Prince Harry Current Events 17: March 2007


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jo of Palatine said:
:flowers: I guess a lot of posters here in this forum forget that Harry is no longer a little boy, but a grown-up who had an excellent upbringing and tough militarian training. .
I have to be honest. The tendency to talk about Harry's behavior as if he is a 15 year old child instead of an adult man creeps me out! :wacko:

How many days of the year do we see photos of him off duty? :ermm:

Because he is off duty, how many of those are of his leaving a nightclub as opposed to arriving? :blink:

Could the reason we see him leaving be because photos can be captioned to fit the headline? :doh:

Harry is no angel, but neither is he the poster child for every modern-day moral evil. :bang:

(And his father is certainly no uninformed dupe either!) :whistling:

The fact is that he works hard and plays hard, not unlike most other youn men of his age. He could be ripping around the roads like a maniac driving a large number of residents insane with his speed. :ohmy:

With his wealth and social circle he could be a perennial polo playing drunken sleaze 24/7. The cocktail version of a larger lout. :lol:

Instead he has a real job, requiring real skill, real guts and no glory whatsoever. I mean, really, how much more dissipated can he possible get? :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And Prince Harry is the ONLY military officer in history who when facing a tough deployment got hammered on the town?

I guess the chappys I saw in my younger days didn't really exist then.

Ah, the boy is a boy, and he's not only looking to go overseas BUT he has the blasted media breathing down his throat at every turn.
He's a down to earth sort who would get a little fed up at the constant song and dance---this is one of his greatest charms.

I like Harry and I hope he had a blast. It's just tough that he is always on-stage. Heh, he hasn't fallen far from the tree, of course, when you think of King Edward VII's young officer days, those were pre-paparotters though.

No way can one know what Harry's life has been like. That lad has been through more than most fellows his age. Prince Charles is and has been wonderful to the boys but I can't guess at the inner dynamics of that family.
There is "stuff" going on in Harry's head, no mistake, but he's a lovely boy all around in my book and I worry for his safety.
 
Jo of Palatine said:
I like to think that POW has checked his facts before he publicitely defended his son. Prince Harry is all the time when he is out of his home surrounded by protection officers which are not employed by the RF but by the state (police). So there's always at least one independant witness around which can be questioned by prince Charles. Plus both Charles and Harry are officers. I guess at least for them there is still a feeling of honour - I don't think Harry would lie to Charles. Thus I believe CH in this.

I think you are right. In this situation, Clarence House should definitely be the preferable authority because the only other authority is that photographer, I guess, and he clearly has a motive to say things against Prince Harry's conduct. Critics may argue that CH has a motive to protect Prince Harry even if that means lying, but since the paparazzi were the provokers in the situation, I am more in favor of giving CH the authority. In this situation, CH is justified to defend Prince Harry from a paparazzi that was just *playing on* (feeding on it, for profit) his inebriated state.
 
Marengo said:
Though I agree that a drunk Prince on the cover probably sells, it is not very fair to blame this all on the media. It was the prince who got himself in this situation, he was not tricked in getting drunk or tricked in stumbling.

Apart from that the media does write positively about the prince if they can. Harry has probably been praised in every newspaper and television news broadcast of most of the western world when he said that he wanted to be treated as any other soldier and that he wanted to go to Iraq. He received an enormous praise for what seems to me as a most normal request (what is the use of joining the army otherwise).

To call him a victim of the media is a bit over the top to, he is more a victim of his own lack of moderation in the use of alcohol.

-
Of course we could give a positive twist to the drunkeness: a new approach by the court to come more into touch with the common people (British youngsters use more alcohol then any others in the world).

