Prince Harry's antics

[Quillan]

[quote user="Chancer"]

I didnt think anyone paid for rooms at Vegas hotels let alone $5000 or was it £5000?

I never paid a penny for my stay there and only gambled 10 cents on one slot machine when I left, I ate snacks for free and drunk for free pretty much all the time as well as getting free entry to a couple of shows i didnt smoke but they were comped also, mind you that was a few years back so things may have changed.

I very much doubt that Harry or the taxpayer would have paid for his room.

Sounds like his minders have a great job if they are party animals, or at least had a good job, never mind they can now write their biographys, media wise the prince is a gift from the gods and long may it continue.

[/quote]

I was at Nellis in the late 70's and we had two days leave but had to return each night. We went in to Vegas and yes I played the table, only ten Dollars and I lost but at least I have done it. Think I had a go one the big machine as well and lost. Those were the days when you could wear your uniform 'off base' in the States and boy did we make best use of it too. As one Winko said "Just think, all those years ago when the Yanks were in the UK sh****ng our grannies now we are over here sh****ng their grand kids". Of course looking back now very infantile although back then we didn't think so because we were young and the old adrenalin and hormones were in full flight especially as we were showing the Yanks how to fly low level properly[;-)]. We got offered a room, I forget the name of the place although I seem to remember it had a sphinx and pyramid outside or was that opposite, who cares. Anyway because we were pulling in the girls (God knows why, I'm hardly Tom Cruise material even back then) and I don't think we paid for anything. Happy days.

[Gardener]

I imagine that if this had been wayne Rooney or reality show celeb the public would not have been so charitable in their comments . Yet if this had been someone else there could be a lot more valid excuses made to try and justify that kind of behaviour.

Imo I think that the celeb culture rife in the UK has made an impact on people whether they like it or not and on those that think that they haven't been affected or influenced by it and consequently Harry's behaviour far from receiving the condemnation that it would have if it had happened 20 or 30 years ago , is accepted as perfectly normal and acceptable behaviour for a senior Royal to exhibit.

[Quillan]

Strange that most newspapers missed out on the fact that his brother saved the life of a 16 year old girl from the sea six or seven days ago and a 58 year old woman on the mountains in Wales within the last 48 hours.

[idun]

But that is William's job isn't it, to rescue, so I'm glad to see that he is doing it, but don't need a report about it everytime it happens. Anymore than I need to hear about all the other brave crews and pilots who do such a difficult and dangerous job. I applaud them all.

If it was Rooney? Well he is married. Harry isn't and can so as he pleases in private. I still believe it was really nasty to post these pictures.

[andyh4]

If it had been Rooney I would have been even less interested in what is the non-event of the month

[Quillan]

[quote user="idun"]

But that is William's job isn't it, to rescue, so I'm glad to see that he is doing it, but don't need a report about it everytime it happens. Anymore than I need to hear about all the other brave crews and pilots who do such a difficult and dangerous job. I applaud them all.

If it was Rooney? Well he is married. Harry isn't and can so as he pleases in private. I still believe it was really nasty to post these pictures.

[/quote]

Exactly and I have no doubt that William was no angle either before he was married and in the Air Force except nobody managed to get a photo. Perhaps it is in the genes, I remember his mum when she was young getting up to all sorts of things with Fergie, police womans and traffic wardens uniform and a certain nightclub come to mind. Being caught giving a 'one finger' salute etc, etc.

[Frecossais]

[quote user="NormanH"][quote user="Frecossais"]What I really hate is that the Sun newspaper has published Harry's nude photo on the premise that it is essential for the public to see it.

The public has seen it on the Internet!  And guess what newspaper is being mentioned by every other form of media? Why, the Sun of course.

We are behaving as if members of the Royal Family have always walked the straight and narrow path. Get real!

[/quote]

Another good reason to abolish the institution [6]

[/quote]

Norman, I do think that from time to time, but on balance I think I'd rather keep the institution than become a republic whose successive heads have the quality of our last few Prime Ministers.

And compared with France and the US, whose heads of state seem to think they're royalty, I prefer the Queen and her family, who I do think have some sort of sense of being missionaries knocked into their heads (eventually!!!)

During this year in particular, I have seen that she herself is held in the greatest respect in many countries in the world, and she generates "loadsa money" for the country.

Okay, the monarchy is not chosen by the people, its members are born into privilege, but the republican or communist alternatives don't appeal to me either. 

