesky paparrazzi, or what he goes to a fancy dress party dressed as. But if he does any of that stuff when he's on the clock attending official functions, that's a whole different story. Of course he'll always be a target of the media, but surely we as the intended audience can work out what should be in the public domain and what shouldn't be. I just tend to find stuff to do with the royals a bit boring, that's all...



btw, does anyone know if Wills has lost his virginity yet? As a public figure not entitled to privacy, I want to know if the media caught that milestone in his life? ;)

Violet...

[funkybutt]

56. Black Face

One Mardi Gras krewe here in new orleans always has and always will parade in Black Face. Guess which krewe it is.

Zulu..the historically african american social aid and pleasure club (now multi-cultural)
http://www.mardigrasneworleans.com/zulu/

In certain situations, it's accepted. Mardi Gras is one of those situations. A judge here in LA was repremanded for wearing blackface to a Halloween party. But his costume wasnt' JUST black face. It also included handcuffs and shackles!

[GumboYaYa]

81. Zulu is a unique situation.

The black face Zulus are simply recognizing the history that gave rise to the parade, the first and only all black Mardi Gras parade (at least then). The skit "There Never was and Never will be a King Like Me" was an old New Olreans vaudvellian act about a Zulu tribe. The original Zulu members emulated the play in the early days of Zulu. For years they stopped the black face because people thought it was racist. It reemerged later as a way of honoring the history of the parade.

I know you know all this, but I wanted to post some of the history so people do not think there is anything racist about this practice.

[funkybutt]

82. I heard they never stopped the black face

even though membership dwindled down to the teens.

[GumboYaYa]

83. They stopped from the 19teens until the 1930's

then restarted. There was outrage over the black face but they kept doing it even though membership went to almost nothing.

Regardless, your point is well-taken that context is key. What appears on its face to be outrageous may have a completely different meaning.

I think your private Lindy costume will be hilarious, but you need to get your hubby to let you put a dog leash on him and drag him around.

[funkybutt]

84. well maybe not specifically Lindy...

It could be that other young lady who seemed to quite enjoy her situation.

Although, I've been practicing the "lindy" pose - cigarette smile + double pistol point

[Bluebear]

5. It would not occur to ANY of my friends to wear a "Saddam Hussein" mask

Maybe it's my 'humorless' circle.

[sweetheart]

6. You are right

We are democrats, and we stand for civil rights for ALL people, no
matter their family background. Those here who would impugn those
rights for someone on nobody's payroll are certainly not liberals.

It seems as well that those folks are secretly royalists as they are
endemically putting forward the glory of the divine right of kings
as a foundation to why a royal family member has different rights,
and what are we doing promoting royalist views on DU?

The madness is funny, but it shows how rotten the wood is in much of
the democratic support base. You cannot believe that "all men are
created equal" AND chastize a 20 year old for expressing himself...

Only if you forego that first principal can you make a case for
laying a trip on prince harry.

[Maple]

9. Are you a Brit or an American?

[sweetheart]

14. And what does that have to do with Prince Harry?

I'm "american born" as they say in britain. I live in scotland.

You seem to believe in the divine right of kings, by your description
that prince harry is "royal" and therefore has different rights than
human rights.... so as you are a royalist, does that make you canadian
or british? Do i ask... no.. as i'm more interested in your argument
than your person.

[Maple]

20. Then it might behoove you

to discover something about the country you're actually living in.

The 'all men are created equal' is an American belief. You're not in America anymore.

I'm a Canadian. The Queen is our head of state.

And I'd appreciate it if her grandson learned some manners...not to mention some history.

The rights are known as the 'royal perogative'

Something you could have discovered by checking UK web pages on the monarchy and government structure.

The 'divine right of kings' is different altogether, and disappeared centuries ago.

[sweetheart]

31. You know you're a tad arrogant

I've read the entire british book on citizenship, published by the
home office, which i bet you've never read yourself... no where in that
book does it describe a 2 tier system of rights, one for the special
classes and one for the not special.

Here is wikipedia on royal perogative, and you'll find that it pertains
to the monarch... period.... so harry is not covered by it. As well,
it is not in any government website in the UK, so it must be a secret
outside of the queens powers to dissolve parliament and all the stuff
listed on this wikipedia entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative

That the new citizenship guide makes no mention of it, only the
equality of citizens under the law, and as none of them are monarchs,
no need explain.

So i challenge you, arrogant one, to come forth with some more detailed
proof about how royal perogative implies that a 3rd in line person to
the throne does not have the same civil rights and anyone else.