Yes, ok I can buy that I might have over-stated the "media victim" line. You make a good point about his "good press" but still I think the media does exaggerate (<--I always forget if that gets one or two 'g's') to make Harry seem reckless. I've also seen the paparazzi in action, in video and person, and they shout mean things and truly try to get a rise from their subjects. When they do it to people who have had one or two drinks too many or downright inebriated (either way, the alcohol lowers the inhibitions, the awareness, and heightens sensitivities) then the paparazzi are just taking advantage of the situation and egging him on. If you push or insult a drunk person, you will get a stronger reaction than from a sober person. And when you are tipsy or drunk, walking out to a car in the flash of camera lights and flashes can be a major task!

I have always believed it is not good judgement on the part of Prince William and Prince Harry to go out to these paparazzi-targeted clubs. I think they would be better off inviting their friends to their palace. But at the same time I understand that they want to go out and be "normal" (at least for "celebrity" royals, meeting other celebrities and all) and they want to be with young people (maybe Drones or Annabel's are too Old Guard, although some young aristocrats go there, right?)

Here's a good question to think about:
Was Prince Harry leaving the club in the front or rear entrance? Because, if he left at the rear, then the paparazzi made a specific task of meeting him there, making this situation entirely their fault. If he left in the front, I wonder what was he thinking? Why doesn't he leave by the rear? I can't imagine Prince Harry courts attention?:huh:
 
well, they probably mix a bit of truth with a bit of one-sided coverage. They seem to love the good vs the bad royal, remember Charles vs Randy Andy, Elizabeth vs Margaret and even Edward vs Albert/George VI. In all cases there was a certain truth behind it though, as is the case now IMHO.

One can blame it on the paparazzi's, but as this wasn't a private party (and at least outside it is public area) Harry could and should have known that this was a possibility. It certainly happened before, and it will most probably happen again to.

We have to call in some experts who can inform us on exag(g)erate, I have no idea either ;)
 
CasiraghiTrio said:
Here's a good question to think about:
Was Prince Harry leaving the club in the front or rear entrance? Because, if he left at the rear, then the paparazzi made a specific task of meeting him there, making this situation entirely their fault. If he left in the front, I wonder what was he thinking? Why doesn't he leave by the rear? I can't imagine Prince Harry courts attention?:huh:

Many of the articles have said he did indeed leave via the rear entrance specifically to avoid the paparazzi.
Just one example:
News article

"He saw me as he came out of the club's rear entrance because he didn't want to be spotted leaving with Natalie."
 
*sigh* This is what happens to some people when they grow up without a mother and their father is way too leniant.
Harry isn't that bad I've seen worse. Two classmates of mine decided to over drink vodka and wound up at the hospital getting their stomachs pumped. But then again this isn't the first time Harry has gotten into trouble as a result from drinking.
 
Well this last page has certainly been instructive though not at all about Harry.

Let's see, we've learned the proper spelling of the word exaggerate
Bantered about the Queen's true feelings about the Iraq war, and
last but not least, started a major dissertation about the definition of a constitutional monarchy.

Its all been really fun but it doesn't really belong in Harry's Current Events thread.

ysbel
British forums moderator
 
I am just curious to know where in the world he got that garish scarf?! It just cries fashion victim, or colour blind.
 
Incas said:
I am just curious to know where in the world he got that garish scarf?! It just cries fashion victim, or colour blind.

I like it!
 
Incas said:
I am just curious to know where in the world he got that garish scarf?! It just cries fashion victim, or colour blind.

Perhaps Harry took a trip down Portobello Rd ;)
 
Madame Royale said:
Perhaps Harry took a trip down Portobello Rd ;)
It looks like one of these Padmina-scarfs which are so fashionable at the moment. They are made from cashmere-wool with some silk added. You get them in all kind of colours and colour-mixes. I've seen a pic of CP Mary of Denmark with one, too.
 
Found this article on Harry:

We shouldn't be too hard on poor Harry | Dt Opinion | Opinion | Telegraph

We shouldn't be too hard on poor Harry

By Jan Moir, Interviewer of the Year

Jan Moir was named 'Interviewer of the Year' at the British Press Awards 2007

We need to talk about Harry. Something has to be done.

