Leashing the dog of war
One thing I've not seen in the coverage of Prince Harry's tour of duty in Afghanistan is that it was really just part of the rolling Royal programme to justify their existence. On the Channel 4 evening news on Thurs John Snow asked rhetorically why Harry couldn't become a banker rather than causing all these extra problems for the Army as well as causing the press to collude with the government. Well Snow is half right he could try to get another job but he couldn't be banker even though the Windsors are loaded they wouldn't want to be seen revelling in it. Although a city job would be right for Harry in some ways in that you can get positions on connections and being a good bloke alone.
Alternatively he couldn't be a professional because that would involve study and work and it's all a bit trade for the Royals. His uncle tried the arts and that didn't work out. So the army or "good" works (which will come later) are his only option.
The main reason Harry went to war is that Royals have to do something like this every so often to appear to keep their end up. Look at the Queen Mum she spent the war shopping, drinking gin and having her swimming pool bombed with the odd trip to Blitzed Poplar for PR. Those war time visits secured her a life time of the best health care, the best gin, the best race horses , 1 or 2 castles and dieing 2-3 million in debt. Not bad for a women who never said more than 2 words in public in 70 years.
So Harry's army thing is just a justification for keeping the Royals with the added bonus of some military pomp and circumstances.
It also has another bonus of sticking it to the political classes because as Mail readers will point out "say what you like about the Royals (god bless 'em) Tony Blair's son is never going to go to war"
So the fact that he was found out isn't a tragedy as his job's done over there it's time to come home for tea and medals with his gran!
One thing I've not seen in the coverage of Prince Harry's tour of duty in Afghanistan is that it was really just part of the rolling Royal programme to justify their existence. On the Channel 4 evening news on Thurs John Snow asked rhetorically why Harry couldn't become a banker rather than causing all these extra problems for the Army as well as causing the press to collude with the government. Well Snow is half right he could try to get another job but he couldn't be banker even though the Windsors are loaded they wouldn't want to be seen revelling in it. Although a city job would be right for Harry in some ways in that you can get positions on connections and being a good bloke alone.
Alternatively he couldn't be a professional because that would involve study and work and it's all a bit trade for the Royals. His uncle tried the arts and that didn't work out. So the army or "good" works (which will come later) are his only option.
The main reason Harry went to war is that Royals have to do something like this every so often to appear to keep their end up. Look at the Queen Mum she spent the war shopping, drinking gin and having her swimming pool bombed with the odd trip to Blitzed Poplar for PR. Those war time visits secured her a life time of the best health care, the best gin, the best race horses , 1 or 2 castles and dieing 2-3 million in debt. Not bad for a women who never said more than 2 words in public in 70 years.
So Harry's army thing is just a justification for keeping the Royals with the added bonus of some military pomp and circumstances.
It also has another bonus of sticking it to the political classes because as Mail readers will point out "say what you like about the Royals (god bless 'em) Tony Blair's son is never going to go to war"
So the fact that he was found out isn't a tragedy as his job's done over there it's time to come home for tea and medals with his gran!
12 comments:
Gosh, you're cynical.
"The main reason Harry went to war is that Royals have to do something like this every so often to appear to keep their end up."
Perhaps poor old Harry just wants to kill people. He did afterall, according to the Sun, kill 30 taliban members.
And don't we like our illustrious leaders to have blood on their hands?!
What also annoyed me is what else are the press colluding with the palace and Parliament about? I know the government claimed they weren't involved, which is a very serious admisson ie that they are letting the unelected royals affect the flow of information to us the citizens sorry subjects. As I regularly say we should jack the lot in and rule ourselves and harry can get on with carousing and eating goat curry or whatever.
Hello again, Did you see this in the papers? I just read it and thought of you - 'tis very good and right on the money.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/01/monarchy.princeharry
Good stuff don't get the paper on saturday. I think she should stick to this sort of writing can't stand the celeb stuff. Did you notice Eugenie was in the papers today so some roayl publicity is ok then .
No, didn't notice Eugenie - I don't even think of her as a Royal really... what does she do?!
she's one of fergies daughters and she's done one of theose aren't I hot photo sessions, I think she makes tea on tv sets or tries to take arty photos so nowt really. the main news seem to be she's not a chubby ginner like her mum.
But as you mentioned in your post, what is there for a member of the Royal family to do? In a way, she has it all, yet she has nothing. She isn't even high enough up the royal chain to ever have any real power. Must be quite annoying really...
They could turn down their titles and become "normal" people and just live off their wealth and not bother the rest fo us. You'll never get me to feel sorry for them.
You know it's nice to meet an English republican (assuming you are of course!). I'm from Australia and it's pretty common there. I feel very strongly that Australia should become a republic but I don't care so much about the UK. I actually think that not having an elected upper house is more of an issue...
Guilty as charged I think we are all grown up enough to rule ourselves. I would like to see the retention of a link between oz and Uk via the commonwealth to couter balance american and russian power.
I also think having a royal as head state allows privilliage to permeant the system. In to the lords, the leadership of companies and the boards of quangos who your dad was is still more important than who you are what you can do. France does alright with a president, we can still have pomp and circumstance we'll have more palaces for tourists to visit and we look people in eye when we talk about democracy.
The main issue with having a presidential system that actually works is that you have to totally re-organise the way government works. In Australia there was the option of having an elected president, but under the current political system an elected president would actually have more of a mandate to rule that the PM. Which is a bit of a problem...
Agree with you about the monarchy setting a bad example re. privilege! Another issue that I don't like about the monarchy (as if you needed any more) is that it's a bit weird for a country to go on about equal opportunity and egalitarianism when the Head of State is meant to be the oldest male child and C of E.
Post a Comment