Personally, I think if you can't go to a costume party dressed as Attila the Hun or a Nazi, what's the point? It's a costume party. Are we going to have to provide rules now for this kind of thing?

My rule is people can't dress up like people who carpet bombed my grannie.

I think if you can't go to a costume party dressed as Attila the Hun or a Nazi, what's the point?

I think, if we're talking about public persons, someone representing other people, like the prince does, it's a no-no.

No way. Has knee-jerk libertarianism gotten to the point that we are going to be called a PC-Nazi for not putting up with someone trivializing Nazis? Just in case you think I am biased, I have a similar rule for the Khmer Rouge.

I thought the photo was faked by the tabloid (like photos of aliens) until I read the BBC article. It is that bizarre.

Its incredible how out of touch with reality these youngsters have become. Like Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie, these young members of the "nobility" are so intoxicated by the unaccountability that wealth can buy that they have no sense of propriety or of humanity beyond their own comforts and whims.

Dressing up as a Nazi is just not done anymore than is dressing up as a slave trader. But given European history and given that this lad is third in line to embody the UK nation, it is even worse. If he can't do the right thing on his own recognizance, the Queen or Prince Charles should hire someone to tell him how to behave. And what about his brother? Shouldn't he have been able to figure out that this was a bad move. Does this future King of Canada have any better sense?

"Future King of Canada" - shudder...

I think it's a tempest in a teapot, not a newsworthy item. Also, if we're going to take offense at carpet bombers, President Truman should be a no-go and we should have serious problems with Napoleon. In my view, we need to wise up about dress up and pretend stuff and stop taking it all so seriously.

Couldn't disagree more, with all respect, Lisa. We are saddled with this family as a cornerstone of our constitution [Ed.: <i>repeat that phrase to yourselves - that is the teapot</i>] and this one does not have the decency (this being an adult member of this privileged asset-sucking black hole) to respect the millions of dead. Simply bad. You would think they would have pre-emptive anti-stunned training. But no. I think I have written before how a pal of mine in undergrad had attended high-school with a Prince and the prince thought people used stamps to send letters because they loved to put pictures of the Queen on things. <p>It all becomes not news when they all abdicate and give back the land.

Ehh. I'm not opposed to the Royals the way Alan is, but this seems egregiously stupid. I can completely forgive a teenage boy for not being aware and sensitive enough to understand the implications of what he was wearing. The heads that ought to be rolling right now belong to the team of handlers, bodyguards, valets, chaperones, and assorted other Klingons who did not look at him and say "Um. Your highness? Not so much on the whole Nazi thing. And don't mention the war."

Fair enough but if they are going to stick around, due to a misguided need to have a pointless medieval tangent in our lives, maybe it just would be better to send them to a WWII veteran's hospital to serve lunch every Tuesday noon to actual people we need to respect than to their private schools of ding-battery and eco-tourist campaign friendly projects. That is what I want to see - Prince Phillip and all the offspring therefrom cleaning up after a roomfull of vets, mopping and whiping chins.

I think if you want to have a discussion about whether or not to have a royal family at all, that should be a separate issue. I am not especially a royals fan. In fact, I was one of a handful of people it seemed who was not in mourning over Diana's death when it happened. I had to turn my radio off because the outpouring of 'people's princess' crap was profoundly annoying to me. On the other hand I am not in favour of getting rid of everything that is not systematic and purposeful, e.g. Canada's Governor General or even the Senate simply because these institutions and roles are only symbolic. Call me kooky, but I think Canadians and Americans need a little more historically based ritual in their lives, not less.
Anyway, since it's me saying 'tempest' and me saying 'teapot,' I guess I get to say what I mean about that too. The tempest is our moral indignation, the teapot is anything that contains that indignation be it this blog or the flurry of indignant letters that will soon follow in the Sun's 'Letters' section. And none of that will have anything to do with the constitution.

If anything might lead to a change in the constitution it is this stuff. Look how Australia is debating the utility of having these people even theoretically associated with their own democratic governance. If it was the Prince of Sweden it would not be news. It is news because it is not an offical of our government but an actual living part of our sovereignty.

I'm sure it's news because it sells newspapers. Nobody cares about the prince of Sweden because nobody cares about Sweden. Nobody cares about the various princes elsewhere either even if some of them are vastly more powerful than little dumb dumb prince Harry.

I agree no one <i>should</i> care but it is odd how deeply or maybe just habitual the royals are in the mentality of parts of the UK. I was reading on the BBC web site the other day that one reason that fox hunting should be continued is the royals like it. I also remember listening a couple of decades ago to the BBC on a drive home to mom's village one night and the lead items were what each royal had done with their day. It was amazing as real news had to wait until we heard what the 27th in line did today. When you deduct the element of "celebrity" there is still perception of their personal "importance" in the UK which is beyond what we see of them in North America - except that it translates into our news through our continuing constitutional connections. It bugs me but it drives my UK based pals batty when they realize that assets which should be public and taxes which otherwise would not be paid go to propping them up.<p>...and then they go and do something this shameful - something I would not accept without speaking out from anyone. As Nils said, handlers jobs should be lost. But then they should not be filled.