This week the beet-faced Prince of Boujis was in trouble again, after newspaper reports of him downing a vat of Crack Baby cocktails and being photographed falling into the gutter outside a nightclub. At least he wasn't wearing his favourite Nazi regalia, so I suppose we should all be grateful, even if the prince has proved he has no need of the dressing up box for the foreseeable future.
Harry doesn't need those big flapping shoes or the fake red nose any more; he has proved to all of us that he is a clown without equal."

What shocks me a bit is not the article and not the way it makes fun of Harry - which is easy when the victim has already fallen...

What really astonishes me is that the author has been named "Interviewer of the year"! It's slimy crap what he has written, simply worded and professionally inadequate - I learned never to use looks you can't change to make fun of a person ("beet-faced") and never to claim embarrassings things are one's "favorites" if there is no proof or statement by the person. ("Nazi regalia"). I mean, yeah, sure, a lot of writers do it none-the-less but they are normally not awarded a price for their writing. I guess this guy will have problems in the future once his up-coming interview-partners learn about his "skills". At least that's what I hope.
 
Jo of Palatine said:
It looks like one of these Padmina-scarfs which are so fashionable at the moment. They are made from cashmere-wool with some silk added. You get them in all kind of colours and colour-mixes. I've seen a pic of CP Mary of Denmark with one, too.

I wouldn't care who wore one Jo. This particular scarf looks horrible, imo ;)
 
Last edited:
Jo, did you read the whole article?

The purpose of the author was not to make fun of Harry, he actually states that he thinks the tabloid press is making too much out of Harry's escapades.


The prince is no angel and has been in trouble before, but I can't believe his misdemeanours are anything for anyone, even me, to get exercised or righteous about. A little bit of dope smoking here, some enthusiastic fondling there, a series of heroic drinking bouts with his floridly attired pals?
None of it is admirable, of course, but David Cameron has probably done the same, and he isn't about to go into a war zone to fight for his Queen and country.

That makes sense. I've been thinking the same thing. Its not admirable and he needs to grow up but its not the end of the world nor is it the end of Harry's chances to make something out of himself and his life.

Yet we must be fair. Hopeless Harry's nightclub escapades are a rite of passage, not the wreckage of a young life gone awry. Perhaps his biggest problem is not being royal, or a second child, or a motherless son; it is just the awful business of being 22 years old.

Astute comment yet again. I see enough 22 years olds overindulging in the alcohol and making fools of themselves on a Saturday night-Harry's behavior is no worse than I've seen.


Like Princess Margaret and Prince Andrew, Harry seems doomed to a twilight existence of royal aimlessness. He's not the heir, he's the spare, destined to a fate worse than opening fetes, which is not being asked to open fetes because everyone would rather your big brother or sister did it instead. Even the most ardent royal haters must acknowledge that this is the most corrosive form of second child syndrome, a psychological chasm that Princess Margaret filled with, um, piano playing and lovely holidays, and Prince Andrew plugs with golf and lovely golf holidays.

He actually makes a good point about the 'spare' syndrome. If Harry has a special problem, I think this is it.

Overall I thought it was an interesting and provocative article. The author is a republican but overall I think pretty fair to Harry.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry to sound harsh, but Harry's behaviour is, simply, inexcusable, in my opinion.

He is not the the only young man in the world who's been trained at Sandhurst and who has an onerous military obligation before him. In fact, more than one member of my family went to Sandhurst, so I know a little of what I say.

The prince should consider some alternative strategies in his civilian life, i.e.

1. He should spread his patronage more around the clubs, so that the pappas don't always expect him to be in the one place;

2. He should consider how it looks for any young man, even a very rich one, to spend hundreds of pounds on cocktails and thousands on champagne, when many of his grandmother's subjects are battling to pay their food and utility bills, i.e. he should become more discreet in his pleasures.

3. He should remember than nearly everyone these days has a phone with a camera. In fact, the photos of him in a nazi uniform was taken by a fellow guest at private party with a camera-phone.