The divine right of kings is as i'm using it, royal god given rights
that are not doled out to the regulars... and i think i'm being true
to that usage. In that sense, bush* is the person exercising this
power veiled as executive priviledge.

[Maple]

40. Arrogant?? You're the one

telling everyone that the Brits should be like the Americans.

Well...they're not. And the UK is where you're living now. Not America.

I live in Canada, and it's a monarchy. So I intend to criticize that monarchy when I see fit.

Harry is third in line for the throne, and may well become King. My King in fact.

He should behave in accordance with that position.

Wikipedia is not a source. Try the proper sites. That's what they're for.

The 'divine right of kings' is a specific phrase and doctrine, from a specific time in British history, it is not something that you can use to suit yourself.

Harry can run around nude if he likes, but it will get him arrested, and will add to the anti-monarchists push to remove the royal family.

This would be why common sense, decency, and a knowledge of history should be important to him.

The British support his privilege, position and possessions with their tax money, and have done so for centuries. They have even fought wars to assure him his right of succession...another UK body of laws...they have the right to expect him to act in accordance with that. So do the rest of us who have the Queen as head of state.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. Canada's no more a monarchy than Australia...

A bit on the semantics side here, but they're both constitutional monarchies. And hopefully some time very soon Australia won't be that, but a republic...

Personally I think that seeing as we're not taxpayers who contribute to the upkeep of the royals, all we have the right to expect on that side of things is that our GGs act in a way that's got a bit of dignity and grace. Then again, there was resistance from the PM to removing our previous GG even after he said a woman who'd been raped as a child by a member of the clergy had been asking for it, so there's not a whole lot of dignity or respect left in those positions...

Violet...

[Maple]

52. Canada is and always has been

a monarchy. We also have a constitution which specifies that.

Canada is not keen on being a republic.

We pay for the upkeep of the GG, the Queen's representative, who also has specific rights and privileges, and expect them to behave in a respectable fashion as well. Ours have done so.

[Violet_Crumble]

57. Maple...

Canada is a constitutional monarchy, same as Australia. The constitution bit isn't a little afterthought to be tacked on there after the bright dazzling lights of the word Monarchy...

I don't give a shit whether Canada becomes a republic or not. That may have to do with me being Australian, I guess. And we are pretty keen on becoming a republic, though the PM and his monarchist goons loaded the deck so that the referendum on it was bound to come out in favour of retaining the monarchy...

Violet...

[Maple]

58. I just said that

We've had a constitution from day one as well. You know, the one which specifies we are a monarchy?

[Violet_Crumble]

61. No, I said it first...

You just repeated it and kept on highlighting the monarchy bit. Are you a monarchist or something?

Violet...

[Maple]

63. You insisted

that Canada was not a monarchy...indeed it is, as is Australia.

And being a monarchist isn't illegal in either country. It's the norm.

[Violet_Crumble]

65. Please read what I said...

I said that Australia and Canada were constitutional monarchies. Claiming that they're merely monarchies is incredibly misleading...

I asked you if you were a monarchist, not if it were illegal to be one. And being a monarchist isn't the norm in Australia, btw...

Violet...

[Maple]

68. Since we are all

well aware that we are a constitutional monarchy, and have been both since day one, I fail to see the distinction to you.

My position on the monarchy was posted further down the page.

[Violet_Crumble]

71. Because the constitution's important to most folk...

Don't know about the canadian constitution, and for all I know it might only have some guff in it saying it's ever so important to have a monarch as a head of state, but what differentiates Australia as a constitutional monarchy from merely being a monarchy is that our constitution limits the powers of the monarch...

Yep. Just read that post. And here I was suspecting all this time that you were a republican!! ;) (note to US readers - a different and much better thing http://www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/whoweare/who_aboutus.htm than US Republicans)

Violet...

[Maple]

74. Our constitution is important to us too

and it specifies that the Queen is the head of state, along with all the other organizational and jurisdictional matters in Canada.

Were you expecting something along the lines of 'off with their heads?'

[sweetheart]

60. So your a monarchist on America's democratic underground

And though we might be discussing britain's royal family, the editorial
view here is that "All people are created equal." You get miffed when
i speak "ignorantly" that the royal family are just regalar people...
and i guess it depends on which bible is the foundation for your
knowledge stack. My stack has the united nations universal declaration
of human rights as the foundation. I view british government through
the lens of that pre-existing foundatoin, which is, by happenstance,
in accordance with the liberal principals espoused on DU of all
people being equal under the law.

The folks i know here in the highlands are not big royalists, as you'd
figure given the prevalence of the scottish national party and socialists
in the highlands. In this regard, i am not out of line with the folks
in my area, even for the UK. To blanch the people of the UK as a
bunch of monarch-worshipping peasants is a propaganda spin i've never
seen in direct experience... rather it seems the tory party of monarchs
and empires is statistically old (over 60 on average) and dying off.

Harry might as well as being your king, be the monarch who NEVER sees
the throne in his life, or for that matter, has the monarchy
secularized and modernized to be like japans or swedens where there
is no royal perogative... and then your knickers are all in a bunch
over nothing.

The divine right of kings has a specific meaning from history and a
general meaning, like i've used... and you're not familiar with that
but it is not uncommon to use the term in a similar vein to "jesuitical".

I've read, just now the UK official stuff: http://www.direct.gov.uk/QuickFind/GuideToGovernment/G2GMenu7/G2GArticle7/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4003094&chk=DwUEe2
and it only points out that prince henry of wales is 3rd in line
of succession, and gives no outline of any special rights or powers
that are reserved for members of the royal family outside the monarch.

I imagine that if they did try to outline such special rights,
they monarchy would be out on its ass right pronto... as the public
is increasingly intolerant of being saddled by a feudal family of
people who get free life welfare.

Of course it upsets a monarchist, when someone like myself speaks
of the monarchy as just regular folks, and no matter were i to become
a UK citizen one day, would i ever feel any different about that, such
is the view of all people being equal... and it upsets you, my
insolence to question the very moral foundation of the bottom book
of your tower of knowledge... as how dare i question the foundation
of power of the ground on which i stand... and indeed, that is
my very view. The ground on which i stand is millions of years old
and belongs to no man or queen. You can shoot me or imprison me,
whip me to feign otherwise, but the fact remains that mankind are
but fleeting visitors to this earth's crust.

Here on DU, one would hope that we support human rights over the
wrong headed views of monarchists... as indeed the founders of
the american experiment were right, with no need to mention the
current lot of rats gnawing at the hull of the ship.

:-)

[Maple]

67. You have a problem with that?

There are lots of Canadians on here, and whatever our personal feelings on monarchies...we are one. The Queen is our head of state.

You have an American point of view...but we aren't discussing America.

You may view the UK and Canada through any lens you like, but that has nothing to do with us being a monarchy, or knowing more about it than you do.

I said nothing about anyone in the UK, or anywhere else for that matter being 'monarch-worshipping peasants'.

The Scots have their own royal family line.

Please stop throwing babblegab into this. The rights are well known and documented...including the ancient 'divine right of kings' whether you know about them or not.

We are not discussing your right to stand on the earth's crust and announce your environmental views or anything else either. We are discussing Prince Harry in a Nazi uniform.

[sweetheart]

73. Well, your agrument is just plain wrong

There is not a single source that says an heir to the throne has
any royal perogative. This website suggests that a majority of
canadians are actually not for a monarchy were it put to a vote:
http://www.monarchyfreecanada.org/poll_results.htm

You use jesuitical arguments, without sources, to say "the rights
are well known and documented" that any royal to the throne has
speical rights !! show me... i think you're making it up, just
because the queen has it, and extending it in your mind to all
royals.

If you search scotland's "http://scotland.gov.uk" website, you'll find
nothing about the monarchy or scotland's monarchy as we're in a post
modern age regardless of what tradionalists might infer.

This poll http://www.readersdigest.co.uk/magazine/willspoll.htm
suggests that by the time another generation of monarchy, if the
institution transcends elisabeth at all, is not likely to go much
further...

So, relative to the discussion, prince harry, who has no special
royal perogative or obligation to act in any certain way, who is not
and may never be anything but "in line to the throne", is granted
the same civil rights as you and I... and you're wrong for all
that talk, as you can't produce any sources or knoweldge except your
own jesuitical assertions to the contrary.

The monarchy is dying and prince harry is the post-modern monarchy,
a king who is a commoner, a man who is one of the people, who will
never ascede to any throne except what people give him in their hearts.

[Maple]

77. No, it is not

And your websites are bizarre choices.

The title 'monarchy free Canada' should have given you a hint about the kind of site you were on. If you go to the Monarchists league of Canada, you will find information showing just the opposite.

Any historic site for Scotland will tell you a great deal about Scottish monarchs, and the wars involving them and various English monarchs. Maybe the name, Mary, Queen of Scots rings a bell?

Yes, eventually all monarchies will be gone. The question is when. Harry certainly isn't helping their image. Which is the whole point of this thread, actually. Not all these tangents you keep dragging into it.

I'm sorry, but we're all monarchies, and the royals have special rights and privileges, whether you can figure them out or not.

Apparently you seem to think that everyone should adhere to the American way of doing things.

Thank you, no.

[sweetheart]

79. Your're bending words mate

Fact is, you can't supply any support for your assertions.

You're reaching back to mary queen of scots for evidence of scottish
monarchy, but if you live in the "today", you'll find nothing except
a few castles, balmoral and whatnot of the windsors.

I'm discussing harry's behaviour is direct evidence that the monarchy
has outlived its usefulness, and have been making this point on these
sorts of threads now for a coupla days.

You can't find any support for the assertion you keep making that
those in line to the throne have special rights and priviledges, as
indeed there are none, except the potential that they might one day
be selected to be "the" monarch. Until then, those rights are not
enumerated, which is why you can't find any supporting web material
nor can i in searching the UK government sites, google, the scottish
government sites, amongst others...

So you bend words to say i think they should adhere to american
ways, rather i'm saying that in the absence of any special code, they
are bound by the human rights act... and since niether of us can
discover or find this code, i suggest it only exists in your assertions.

To call the human rights act, an american thing is just silly.

[DrWeird]

8. Prince Harry knew exactly what he was doing.

[hollywood926]

15. Then what should we do with this evil young man?

I guess some people are liberals in name only - others in practice.

[DrWeird]

18. What should we do with antisemites?

Ignore them. It's perfectly fine with me if they're bigots, just as long as I don't have to deal with them or their apologists.

[hollywood926]

22. Prince Harry is now an anti-Semite?

What a leap.

If that's true, I don't suggest ignoring him. He could end up slaughtering millions of Jews!

That poor kid. At least he now knows he lives in a world of non-stop irrational hysteria.

[DrWeird]

25. Obviously.

Just like those frat boys who dressed up in black face and prison uniforms are racist.

They weren't really kids either. Like I said, they know exactly what they're doing.

Oh, and you don't have to actually be Hitler to be an antisemite.

[hollywood926]

33. You are minimizing anti-Semitism.

It's a little more than putting on a costume at a theme party. I think someone who tries so hard to invalidate and minimize anti-Semitism is more anti-Semetic than a person who wears a Nazi costume to a theme party.

[DrWeird]

35. No, I think you are.

By ignoring it.

[Violet_Crumble]

37. Just great....

Now anyone who doesn't jump on the hysteria bandwagon and agree that Harry wearing Nazi costume to fancy dress party = anti-Semite is 'ignoring anti-Semitism'. Great. Learn something new every day! ;)

Violet...

[DrWeird]

41. Not at all.

One can recognize Harry as an antisemite without being hysterical at all.

In fact, the only people I see being hysterical are his Bob Boudelangesque apologists: "He was just a kid. So stop saying that!!!"

[Violet_Crumble]

44. Then why is all I'm seeing hysteria?

Accusing him of being an anti-Semite for wearing a uniform to a fancy dress party IS a tad hysterical in my humble opinion....

Violet...

[DrWeird]

47. No, I'm quite calm about it.

There was that other apologist that got banned. He didn't see anything wrong with it either. Then he got hysterical and came out of the bigot closet and made a bunch of racist and homophobic remarks.

I think it's funny that people are falling over themselves apologizing for him. They say it's OK because he was a kid. Which means that they know what he did was wrong, it's just OK because he didn't understand what he was doing.

LOL.

[Violet_Crumble]

59. Uh-huh...

It doesn't come across as calmness to me at all. Instead of going on about another poster who I don't recall seeing and aren't particularly interested in hearing about, hows about you sit there and explain how wearing a Nazi uniform to a fancy dress party makes someone anti-Semitic. You've been asked several times to explain this and haven't done so yet..

I'll say what he did is okay because as far as I'm aware there's no law that says it's evil and forbidden to go to a fancy dress party in the uniform of the Afrika Corps. You are aware of what the Afrika Corps were, aren't you? D'uh, that's why the costume was available in the costume shop he got it in. Or is the shop also anti-Semitic?

Violet...

[DrWeird]

62. No, I don't think that would be antisemitic.

But since when do antisemites dress up as the Afrika Corp?

[Violet_Crumble]

64. So what makes you convinced?

What has gotten you so convinced that Harry's an anti-Semite?

Violet...

[DrWeird]

70. He likes to dress up like a nazi.

What's got you convinced that he isn't?

[Violet_Crumble]

72. That's it??

He wore a costume to a fancy dress party once, so how does that turn into 'he likes to dress up as a nazi'? So anyone who has ever worn a similar constume to a fancy dress party is also an anti-Semite? How totally ridiculous. You don't have any other reason to label him an anti-Semite than that?

I've got absolutely no idea whether he is or isn't anti-Semitic as I haven't read anything about him to indicate one way or the other...

Violet...

[DrWeird]

76. Depends.

Who else as dressed up like a nazi to a costume party?

I mean, there was Eric Cartman...

but he's an antisemite.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. Harry's now an anti-Semite?

Hey, does that make the costume store that rented him the outfit for the fancy dress party anti-Semitic? Does that make anyone who dares to speak positively of Rommel's military skills (after all, it was the uniform of the Afrika Corps Harry was wearing) anti-Semitic? No offense intended here, but methinks you may have little in the way of clues when it comes to knowing what is and isn't bigotry....

Violet...

[sweetheart]

24. talk or action?

I see your point Dr weird, just as politics is really action on the
ground speaking lounder than appearances, perhaps antisemites that doo
antisemitic things are the baddies, not people who wear costumes.

I doubt anyone would disagree whether it was a bad call for harry, but
it didn't seem to hurt mel brook's career, nor so many others who've
used nazi getup as a costume for entertainment. "the producers",
"the great escape", "Union Bank of Switzerland", "the ninth configuration"... sooo many films and entertainment has used this
symbol, as a way of disempowering it... so you can't exactly say the
symbol itself represents antisemitism, but rather the intent for
using it. You could say the stars and bars represents slavery, or
perhaps it represents some cloth, and the person who uses it might
be using it to wipe the asses of his pigs, in which case, perhaps it
it is a symbol of the defeat of slavery.

[DrWeird]

27. Apples and oranges.

Dr. Dre says "nigger" a lot, but I know he's not a racist. Mel Brooks makes fun of Hitler. I know he's not a racist.

How do you know which is a bigot and which isn't?

You can use your head.

[Behind the Aegis]

30. and to add

Their intentions (Dr. Dre and Brooks) are known. When one does something like this, the intention is not known and it can be (and has been) perceived as offensive. I am a big proponent of civil rights, but if I wore a Klan outfit to a party, I'd get my ass kicked because it would not be understood I was mocking the Klan. Of course, if I were going to mock them, I would look just like them, I would make them look foolish...Harry didn't make it clear he was mocking the Nazis.

[DrWeird]

34. Indeed, he didn't make that clear.

And I don't think that's what he was intending to do.

[ghostsofgiants]

21. Sure Harry can wear whatever he wants...

Doesn't mean he's not a dick for doing so.

[ThorsHammer]

29. Question for Maple

Do most English people support the idea of monarchy? I'm not English, but would find the entire concept inherently offensive. Aren't they basically saying that a tiny group of people is superior just because of who their ancestors were? It's obviously not as harmful as slavery, and I'm not trying to compare the two by any means, but the underlying principle that some people are in a higher class than others still seems to be there. I'm also not a fan of this "Sir" business. For the most part, it seems to be an unearned title (unlike an MD, PhD, judge, etc), and seems very pompous. Again, I don't mean any offense to your culture, but I really dislike the idea of royalty/classes.

[sweetheart]

39. maple is canadian

There is a significant vocal minority that supports the monarchy in
the UK. It is diminishing.

Superior? Rather by their birthright, there is a monarch, a person
who's very body existance "is" the nation after they are anointed by
the holy oils in the state church.

The "sir" business of titles is not quite the same as royalty, and
is sorta like the american medal of freedom, or the congressional
medal of honour... great service can gain you a title, and those i've
met with such titles are really quite outstanding people... so in
terms of that, live and let live.

Maple did just recommend this and it might help your question.. or
to better formulate given some more data:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings

[ThorsHammer]

43. Thanks, that does help

I'm still no fan of royalty, but am glad to hear more about the 'Sir' business. I never knew it was like the Congressional Medal of Honor or American Medal of Freedom. I still don't think I would choose to refer to someone as such, but to each their own. Having someone like Conrad Black ("Lord" I think) in the news recently might have been what tainted my view on this.