What Harry did was dumb, not immoral or even criminal. It was insensitive, in poor taste, a faux pas even. However, and I think I've said this before here but I'll say it again: I think we need to focus on real harm rather than symbolic harm and not act as though the two were equivalent. So I think we should take more seriously real violence and not worry as much about the symbols of past violence. We should especially not take literally every person's use of a symbol or every instance where the symbol appears. I'm not saying past violence doesn't matter. I'm saying the violence matters more than the symbol or that the symbol only matters because of the violence. I'm not saying that if someone goes around saying that it didn't happen or that it was overblown we shouldn't slap them silly and tell them they're morons, I'm just saying that this particular goofy symbolic action does not warrant the reaction it is getting. Wearing the Nazi costume does not mean Dumb Dumb endorses the Nazi program. Jurg Heider however does endorse the Nazi program. Jean-Marie Le Pen also endorses the Nazi program. In fact, there are other sick people out there who believe in things that are as bad or worse. And then there are the people who are acting on their twisted beliefs...We need to take those people more seriously and rescue their victims instead of bickering over some ridiculous costume from some stupid 'teen party.

I am not in morally indignant disagreement and I reserve the right that we may soon move to "oh yea? and "seyz you!" in a couple of more comments as I respect what you are saying (and how you are saying it) except that I entirely disagree...<p>...<i>but</i>...<p>...the normalization of jesting about Nazis is not right for me yet and if it becomes a banal common-place to do so the ability of the Heiders and Le Pens to have their message accepted as not dangerous will follow. This is compounded by the position of a Prince, whether or not we think that person should be important. There are some messages that must be maintained [like "Nazi=evil" and "evil=bad" and "stop bad"] not out of any sense of sacred honour to the past but as a preventative for the future. Sure you are free to do it but deserve an arse kicking from those around you when you do and when you are a prince and you do it that arse kicking should be in the public press.

I can't even believe I'm commenting on this anymore.

1. Canadians, as sentient humans and a self-determining nation of citizens should remove from our form of government the symbol of meritless subjugation, feudalism and colonialism that is the monarchy (embodied by the House of Windsor) because: (a) it is an affront to democratic principles and human dignity (b) maintenance of the royal family costs Canadians money that could be devoted elsewhere (e.g. the gala dinners, security, accommodations when they come to visit) and (c) because members of a monarchical family (Windsor or those of any other nation) cannot be trusted to not embarrass themselves and the people they represent.

2. Harry showed spectacularly poor judgment. The whole family should publicly apologize and Harry should take sensitivity training such as those offered by provincial human rights commissions. Harry should be held to a higher standard of conduct than Joe Citizen because he receives benefits that Joe Citizen cannot (and cannot even aspire to receive). If one is going to enjoy the priveleges that the citizens provide, one must act in way that is in accordance with the citizens' expectations. If the House of Windsor wants to the freedom to behave as if they are outside the parameters of mainstream social interaction then they should resign from the job in which the represent the people whose principles or beliefs they scorn.

I'm not going to fight too hard on this one. I don't really care what Harry does. But there will be another day when this issue will come up and it won't be some unworthy privileged royal. At that point, I'll have to do the honourable thing: Pistols at forty paces or at least hare kare.

On another note, this reminds me of one scene in the film adaptation of
Michael Ondaatje's The English Patient. As the camera pans in over a restaurant scene you hear someone off-camera saying conversationally : "you're just saying that because you're Hungarian and Hungarians have to disagree." In fact, it's interesting to be in Canada in this way through this board. Because agreement and disagreement don't work in the same way (here in Hungary) as they do in Canada. In Canada, people like to agree (even if they disagree), so if they fundamentally disagree, they often tailor their conversation so that they can at least create some semblance of friendliness (agreement) even within disagreement. Canadians such as myself find disagreement unnatural and therefore uncomfortable. For Hungarians disagreement is a more dominant mode of conversation. So a lot of conversations are friendly arguments. Anyway, that's all for now.

Adios, amigos...

Lisa, I agree. We ought to disagree. Therefore, I disagree. Are we agreed?

I can't believe you would say such a thing, Nils! I mean whatever you <i>did</i> say......hmmm....there outta be something I can argue against......unless...just a minute....<p>HEY!! Hey, Lisa! Just checking in on this but isn't there a chance that all this disagreeing over the otherwise agreeable is only because that Hungarian fiddle player guy leans over the table just when somebody makes the important point?

What did Trudeau call his wearing of a German uniform during WWII, driving around the Laurentians with one of his confreres on their motorcycles, and asking Jewish cottagers for "wasser"? - oh, yes: "A youthful indiscretion" - except Trudeau was 25 in 1944, about 3 years older than the average age of the Canadian boys dying in Europe at that time.

Harry's a mere 20, but perhaps not too young to prove he's an idiot.

Sadly...or maybe just realistically, unlike Trudeau, Harry is unlikely to do anything useful in his life that will be remembered to counter-act his bad decision. Like his paternal grandfather, Harry looks like he is in for a career remembered for indiscretions at social gatherings.

Maybe Harry came by the Nazi uniform honestly, you know, "handed down" from his father's side of the family - google "Prince Philip" and "Nazi party".

And now it is about we, the unfeeling serfs, not appreciating Harry. Waive the privileges and go your own way, I say. Return the lands and incomes to those who worked to earn you it all and you can get all the appreciation you want.