I don't care about his being 'wild and woolly': young people often are and grow out of it. However, he is a royal prince. He's had a privileged upbringing and exemplary training and owes duty and honour to his grandmother, particularly, not to mention his grandmother's people. The future of the monarchy rests squarely on the shoulders of William and Harry and Harry should acknowledge this.

I wish Harry well: indeed I do. But he needs to start behaving like a responsible adult who's third in line to the throne, not some yahoo from the 'burbs.

I wish his mother were alive: she'd sort him out, quick smart!
 
ysbel said:
Jo, did you read the whole article?

The purpose of the author was not to make fun of Harry, he actually states that he thinks the tabloid press is making too much out of Harry's escapades.

Yes, I did. While you're right that he raised interesting points and discusses aspects of the interpretation of Harry's behaviour, I still think he should not have started the article as he did it.

Here's another quote:

"Poor motherless, idiotic Harry, with his half an A-level in knitting and his dysfunctional family background studded with its own unique horrors; what chance has he got for coping with the rigours of modern life and that second bucket of vodka chasers? The prince is no angel and has been in trouble before, but I can't believe his misdemeanours are anything for anyone, even me, to get exercised or righteous about. A little bit of dope smoking here, some enthusiastic fondling there, a series of heroic drinking bouts with his floridly attired pals?"

Is Harry idiotic? Or should a journalist call him that? Is only academic success something to be proud of? Or why make fun of the fact that Harry obviously has more practical talents?

It's this kind of approach to the personality of Harry that annoys me and which I think is unprofessional.
 
Jo of Palatine said:
Yes, I did. While you're right that he raised interesting points and discusses aspects of the interpretation of Harry's behaviour, I still think he should not have started the article as he did it.

Here's another quote:

"Poor motherless, idiotic Harry, with his half an A-level in knitting and his dysfunctional family background studded with its own unique horrors; what chance has he got for coping with the rigours of modern life and that second bucket of vodka chasers? The prince is no angel and has been in trouble before, but I can't believe his misdemeanours are anything for anyone, even me, to get exercised or righteous about. A little bit of dope smoking here, some enthusiastic fondling there, a series of heroic drinking bouts with his floridly attired pals?"

Is Harry idiotic? Or should a journalist call him that? Is only academic success something to be proud of? Or why make fun of the fact that Harry obviously has more practical talents?

It's this kind of approach to the personality of Harry that annoys me and which I think is unprofessional.

Well I think he is making fun of the ways tabloids are portraying Harry and how they dramatise everything. But I understand sarcasm is not for everybody. However, this is a republican author and a republican paper so it may be a case of not wanting to appear too sympathetic to Harry so as to please one's editors.

The first paragraph doesn't bother me because the title and the rest of the article are pretty much on target. Actually I think its the most intelligent article written about Harry that I've read in awhile.
 
Poly said:
I'm sorry to sound harsh, but Harry's behaviour is, simply, inexcusable, in my opinion.
He is not the the only young man in the world who's been trained at Sandhurst and who has an onerous military obligation before him. In fact, more than one member of my family went to Sandhurst, so I know a little of what I say.

The prince should consider some alternative strategies in his civilian life, i.e.

1. He should spread his patronage more around the clubs, so that the pappas don't always expect him to be in the one place;

2. He should consider how it looks for any young man, even a very rich one, to spend hundreds of pounds on cocktails and thousands on champagne, when many of his grandmother's subjects are battling to pay their food and utility bills, i.e. he should become more discreet in his pleasures.

3. He should remember than nearly everyone these days has a phone with a camera. In fact, the photos of him in a nazi uniform was taken by a fellow guest at private party with a camera-phone.
I don't care about his being 'wild and woolly': young people often are and grow out of it. However, he is a royal prince. He's had a privileged upbringing and exemplary training and owes duty and honour to his grandmother, particularly, not to mention his grandmother's people. The future of the monarchy rests squarely on the shoulders of William and Harry and Harry should acknowledge this.
I wish Harry well: indeed I do. But he needs to start behaving like a responsible adult who's third in line to the throne, not some yahoo from the 'burbs.
I wish his mother were alive: she'd sort him out, quick smart!

