Posted on 01/14/2005 7:30:33 AM PST by television is just wrong
This is LONDON 14/01/05 - News and city section
Charles backs Harry By Robert Jobson Royal Correspondent, Evening Standard
Prince Charles is refusing to force Harry to visit Auschwitz or make a TV apology for his Nazi fancy dress stunt.
The Prince of Wales is angry that his son is being pilloried for what he regards as a silly but harmless prank and wants to shelter him from further bad publicity. But the outrage over 20-year-old Harry's decision to attend a party in a German soldier's uniform with a swastika armband continues to reverberate around the world.
The royal family's refusal to take further action risks provoking yet more public criticism.
Newspapers and television stations in Israel, Germany, Italy and the US have already condemned Harry as stupid and insensitive. But after a series of meetings with senior officials, Charles made it clear that he would refuse to bow to political pressure from senior British politicians, including Tory leader Michael Howard, who demanded Harry make a personal apology.
Charles told his senior advisers he will not allow his son to be "hung out to dry". One senior official told the Standard: "As far as the Prince is concerned Harry has apologised for his mistake. He has said sorry and that is the end of the matter."
It has been decided that after Clarence House's contrite statement yesterday nothing more would be added and there will be no gesture such as a public trip by Harry to the Auschwitz concentration camp.
The offensiveness of Harry's gaffe was compounded by the timing, which coincides with the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.
This is to be commemorated later this month in a ceremony attended by representatives from around the world.
Britain will be sending European minister Denis Mac-Shane and defence under-secretary Ivor Caplin. The royal family will be represented by Prince Edward.
Mr Howard, who is Jewish, said only a televised apology from Harry would satisfy. He said: "It would be appropriate to hear from him in person. I think it might be appropriate for him to tell us himself just how contrite he is."
Harry, due to start his military training at Sandhurst in May, is said to be "deeply upset" over the reaction.
A senior source said: "There is a feeling that although it was a genuine error and certainly ill-advised he now feels under siege.
"With the benefit of hindsight he knows he was wrong to wear the uniform and the swastika armband but some among his friends feel it has been taken out of all proportion.
"While the Prince of Wales is understandably disappointed with Harry and has made his feelings very clear, he is equally adamant that his son should not be hung out to dry."
It is understood that the Queen has rallied behind her grandson despite the condemnation.
Although she agrees that Harry's decision to dress as a Nazi was ill-advised, she has acknowledged that he did so at a private party and that he genuinely meant no harm.
"The Queen has not intervened in the situation, she will always back her family and is supporting Prince Charles on whatever course of action he decides is appropriate," said the source. Charles's defiant stance comes as it emerged that he has turned to his former adviser Mark Bolland - who spearheaded his PR drive for acceptance for his relationship with Camilla Parker Bowles.
Mr Bolland, who runs a successful PR firm and is a columnist with a Sunday tabloid newspaper - was contacted by the Prince as the Harry row erupted.
His decision to turn to his former spindoctor comes despite him dispensing with his services last year. Advised by Private Secretary Sir Michael Peat, Charles hired a new public relations team led by former Manchester United spokesman Paddy Harverson.
A senior source said: "This is a clear reflection of just how seriously he's taking the issue. But also it does not reflect well on his current team of advisers."
Since the death of Diana in 1997, Charles has doted on his younger son.
He has turned to the advice of former Guards officer Mark Dyer to help steer Harry into adulthood. A source said: "There is now a feeling in the Prince of Wales's camp that Harry needs a firmer hand to guide him and the sooner he joins the Army the better."
It is still possible that the royal family may decide to send Harry to Auschwitz on a private visit should the weight of worldwide criticism prove too much to ignore.
In Israel, the country's top daily was flooded with readers' comments accusing the Prince of being stupid and acting in bad taste.
In the US, the New York Post ran the picture of Harry with the headline Royal Nazi while the Washington Post declared: "Consensus on Prince Harry's Gaffe: He Knows Nothing."
It emerged that Harry hired his costume at a shop close to Highgrove, Maud's Cotswold Costumes, popular with the young royals and their set.
Among the other outfits which were said to have caught the prince's eye was a SS uniform.
Maud Franklin, 78, who runs the shop, said: "My shop is popular with young royals.
"They normally go for more specific themes or something outrageously silly like a chicken outfit."
I didn't throw the card out there. You did. Your clear implication was that b/c Hitler killed Jews there was an uproar, whereas if he dressed as someone who killed Christians, nothing would have come from it. You were the one who made the distinction. I just called you out. So please, "chill" and own up to it.
"Oi don't loike the sound of 'ese 'ere 'Boncentration Bamps.'"
You are right and all of this is silly. However, the outcry was so predictable that Harry indeed must have rocks in his head to have worn the costume. Harry should issue a personal apology, say he was an insensitive blockhead, and let the matter go.
I think you're right... to call Prince Harry relevant would be an extraordinary stretch of reality. I think the demand for a televised apology is exceptionally stupid, as well. As if Harry would go to his room and meditate over his stupidity, and write his own apology and mean it. Sure. In reality, his handlers would write it, and there would be make up techs to make him kind of pale and contrite, maybe throw in a few glycerin tears, fly over Bill Clinton for a pre-telecast tutorial on false contrition.... yes, that would really make it all better.
It's called "libel" ("slander" if you're just talking) when some1 accuses you of such bad things as racism w/o any evidence.
And how is it that saying Commies don't get the same hype and outrage as Nazis is being anti-semitic (or even, pro-Nazi)?
It's not. Boy, the conclusions people draw!
"So remember kids, dressing up like Hitler in school, isn't cool."
I just glad the world did not see some of the dumb things I did when I was young, He has learned from his mistake.
It's not slander if it's true.
Harry should have come dressed like a "gay" guy and talked like one and the world would applaud him.
Good for Charles, this outrage has moved into the ridiculous category, harry did a stupid thing, he apologised for it. I don't think he is the second coming of Le Pen because of it. The attacks have gotten out of hand. Now it's just a bunch of people wanting him to posture and preen for the press.
I loved that show the "Young Ones", watched it in college. I remember the episode of that quiz show - very funny.
It appears Harry was not very thoughtful in his costume selection and how it could be reported; however, it is a costume. I agree with another post - "get over it."
Agreed. Most of us here (I think, altho I've seen idiotic rationalizations for such as Palestinians) support Israel.
Frankly, when that last big outbreak occurred - the year BEFORE Sept 11 - I was saying Israel should blow a hole thru their "neighbors". It angers me indeed how "we" (US gov) tell Israel to calm down and hold back. That's the weiny liberal route.
And how 'bout the Internation Red Cross not letting Israel's version in? Bunch of BSers, while they support Moslem "red crescents".
Better for us all if Israel went out w/guns blazing and got rid of half their neighbors.
That's "libel", when it's in writing.
You're correct in your statement otherwise.
But you certainly have no evidence, and you don't know any of us from jack-squat, so *watch it* with your ignorant, glib, loose-cannon accusations. Because all you're doing is crying "wolf".
"Watch it"? You now sound like one of the DUers. Congrats. You forgot to write "or else" and tell me what would happen to me if I keep on keeping on.
--erik
I knew the British Royal Family liked the Nazis .... maybe we could ask Rudolf Hess .... or Winston Churchill .... or maybe the Queen knows .....
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.