Home » blogs » Blake Hounshell's blog

Cry me a river, Prince Harry

Mon, 03/10/2008 - 1:55pm

SHAUN CURRY/AFP/Getty Images

The Australian magazine that was the first to publish the news that Britain's Prince Harry was fighting in Afghanistan has issued this oddly late apology:

We regret this serious lapse of judgment. We sincerely apologise to all our readers, to the servicemen whose lives are at constant risk while serving at home and abroad, and to their families and loved ones."

Here's a better idea: How about the British "royal" family abandon its ludicrous, anachronistic position and stop living off the largesse of British taxpayers? Then the press wouldn't have such dilemmas to worry about, and Harry would be free to fight wherever and whomever he wants. And his father, Prince Charles, wouldn't have to pretend that his Caribbean vacation is really a humanitarian mission.

Blake Hounshell | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

The vitriol is really uncalled for

by departuregate on Mon, 03/10/2008 - 1:06pm

Why feel the need to spew such venom at the young man for wanting to actually serve his country? If the British people wanted to get rid of the monarchy, they would. Lots of people prefer to embrace their traditions/heritage. I think this says a lot more about you than Prince Harry.

Prince Harry

by polo on Mon, 03/10/2008 - 3:24pm

Sorry but a Monarchy is not a tradition, it is a political entity. In Britain's case, make that a very expensive political entity.

If the British wanted to get rid of their monarchy, short of a Civil war, they could do nothing about it. Just because the UK says it is a democracy do not for a minute think that its leaders actually listen much to their constituents. As in most European countries, a parliamentary democracy works by claiming to act on behalf of all, but in fact it favours a minority generally: its ruling party and its cronies.

Can you imagine the level of cronyism accumulated in the UK after centuries under a Monarchical system- albeit a Parliamentary one?

As I said, although a non-issue in the UK, if it ever became an issue, little would actually happen and things would go on as before.

If you actually read what he

by RSPorter on Mon, 03/10/2008 - 1:36pm

If you actually read what he said there was no vitriol spewed at Prince Harry. Only from the title could you get that impression.

The title is part of the

by departuregate on Tue, 03/11/2008 - 12:24pm

The title is part of the post...

Right On FP!

by Lure D. Lou on Mon, 03/10/2008 - 1:41pm

Indeed....it's ludicrous in this day and age to have this 'special' group of people going around trying to do things normally reserved for us normals. The collective delusion that supports the monarchy is something for the British taxpayer to deal with....we dealt with it quite definitively in 1776. However, we shouldn't begrudge the British the right to their 'royals' if that's what floats their sceptered little boat...but none of the rest of us have to take them seriously.

Absolutely, hurrah

by libertariangirl on Mon, 03/10/2008 - 1:58pm

I agree completely with the above post. If Harry wants so much to be a "normal" person, whatever that is, he should from now on stop hanging out of ritzy pubs and start a campaign to get the British people to get rid of the royal family. No one would have a better chance at it than he would.

The first poster apparently thinks that all intellectual discussion of anything must be shut down immediately. The great thing about a free society is we all can say whatever we please. It is not disrespecting Harry to say this-- in fact, it's giving him what he wants because he said himself that he'd never felt like a normal person and that's what he loved about the Army.

No, the first poster thinks

by departuregate on Tue, 03/11/2008 - 12:26pm

No, the first poster thinks its wrong to blame this young man for what Blake seems to think are the evils of the monarchy. He hasn't done anything wrong. And how is it treating him like a normal person? If he were normal, there would be no media circus.

What's with the "Royal"? Do

by JoVentura on Mon, 03/10/2008 - 2:08pm

What's with the "Royal"? Do you have a problem with the actual meaning and application of the word? Regardless of your position on the matter you don't have to use quotation marks on the word royal.They are the royal family of Great Britain.Surprisingly enough, the majority of Britons like it that way.

Punctuation

by Lure D. Lou on Mon, 03/10/2008 - 4:47pm

People put quotes around many things these days....sometimes it signifies irony.

Well,the fine irony of

by JoVentura on Mon, 03/10/2008 - 4:53pm

Well,the fine irony of calling the royal family the "royal" family escapes me.