It's your opinion and I respect it. However I don't agree with most of what you said.

1. Harry is an officer. And he has an off-duty time. Naturally he would wnat to hang out with his friends. Clubbing is normal of 20+ young man.
2. I don't remember him spending hundreds and thousands of pounds on champainge (at once). If you meant the totall amount of money spent on coctails, I think you would find that loads of young men (not only rich) spend about the same amount of money on clubbing and having fun with their friends.
3. I agree completely that he should be aware he can be 'spied' everywhere and he should be cautious about the people he trusts, or just hangs out with. If he were caught wearing a similar uniform, I'd call it irresponsible and it would be obvious he isn't learning from mistakes.
But he was pictured coming out of a nightclub, something all of us have done, without having to worry how we will look on the TV and in the newspapers.

It comes to this, as it had been stated in this thread earlier: if we want the Royals to be 'perfect', expect only model behaviour of them, then we should also be pepared for the fact that they will be 'less human', will behave themselves like 'real Royals' and forgive me if I am wrong, wasn't it something Royals were often accused of?

If we want them to be 'just like us', then take everything that comes with that, including awkward and embarassing situations, drunk nights, clubs, stupid decisions and eveything.

We can't get the best of the two. They are humans after all.

As for Princess Diana, being able to sorting him out, the Princess is dead for nearly 10 years. We don't and can't know what she would or wouldn't do. Having landed herself into quite a few controversies as well and rooting for 'normal' life for her sons, I doubt she would interfere in her sons' leisure time-spending.
And thinking of Prince Charles as a very responsible and caring father, I doubt he wouldn't step in if the things were becomming dangeroous or worrying
 
I neither expect Prince Harry to be perfect nor be 'just like us'. That's fanciful!

I expect him to behave like a Prince of the Realm and act like the well-bred, immensely privileged and honoured young man that he is. He has a duty to his father, his brother, and not least, his grandmother and the people of the Realm.

His current behaviour does not become a young man who's third in line to the throne of the UK and its Dominions.

I repeat, the future of monarchy rests in the hands of William and, to a lesser extent, Harry. He is risking much more than his own future, in my opinion.
 
Polly, I think as I've said before, Harry will stop drinking, clubbing, etc. But we have to let him stop on his own terms and in his own time. No one can force him, not even his grandmother, the Queen. He is an adult, who makes his own decisions, whether royal or not. Give him time, I think perhaps a few years from now we'll look back and say, "Really, Harry did that?". As the brother of a future King, I wouldn't be surprised if one day William would take Harry's advice on some things.
 
Prince Harry to become Patron of three charities

Prince Harry is to become the first Royal Patron of three UK-based charities, Dolen Cymru, MapAction and WellChild.
This is the first time Prince Harry has taken on the patronage of established charities and his association with each will begin immediately. The Prince is keen to support these charities which all offer essential assistance to communities across the UK and throughout the world.

Dolen Cymru (The Wales Lesotho Link) has been working for over 20 years to promote friendship and understanding between the people of Wales and her twinned nation of Lesotho, in southern Africa. The Prince will become Dolen Cymru’s first Royal Patron, building on Prince Harry’s current involvement in Lesotho with his own charity Sentebale.

Also working with an international focus, MapAction helps aid agencies by providing crucial situational mapping in the event of natural and humanitarian disasters. MapAction teams have worked all over the world, including in Lesotho and in Sri Lanka following the Tsunami in 2005.

Prince Harry will also become the first Royal Patron of WellChild, the only UK charity caring for the individual needs of all sick children in the UK. WellChild is celebrating its 30th birthday this year.
 
