Expressions of Discontent

Yesterday, The Sun, Britain's most notorious tabloid newspaper (it goes by the nickname of "The Scum"), published a large photograph of Prince Harry in a Nazi-era German Army uniform under the headlines "Hitler Youth" and "Harry the Nazi". In their editorial, they told readers that Harry's decision to wear this uniform was an extremely offensive and insensitive "gaffe", and particularly ill-timed in view of the fact that his grandmother the Queen will shortly be attending a commemoration of Auschwitz (one of Hitler's more notorious crimes) , and that he should apologize at once. The Sun's outrage was, as its outrage usually is, entirely fake. It's just part of a long-term policy of seeking to embarrass members of the royal family by any means possible, whether justified or not. The entire media knows this, but, sheep that they are, and loving of controversy as they are, they have gone along with the silly charade.

Various people have been called upon to express their own anger. The Israeli government has been on the phone, of course, and it has said exactly what we would expect it to say, with the vehemence to which we are accustomed. As far as I know, the British media have not yet called upon the Russian government for comment yet, despite that the Nazis killed twenty million Russians, and committed many atrocities against them. More interesting was the comment of Michael Howard, leader of the Conservative opposition: "I think a lot of people will be disappointed to see that photograph and it will cause a lot of offence." It is worth noting that Mr. Howard, some of whose close relatives died in Auschwitz, neither expressed any feeling of personal offence, nor hinted at any particular feeling of sympathy with those who might be offended. The formula he used, as well as the tone in which he spoke it, in response to a direct question about whether he thought Harry should apologize for the incident, was interestingly cool and matter-of-fact.

Could it be that those who are professing indignation on behalf of others who might be hurt are being unrealistic, and that most of those who they suppose would be entitled to feel hurt (such as Michael Howard) are in fact not troubled by this at all?

After all, why should they be offended by this incident? It is customary for people to dress up as notorious figures at fancy dress balls, and doing so is never normally construed as endorsement of the values of the person whose guise they are wearing. Someone who dresses as a Grand Inquisitor at such a ball is not defending the practice of witch burning, and someone who dresses as a Mafia gangster is not endorsing mass murder. In Britain, which suffered considerably fighting the Nazis, no-one is likely to make the mistake of assuming that someone who dresses in a German Army uniform at a fancy dress party is endorsing in any way either Nazism or the military expansionism of Germany in that era. Not surprisingly, therefore, Nazi uniforms are easily obtainable for hire in costume shops up and down the land, and were it not that Harry is a royal prince, his appearing at a party in such a uniform would completely unworthy of comment.

The fact that he is a prince doesn't make it worthy of comment, either. First, there's the fact that, being third in line for the throne makes it quite unlikely that he will ever be king, so he's not nationally important himself - just related to people who are. Second, there's the fact that Harry has no ceremonial job; he's just a young lad taking a couple of years out between school and the Army. Third, there's the fact that the party was a private occasion, not meant for members of the public to see. Fourth, the theme of the party was "colonials and natives", and Harry's turning up in a German Afrika Korps uniform represented an interesting comment on colonialism (drawing a parallel between British imperial expansionism, often seen as innocent and good, and that of Germany, seen as wicked), which has not to my knowledge so far been remarked upon by the media. Fifth, if photographs of William's costume (African garb, complete with leopard skin, shield and spear, reportedly) had been published instead, just as much phoney offence could have been drummed up, but William is not currently the Sun's preferred target. Sixth, if the cast of The Producers (currently running to acclaim in London) can do it, so can a guest at a fancy dress party.

Finally, after the story was splashed across the nation, Prince Harry quickly issued a written apology for any offence caused, which is better than the media deserve (sedition charges would be more appropriate), but they are still not satisfied. They say they want him to "apologize in person", which I think means something like hold a press conference and be filmed apologizing, which would make no sense, but would prolong the story, and provide a juicily humiliating bit of film that the media could reuse any time they wanted to make Harry feel bad.

This story should be over by now.