[Rabbie]

[quote user="Frecossais"][quote user="NormanH"][quote user="Frecossais"]What I really hate is that the Sun newspaper has published Harry's nude photo on the premise that it is essential for the public to see it.
The public has seen it on the Internet!  And guess what newspaper is being mentioned by every other form of media? Why, the Sun of course.

We are behaving as if members of the Royal Family have always walked the straight and narrow path. Get real!
[/quote]

Another good reason to abolish the institution [6]
[/quote]

Norman, I do think that from time to time, but on balance I think I'd rather keep the institution than become a republic whose successive heads have the quality of our last few Prime Ministers.
And compared with France and the US, whose heads of state seem to think they're royalty, I prefer the Queen and her family, who I do think have some sort of sense of being missionaries knocked into their heads (eventually!!!)
During this year in particular, I have seen that she herself is held in the greatest respect in many countries in the world, and she generates "loadsa money" for the country.
Okay, the monarchy is not chosen by the people, its members are born into privilege, but the republican or communist alternatives don't appeal to me either. 
[/quote]Is it really  a good reason to keep the monarchy just because we can't think of some thing better[6]

Perhaps we ought to start thinking on how we could  do better.

Maybe we should aim for a slimmed down royal family with fewer being paid by the taxpayer

[Russethouse]

I think Prince Charles agrees with you, hence on the last day of the Jubilee weekend only Charles, Camilla, William, Kate and Harry appeared on the balcony.

In addition I understand that there is an agreement whereby the Monarch gives the country the revenue from the Crown Estates in return for an allowance, if I have interpretted the figures correctly we do very well indeed out of this arrangement!

[woolybanana]

Well, assuming we moved to a presidential model, can you imagine a public figure who would be suitable. The first candidate would be Tony Blair which would be a very good arguement for keeping the monarchy.

[Rabbie]

[quote user="Russethouse"]I think Prince Charles agrees with you, hence on the last day of the Jubilee weekend only Charles, Camilla, William, Kate and Harry appeared on the balcony. In addition I understand that there is an agreement whereby the Monarch gives the country the revenue from the Crown Estates in return for an allowance, if I have interpretted the figures correctly we do very well indeed out of this arrangement![/quote]

It is very difficult to come up with an accurate figure of the cost of the royal family because so much depends on what is included. Estimates of the net cost to the taxpayer vary between £45.1 million and £185 million per year.

[Russethouse]

From memory I think I read last might that the revenue from the Crown Estates is something like 250 million per annum.....we are Quids in !

[nomoss]

[quote user="PaulT"]

[quote user="Frecossais"]What I really hate is that the Sun newspaper has published Harry's nude photo on the premise that it is essential for the public to see it.
The public has seen it on the Internet!  And guess what newspaper is being mentioned by every other form of media? Why, the Sun of course.

We are behaving as if members of the Royal Family have always walked the straight and narrow path. Get real!
[/quote]

Absolutely - just in the past the press did not report any of their antics. I would assume that Harrys antics are very tame compared to his ancestors.

[/quote]

 

No, of course not[:)]

[IMG]http://i857.photobucket.com/albums/ab131/nomoss/800px-Regents_brithday.jpg[/IMG]

 

[Rabbie]

[quote user="Russethouse"]From memory I think I read last might that the revenue from the Crown Estates is something like 250 million per annum.....we are Quids in ![/quote]Even if we didn't have a monarchy the Crown estates would still exist albeit under a different name so the income from them would remain the same.

My own views on the monarchy are that it is a flawed system but it is hard to come up with something better. Even if we became a republic(very unlikely) It is likely the Presidency would be large symbolic as the Irish one and not a centre of political power like the French so In that case the prospect of President Blair is not very likely.

[Russethouse]

The Crown Estates might still exist, but I think it would be foolhardy to suggest that we could abolish the Monachy and keep the Crown Estates....

By the way, a couple of weeks ago I went to the branch of Battersea Dogs home that is at Old Windsor, it's on Crown Estate land and I suspect they pay a very low rent compared to the market value.......

[Hoddy]

I think there are two separate issues here. The first is whether or not Harry, a twenty-seven year old man, should be behaving in this way.

The second and probably more important is how is it that he who as much as anyone in the whole wide world should know the pernicious effects of the media, allowed himself to be in such a vulnerable position ? It doesn't demonstrate much 'nowse' does it ?

