Posted on 01/13/2005 5:47:48 PM PST by veronica
So, Prince Harry, the nightmheir to the throne, has put his intellectually subnormal foot in it again. Prince William’s half-witted half-brother attended a fancy dress party held by Richard Meade, the triple Olympic gold medallist (1968 & 1972), and his fancy dress consisted of Rommel shirt with a bright red Nazi armband on the sleeve. Oh, and he had a fag on. A veritable tsunami of bad taste.
Harry has been drawing a lot of flack for this gaff. Rabbi Jonathan Guttentag, leader of spiritual leader of the Whitefield Hebrew Congregation in Manchester, described the photo of a swastika-adorned Prince as "a most unfortunate gift to neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers." Michael Howard, leader of the Conservative Party (a fringe British political group), who is himself Jewish, said "I think a lot of people will be disappointed to see that photograph and it will cause a lot of offense."
So far, not a single voice has been raised in support of the plonker's actions. However, we at the London News Review are staunch fans of Harry and are ready and willing to mount a clumsy defence:
Our defence of Prince Harry
1. Prince Harry is sensationally stupid. Seriously, the lad is practically retarded, so it’s appropriate to cut him some slack. It’s a small miracle every time he finds his mouth with his cigarette, so the fact that he would put on a Nazi armband and not think – at any point – that this might possibly be a really really wrong thing to do, is perfectly understandable. Questions must be asked of the people around him: his friends, his carers, his bodyguards. Did no one think to mention to the dribbling moron that maybe the pretty red armband with the funny black squiggle in the middle was maybe best left in the limo? Would you blame a coma victim for wetting the bed? No. So don’t be too harsh on Harry.
2. The theme of the fancy dress party, thrown by famous horseman and friend of Prince Charles, Richarde Meade, was – believe it or not – ‘Colonials and Natives’. Oh lordy. Colonials and Natives? What the **** are these people on? What century are they living in? Colonials and Natives? It beggars belief. Why not ‘Imperialists and Nig Nogs’? Or would that have been bad taste? So anyway, a fair share of the blame for Harry’s outfit must surely go to the imbecilic Richarde Meade and his appalling choice of party theme.*
3. Where did Harry get the armband? Presumably he went for advice to his grandfather, who delightedly threw open his closet doors to reveal rack upon rack of Gestapo jackets stormtrooper boots. Or maybe Prince Philip simply slipped off his dressing gown to reveal his own swastika armband, which he rolled off and pressed lovingly into Harry’s upturned palm. “Now off you go, you young scamp, and have fun.”
4. No one seems to have wondered: perhaps Prince Harry didn’t realize it was a fancy dress party? It’s possible he just came on from a meeting, and didn’t have time to change. In which case it is heartening to see that he has developed an interest in politics. An early brush with fascism didn’t do Ricky Tomlinson any harm, so let’s go easy on Harry: he may well grow out of it, and soften in his politics towards Stalinism instead.
5. Most crucially: this was a fancy dress costume. In this context, the Nazi uniform has become a novelty, a bit of fun. This is surely a good thing. It is wrong to be scared of it: if we let the taboo linger, if we draw an amazed breath when we see Harry sporting the emblem of the Nazi party, then the swastika still has its power. So much better for us to think of it as a daft (yet undeniably stylish) outfit in a fancy dress shop, hanging alongside a wizard’s garb, a policeman’s uniform and a fairy costume. To treat the swastika in this way is not in any way to deny the seriousness and horror of the holocaust, but to remove the last vestiges of power from the Nazis. Little does Harry realize it, but his wearing of the swastika is an important political statement: it is the militant trivialization and belittling of Nazism. Mel Brooks should think about finding a bit part for him in the Producers. I bet he throws a wonderful salute.
¤
*Prince William went in a skin-tight leopard costume with tail and claws: a cleverly diplomatic outfit, although one has to ask what the heir to the throne was doing attending a party which had the theme 'Colonials and Natives'. Might it not have been more politically astute to have feigned a headache, stayed at home and watched a DVD of Zulu Dawn instead?
But I was always taught that the sort of terror bombing you cite was due to (a) night missions versus day missions, and (b) general license assumed after (accidental) German bombing of civilians in GB.
And,
(c) wasn't Dresden an American mission?
I like the Hitler dancing cockroach. I'd like to see it getting squished by a G.I. boot. Or a Russian boot.
They have the Iron Cross.
The Iron Cross has been the apolitical symbol of the German fighting man since Napoleonic times.
The Swastika, on the other hand, was the political symbol of National Socialism.
"think the Swastika was used by the Vikings..."
could be; a number of early pagan religions held the view of eternal recurrence, which the swastika represents.
Nazis were into occultism and other influences as well as incorporating their own interpretation of Nordic racial purity, etc. . . . It was a cobbled together theory, taking symbolism from a variety of other sources . . .
Nazism was not a natural outgrowth of German culture, and the Swastika was not a traditional symbol of German culture . . .
Hmmm... I didn't make that animation, but I think I can edit it for that.
I agree whole-heartedly with point #5. This is all much ado about nothing. Gives the British tabloid press something to whine about the Royal family.
Talking to yourself?
The author was on a roll with the h's, but stopped short of "Hewitt". I guess there's no need.
Saturday, 21 September, 2002, 23:12 GMT 00:12 UK
Hewitt denies Prince Harry link
It's sad that no matter who is the father, the kid's parentage is suspect because of his dingbat trollup of a mother.
Most British WWII vets don't think it's "nothing."
he's lived a sheltered life where it's more important to know how to sip your tea and which fork to use ,than anything really important.
not unlike many Hollywood liberals.That may explain most of their views on the whole situation of Iraq.
Buddhists, American Indians. It's called a Sun sign and is centuries old. The Nazi's stole it.
"I think the Swastika was used by the Vikings..."
at least Randy Moss hasn't worn that while faking the full moon.
Nothing that a DNA test won't fix.
"But I was always taught that the sort of terror bombing you cite was due to (a) night missions versus day missions, and (b) general license assumed after (accidental) German bombing of civilians in GB.
And,
(c) wasn't Dresden an American mission?"
The Brits bombed area targets at night, "because" they could not do precision bombing and could not afford the losses they incurred during day-time bombing raids. Of course, the military inability to conduct precision bombing does not justify bombing -- aiming at -- civilian centers. E.G. historic city centers and residential districts. Which is precisely what the British theory of terror bombing INTENDED. To aim at civilians, to terrorize them, as a means of "breaking their resistance".
The Americans, with greater precision, could conduct day-time bombing raids. The American policy, for most of the war, was to bomb ONLY militarily-significant targets. This is what they told the American people, and is what the American people expected. So the American Air Corps accepted the greater risk and losses of day-time bombing, because they were addressing militarily-significant targets, and not taking the easy way out just bombing cities at large.
So the American and British policies were different, not only their capabilities . . .
The bombing of Dresden was a primarily British mission, tho the Americans did some bombing there, too. (There were certain industrial areas outside of the city center.) Even some British pilots were sickened at what they saw -- coming back for another raid, and another, with the entire city in flames.
You are correct about the accidental bombing of some British citizens by Germans. The Germans did not intend to start a terror-bombing campaign against civilians. The Germans viewed the purposeful bombing of Berlin by the British as outrageous. After Dresden, Hitler wanted to escalate by using chemical weapons (gas) but even Keitel talked him out of that.
When they ran out of military targets, even the Americans adopted the policy of using their ordnance on anything and everything -- straffing cows and farmers on roads, etc. The air campaign had outlived all purpose by most of '45 . . .
other than tactical air support, which was under Eisenhower's command. The strategic air bombing discussed above was run by Air Command (Bomber Harris on the British side) and not coordinated with the ground campaign.
Oh, surely the palace has known the truth for years. I meant the public opinion. If Harry is really Charles' son, what are the royals supposed to say? They'd be admitting that they weren't sure, and thus snagged some DNA because after all, Diana got around. Poor kid! And would anyone believe them? Probably not. If he isn't Charles', then they can't very well announce that, either.
I am suspicious like a lot of people, but if Harry is Hewitt's kid, Charles has known for years. At least he's being the dad.
I wonder if a lot of Harry's problems are because he thinks he's Hewitt's kid (true or not), and Hewitt is denying it. And living with those Windsor-Hanover mutants has got to make anybody loony. If he's as short-changed in the mental department as many think, then he's doubly cursed.
I am no fan of the royal family but these people need to shut up, if thats the dumbest thing the kid does he will be Lucky .
I'm thinking that 'these people' remember the Blitz & the fact that Harry's grandma drove an ambulance in London during the Blitz. The 20 year old 'kid' should have learned a bit of Brit history at those fancy schools he was packed off to but, obviously, he didn't. Which leaves one to wonder just where the hell his handlers were. I normally think critics go overboard but, in this case, Harry deserves every last lick of the thumping he's taking over this.
I was expectly more of a manly-man type boot.
It's never enough with you, is it? Hmmph!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.