[Maple]

50. A 'sir' and a 'lord'

are two quite different things.

There is an aristocracy in the UK with hereditary titles. The Queen can also make someone a Duke, Baron, Earl and so on today for service to the country.

A knight is a very low order of this, and only has the title Sir.

Ronald Reagan was knighted, and chose not to use the honourific in the US.

An aristocracy is banned in Canada, which is why Conrad Black gave up his Canadian citizenship and moved to the UK, when he was offered a title...a move the UK no doubt regrets now. However we were happy to get rid of him. ;)

[ThorsHammer]

80. Thanks again

As you can probably guess, I'm not a fan of the hereditary titles. The service ones sound alright though, as they're actually earned. I never knew a knight was at the low end, as I always thought it was some huge deal to be knighted and called "sir".

[Maple]

45. I am Canadian

and the Queen is our head of state as well. Canada has always been a monarchy. French at first, and then English.

On the whole, Brits and Canadians support and like the monarchy. It has given us a stable way of life for centuries by providing a symbol of the state above the shenanigans of elected politicians.

As in...Bush may represent the US, but Blair does not represent the UK. He's just temporary. We try not to let politicians get above themselves, and come to think they own the place. :D

That is why the image and the role are important public tools.

There are certainly anti-monarchists in the UK, as there are in Canada, but so far they are a small minority.

More incidents like this and that may change however.

I'm not keen on monarchies myself, but as long as we have one, and they get to live as well as they do, with all the benefits involved, they should damn well behave themselves.

[ThorsHammer]

51. Thanks

I had never thought about the stability part, and it is admittedly a positive thing. I just wish they lived more normally, without the castles, jewels, etc, as they don't seem to really do much work. Thanks for clarifying things, and I agree completely on your last point

[Lex]

48. I'm less worked up about it than you are--fake or not.

If I'm "fake angry" maybe you are "fake overly defensive" about it all?

Ask yourself why you're so worked up about defending him.

[funkybutt]

53. I'm considering this as a mardi gras costume:

me = Lindy England
my SO = that tortured iraqi in the photo with the wires standing on the box...


is that offensive too? I'd imagine it would be to some people...as would OBL and Saddam Hussein masks...how about GWB masks..i guess that'd be offensive too since he too has slaughtered a bunch of people..

Maybe we should just dress up like Spongebob so that nobody gets their panties in a wad.

ON EDIT: On Parading Krewe's members here are still required to wear "blackface" for carnival. Nobody seems to have a problem with it. Guess which Krewe it is!

Zulu..a historically black (now multi cultural krewe)
http://www.mardigrasneworleans.com/zulu/

[KG]

55. who is Price Harry?

[smbolisnch]

66. LOL

I shouldn't laugh, I'm no stranger to typos. I can't help it though, it was funny. :P

[CarpeVeritas]

69. Mel Brooks was playing a part in a satirical movie...

Prince Harry is a member/representative of the royal family- which carries certain and well-defined responsibilities...he can't really "wear whatever he wants".

how well would a black-faced jenna & babs minstrel show go over?

[Paulie]

75. He's just showing his heritage?

Sorta like the Confederate battle flag.... Aren't the British Royals german? :evilgrin: :spank:

I recall that the Monarch has the right to NOT sign the laws generated by the Parliments in the Commonwealth, even if they always happen to sign. True?

[Maple]

78. Yes, the British royals are German

They changed their name to the House of Windsor, from the House of Saxe-Coburg because of the wars. Lotta PR there.

They are born in England now, but the late Duke of Windsor insisted he was German. Chummy with Hitler too.

The monarch has the right not to sign, but it would have to be something extraordinary for her to go against the wishes of her elected officials.

In the Commonwealth countries, where the Queen is the head of state, the 'Governor-General' signs in the Queen's name.

[DoNotRefill]

85. Jesus Christ, people...

a twenty year old kid went to a costume party in an Afrika Corps uniform.

Why aren't y'all bitching about the fact that his brother went disguised as an animal??? After all, if Harry went in a Afrika Corps uniform so he's a Nazi, doesn't that make his brother a beast?

ANYBODY can find a reason to bitch about somebody's costume. Hell, I've gone to a costume party as both a tampon and an asshole (face painted brown, pillows on either side of my head, odd "pubic hair" thrown in) on different occasions. Once (right after Waco) I went as a government ATF agent complete with through and through bullet wounds and a big-assed yellow stripe down my back. This was, of course, before I became "respectable", but still.

Let teh kid have a fucking adolescence.