Polly said:
He is not the the only young man in the world who's been trained at Sandhurst and who has an onerous military obligation before him. In fact, more than one member of my family went to Sandhurst, so I know a little of what I say.
I'm sure you do, however I also know from experience of my children, nephews and their friends who trained at RMAS, that Harry's behavior is perfectly normal for young officers, many of whom do not see their military life as a burden! :flowers:
 
If we view the whole incident with a criminalist mind, we'll have to search for the motives behind the two versions of the story. Prince Harry has not much to gain by saying it's a lie and it is perfectly within his mischievious character to make a bit of fun with paparazzi. As Clarence House stated: they were all laughing. OTOH the paparazzo probably shared his gains with the collegue who made the pics which were syndicated all over the world, so both should have now a very nice golden egg in their nest - which they would not have gotten if they were saying the truth: fun with a prince does not sell as much as alleged violence of a Royal prince. Thus they had the motive of greed while Harry gains nothing - his repuation is blackened anyway - denial here or there. Thus to me the answer is clear, as there are no video proofs of either action. As for being drunk - when you are slightly drunk you could make fun and loose your step as easily as if you are completely soaked with spirits. IMHO.
 
I agree, Polly.

Any excuse for the excessive consumption (unless the indavidual is battling an unfortunate addiction) of alcohol, to a point where the person stumbles or engages in any form of physical contact (in general) is ludicrous.

It's the indaviduals inability to recognise their limit which is really quite unhealthy.

His current behaviour does not become a young man who's third in line to the throne of the UK and its Dominions.

Precisely!
 
Polly said:
I neither expect Prince Harry to be perfect nor be 'just like us'. That's fanciful!

I expect him to behave like a Prince of the Realm and act like the well-bred, immensely privileged and honoured young man that he is.

But do you have any clue about the life of a Prince of the Realm, well-bred, immensely privileged, etc. etc. or are you making a guess on how you THINK a Prince of the Realm, well-bred, immensely privileged should act given what you've seen in the papers about Princes of the Realm, well-bred, immensely privileged, etc., etc. ?

I am making no excuses for Harry's conduct but this overzealous preaching and proselytizing and beating the proverbial breast about Harry's sins is a bit pompous, over-dramatic, self-righteous, and quite frankly, quite boring and tedious.
 
Thats not a good excuse for his behaviour. This is the second time that Harry has gotten into a scuffle with photographers. Harry just can't go around and start assaulting photographers just because they annoy him. Harry is 23 years old he needs to start acting as a responsible adult. Whenever he tries to clean up his image he does something that messes it up. I can't say that Charles isn't doing anything I don't work at Clarence House. But Charles has to remind Harry that he is part of an important family and Harry must keep up appeareances. We also don't know what The Princess of Wales would've done in this situation if she was alive. In my opinion she would have probably remind Harry that he has a public figure to watch and such behaviours would damage his reputation.
 
:lol: You go, Ysbel.:lol:

Polly your point is well taken, however. But cut Harry some slack this time for forcing his way over to Iraq. Many of his peers would probably trade their fortunes and their titles before they did the same. I'm more angry at him for taking a swing at people he knows won't hit back. That in my book is a classic *** move. If you're going to swing, man up and face what's coming back...or would be coming back if he's swinging at me. And I'd take the charge.

Besides, Harry is the new Uncle Andrew in the making.:lol:
 
Last edited:
My take on Prince Harry: He's a 22 year old man, and he's going to behave like one regardless of his position in life. I agree with the journalist who said that as the "spare", he will be considered as "less important" than his older brother...which is a shame. I think saying he's an alcoholic, reckless, idiotic, or Lord knows what else is just conjecture, and mean conjecture at that. I'm not saying anyone here has said that, I'm just pulling things I've been reading from articles that have been posted.


I understand that as a Prince of the Realm and an officer in the British Army, he has a duty to uphold and an image to maintain, but how many times have we seen people crack under that kind of pressure and scrutiny? He's too young to have a nervous breakdown.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom