Prince Harry: Lock him up!

March 20, 2018 • 4:00 pm

If a pug dog giving the Hitler salute can constitute a criminal act, then Prince Harry, whose costume below is well documented, should be in jail for a long time. It’s offensive! Why is he still walking around?

Yes, it’s offensive, just like Count Dankula’s girlfriend’s dog, but I don’t see prosecutions in the offing.

 

53 thoughts on “Prince Harry: Lock him up!”

    1. A certain amount of caution is required before taking anything printed in the Daily Mail seriously. The Daily Mail is about as reliable a source of information as the National Enquirer.

      1. When you’ve read the articles you can comment! I have and they’re even better than I thought they might be.

        I’ve never had much time for HRH the heir apparent, the only reason that he was seen to be acceptable was because of the intense PR. This should matters back where they were. Petulant! That doesn’t get anywhere near.

  3. I don’t know his age in 2005 but my guess is, that’s about right. I would not have been caught dead when that age but oh well, a different generation and I am sure a different upbringing. From the U.K. of all places.

      1. And now we have Sir John and Sir Ringo. What a joke. What is required to get a knighthood in England. That you did not kill anyone for a couple of years?

          2. So what’s the objection to the ex Beatles being knighted (apart from the obvious objections to the whole honours system)? If we’re going to have honours better they go to actors, musicians and sports stars than people who have made donations to political parties and time serving politicians and civil servants.

          3. This reminds me of people who question who is given the Nobel Peace Prize. Not our prize to give, not our rules to question.

          4. One can argue about whether or not the British honours system is a good thing but the blog post linked to does nothing to suggest either Paul McCartney or Ringo Starr are Nazi sympathisers or even guilty of tasteless or offensive use of nazi imagery (Hitler did NOT appear in the SP cover pic and it was John Lennon who wanted him on it not the others). Why therefore should their knighthoods prompt this comment?

          5. I like to think John wasn’t OBE material — same way Keith isn’t, even though Mick turned out to be. One cat in each group’s gotta remain true to the rock’n’roll-rebel ideal, I figure.

          6. I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was referring to Elton John, but realized that he may have made a mistake and meant to say Paul.
            My thoughts are that England can knight or give out titles to anyone they want to. It’s their game, their rules.
            My first thought looking at this picture was that perhaps the prince was at a Halloween party and wanted to go for the win as most scary.

          7. Ha! Smokedpaprika mentions Halloween well before I posted. Glad my instincts were on spot.

          8. Well yes precisely. I seem to recall we (the denizens of this website) already had a discussion on halloween costumes and the perpetually offended.

            cr

          9. Turns out I misremembered, though it was some kind of costume party, post-New Year’s, in 2005. The controversy and outrage were further fuelled by the timing, since it was a couple of weeks before Holocaust Memorial Day in the UK (Jan. 27). He was a silly kid back then.

  7. this was years ago, and whatever your view of it it would not have constituted a crime at that time as the legislation had not been made.

    1. So stupid is not a crime. If it was we could not build the prisons fast enough.

  9. Count Dankula’s crime wasn’t training the dog, it was publishing the video online. The Harry swastika photo was leaked by someone else. So legally there is no comparison.

    One problem is that social media is designed to make people feel they are talking only to friends when they are really publishing to billions. And it’s little more than chance (unless you already famous) that determines who gets away with it and whose thoughtless piece of bad taste goes viral and wrecks a life. Neither the law or our social insticts have grasped this.

    1. It was Halloween, wasn’t it? Still, I’d never wear that, not even when I was a pre-teen and still unformed and impetuous. What’s wrong with people’s good sense these days? There must be something in the water. Perhaps he was acting out some of his extended family history.

  11. I don’t understand how it isn’t a “backhanded” death threat. I’ve been looking into the legality of death threats and I don’t know if something is there to consider. It’s despicable either way. If it’s not a “death threat” and he’s not mistraining or mistreating dogs, I don’t know. In the U.S. he would be protected I believe. If I saw that happening I would be outraged and have the right to say something back to him.

      1. We don’t want to repeat those mistakes and with 3 million views, there must be uneducated people about the Holocaust, and sheep in general, watching who might emulate those views in practice as well. His tone is not a joke to me. If it comes down to this is okay in the United States as is burning a cross on someone’s front lawn in terms of the first amendment, then so be it. It’s better to have these despicable forms of “humanity” on the table. But an eye for an eye. Non-violent but there are social norms that don’t fall under legality. What is funny? It’s funny that he lives in the United Kingdom. If I were his girlfriend *spit* I would have slapped him and found the best lawyers to find a way to take this to the Supreme Court. How does it not outrage you?

        1. I thought it was moderately funny.

          (I’m talking about M8 Yer dug’s a Nazi here, as I assume you are, not Prince Harry’s halloween costume)

          Anyway the Streisand Effect will now prevail and that clip will doubtless become an Internet meme…

          cr

        2. What is funny, indeed?

          The risk of offending someone, or inciting the weak minded and uneducated to evil action, is too great.

          I suggest a ban on all humor {alleged} that does, or may, offend someone, or potentially incite the uneducated to some oafish action.

          In fact a ban on all speech, on pain of jail should do it.

          1. The risk of inciting the weak minded and uneducated to evil action is not something that should be ignored in the process of defending the first amendment. Protecting someone else’s right to express freely should never be confused with indifference. Free speech is a difficult topic. It’s harder than physics.

    3. You have full right to say something back to him, the problem (to me) is that he is being sued and may be jailed.
      As for the current threat to Jews, we all know that it does not come from people like him but from militant Muslims and their sympathizers. The threat is not addressed by persecuting this fool, rather, it is enhanced.

  12. Harry’s predecessor the Duke of Windsor and his wife Wallis Simpson were at least sympathetic to the views of Hitler and met him on several occasions. So the Nazi traces still exist in the royal family.

    1. Sympathy with the Nazis is not hereditary and even if it was, Edward VIII was not the ancestor of any of the current Royals.

      In any case, he denied being pro-Nazi.

      1. If you’re able to, please watch the last few episodes of The Crown. I was shocked to hear that Edward might have had a secret deal with Hitler that would allow the latter free rein across Europe, provided that Hitler made Ed the king of England, once the dust settled. If the series remained true to historical facts, then this was well-nigh treason. And so, as The Crown depicted, his banishment became even more entrenched. I wish I know how it all really transpired.
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/12/30/fact-checking-the-crown-did-the-duke-of-windsor-plot-with-hitler-to-betray-britain/?utm_term=.64d86744042e

        2. Edward himself claimed that he was not pro Nazi. That doesn’t mean he didn’t have a secret deal with Hitler, but I would want better evidence than a Netflix drama before making that call. Also, the evidence in the WaPo article really isn’t that convincing.

          in any case, even if the Duke of Windsor was in daily contact with Hitler and discussing how to bring down the UK, it doesn’t make any of his living relatives tainted as you put it. I don’t believe in original sin and neither should you.

          1. There was definitely some well-researched funny business in the Windsor Files.

            It was ‘boggy’ who made the comment wrt Nazi traces still existing in the family, not I. I don’t believe in original sin, so do keep your ill-placed admonishment to yourself.

    2. Not me. My wife and I are going to spend a couple of weeks in Scotland this fall. Looking forward to it!

  16. It can’t be Harry’s family heritage; his mother was a Spencer and his father (allegedly*) an ex-army Major named Hewitt.

    *allegedly, but he certainly bears no resemblance to the other royal males and quite a lot to the Major.

    1. I think he looks like his uncle Charles Spencer. Anyway, people don’t always look like their parents.

Comments are closed.