Hoddy

[Rabbie]

[quote user="Russethouse"]The Crown Estates might still exist, but I think it would be foolhardy to suggest that we could abolish the Monachy and keep the Crown Estates.... By the way, a couple of weeks ago I went to the branch of Battersea Dogs home that is at Old Windsor, it's on Crown Estate land and I suspect they pay a very low rent compared to the market value.......[/quote]As the Crown Estates are owned by the state and are not the personal property of the monarch of course they would remain state property in the unlikely event of the monarchy being abolished.

I think you will find that as all Crown Estate profits go to the Treasury they will be making sure they are making as much as they can in the current economic situation. Anything else would be grossly unfair to all taxpayers.

[Quillan]

[quote user="Hoddy"]I think there are two separate issues here. The first is whether or not Harry, a twenty-seven year old man, should be behaving in this way. The second and probably more important is how is it that he who as much as anyone in the whole wide world should know the pernicious effects of the media, allowed himself to be in such a vulnerable position ? It doesn't demonstrate much 'nowse' does it ? Hoddy[/quote]

Or more to the point how did this happen when he has personal protection. I mean she could have taken anything in to the room, drugs or even a small handgun.

[Hoddy]

I go back to Gardeners original post -

"shouldn't he really have exercised a lot more sense? "

My short answer is, "Yes."

Hoddy

[Russethouse]

'from Wiki

'as each monarch, upon accession, surrenders the surplus revenues in return for an annual grant known as the Civil List'

So do you think we can do away with the Monachy and thereby the Civil list and keep the Crown Estates ?

It was part of a deal, if that deal no longer exists, what happens?

Whatever it is I don't think it could be said to said to be unfair to the tax payer who have profited from it, year on year....

[Rabbie]

[quote user="Russethouse"]'from Wiki 'as each monarch, upon accession, surrenders the surplus revenues in return for an annual grant known as the Civil List' So do you think we can do away with the Monachy and thereby the Civil list and keep the Crown Estates ? It was part of a deal, if that deal no longer exists, what happens? Whatever it is I don't think it could be said to said to be unfair to the tax payer who have profited from it, year on year....[/quote]In the extremely unlikely event that we got rid of the monarchy which IMO would only be as a result of a revolution then I am sure the state would take over the crown estates. 

Realistically we have the monarchy for the foreseeable future and probably for a lot longer than that so it'snot something to lose any sleep over. The monarchy is not a perfect system but it does seem to work especially when we have a monarch like our present one.

Back to the original topic. \he should not have behaved liked that and I am sure he will be told so in no uncertain terms by his father. I imagine his commanding officer will also have a word with him as well

[Gardener]

I wouldn't want to see a President Blair either, but why would abolishing the monarchy automatically mean that it would create a power vacuum that must be filled? No reason why the UK couldn't plod on with a PM, works well enough in Australia. ( I know that Liz is Queen down under too but they don't see a great deal of her)

[Quillan]

[quote user="Gardener"]I wouldn't want to see a President Blair either, but why would abolishing the monarchy automatically mean that it would create a power vacuum that must be filled? No reason why the UK couldn't plod on with a PM, works well enough in Australia. ( I know that Liz is Queen down under too but they don't see a great deal of her)[/quote]

What about President Boris. [;-)]

[Frecossais]

Rabbie, maybe it's a good reason to keep the monarchy UNTIL we think of something better. (Sorry, not shouting, don't know how else to emphasise the word)

All I'm saying is I prefer it to the present alternatives.

As for slimming it down, well what is it they say? An heir and a spare? OK by me.

[Frederick]

[quote user="Hoddy"]I would be very disappointed if young man in my family were behaving in this way. I would find it even more difficult to accept if the odds ere strong that it would bring unwanted bad publicity on the rest of the family.

I wonder how we would be reacting if it were one of the young women members of the family behaved in this way.

As to him being a serving office; it's almost four years now sine he as on active service. As his Uncle Andrew, who had a much more distinguished military career could testify, there is only so much that the public will put up with.

I just hope the paternity suits don't start rolling in.

Hoddy[/quote]

The photos on his friends facebook page that are supposed to be only viewed by a few friends are yet to come out . These are from a stay on Richard Bransons private Island  It  appears Prince Harry is wery worried they may be  seen ... Silly boy !