OK

by Lure D. Lou on Tue, 03/11/2008 - 3:30pm

Are the Presleys a royal family as well? After all, Elvis was the King.

.

by JoVentura on Tue, 03/11/2008 - 4:38pm

Sure , and then there is Burger King too.
And I'm still waiting to see if someone will honestly compare the expense to the taxpayers involved in supporting a monarchy
and a republic.Some people talking about the millions the Windsors cost ( Americans complaining about something that doesn't concern them in the least , since 1776 like was pointed out) seem to believe that a President picks up his own bills and the taxpayer spends nothing on them , their staff , their families and all the ex presidents.

fair enough but

by Lure D. Lou on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 9:43am

the British taxpayer has to pay for the government AND the Royal family...and the House of Lords, which is a serious joke. At least our thieves and free-loaders have to get elected.

"Here's a better idea: How

by fr on Mon, 03/10/2008 - 2:23pm

"Here's a better idea: How about the British "royal" family abandon its ludicrous, anachronistic position and stop living off the largesse of British taxpayers?"

Umm, I had to disabuse you with facts, but since 1993 the Windsors have mostly paid their own way -- and some even pay UK income tax.

"Breaking with legal and royal tradition, Queen Elizabeth II will voluntarily pay tax on her private income and personally absorb a larger share of the public cost of the royal family's expenses, the Government declared today."

-- NY Times, In Switch From Tradition, Queen Will Pay Taxes, November 27, 1992

Thus your statement that the royal family "lives off the largesse" of UK taxpayers is false. And has been for about 15 years.

Are all of your "insights" likewise out of date?

1992?

by Blake Hounshell on Mon, 03/10/2008 - 5:19pm

According to this BBC article from 2005, the royals cost British taxpayers some 37 million pounds a year. Do you have updated figures?

The latest figures are here.

by RSPorter on Mon, 03/10/2008 - 7:04pm

The latest figures are here.

Many thanks. Still about 37

by Blake Hounshell on Mon, 03/10/2008 - 7:51pm

Many thanks. Still about 37 million pounds, I see.

What difference does it make

by Skillzy on Mon, 03/10/2008 - 2:41pm

What difference does it make whether or not the head of state is by birthright or election? If Harry were Tony Blair's son, or George Bush's son, he'd still be a prime military target... and Drudge would still be a menace.
As for your anti-royal sentiment, look at the economics of it. I don't much care for the Windsors myself, but even I can see the value in having a benign head of state that more than pays for itself in tourist revenue.
And why would the Brits want to abandon this system? It works well for them. Who would want to see the Brits just give away the highest-profile royal family in the world? Even the Australians elected to keep them when given a choice.
Here's a better suggestion: Put LSD and HGH in Drudge's coffee in the hope he finally grows a brain.

Tourism

by samuelwu on Mon, 03/10/2008 - 6:10pm

While the Monarchy has little to no political power, it still attracts a large number of visitors to the UK/London each year and, in turn, contributes to the British economy. Too bad for Harry but there are more important things to worry about, like the thousands of soldiers who are still fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Yes, 37 million pounds a

by JoVentura on Tue, 03/11/2008 - 9:03am

Yes, 37 million pounds a year. Now let's see how much do presidents , vice presidents and ex presidents cost. Any idea where we can get those figures?

Are you seriously suggesting

by adam on Thu, 03/13/2008 - 1:41pm

Are you seriously suggesting that the British Royal Family's contribution to the fact that people wish to visit the UK as tourists isn't worth 37 million quid a year to the taxpayer?

In any case, there has to be a Head of State and 37 million hardly sounds like a huge bill. There's plenty of reasons to oppose the British Royal Family and the very idea of constitutional monarchy, but the expense, as listed, isn't exactly high on the list (unless the list is entitled 'populist claptrap'). I said on our own blog (link below if links are allowed) the information about Harry's wherabouts was bound to come to light sooner or later -- I wouldn't have revealed it myself, but someone was inevitably going to -- and so I'm not whining about it, but what better role could the son of the Prince of Wales currently be playing? Good luck to him.

Bloglink