1
   

Touchy subject of Brit's royal links with Nazi Germany

 
 
Vivien
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 12:46 pm
the whole theme of the party 'colonials and natives' was bigoted and insensitive to begin with but in keeping with the behaviour of the hooray henry's.

This behaviour is no worse than it has ever been but is now made widely public - in the past newspapers didn't print stories of the private life of royalty but with today's obsession with the famous they are now watched constantly. Edward and Wallis were Nazi sympathisisers - but this wasn't publicised until years later.

It was incredibly insensitive (but typical) to think that going as a Nazi would be fun - not simply because of all those who died in living memory but because of the extreme right wing parties in all countries that still hold the same ideals. I think the 'in living memory' may be the key to the level of offence? if he had gone as Attila the Hun it would have been unquestioned?

Their time is very much in its last days. Support from the public is - well disinterest! Camilla is universally disliked. Diana hated the boys hunting but their father has overcome that and intends to flaut the law when hunting is banned - a kind caring man??? I think not.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 01:28 pm
I see what you mean although I'm not sure I'd consider Charles cruel. Perhaps of another time...which is rapidly disappearing.

http://www.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/the_north_east/archive/2002/03/27/40.harr.html


"A lifelong opponent of hunting, I confess to a misgiving that, through my share in the groundswell of opinion that will sweep away hunting, I will also bear responsibility for denying these hunt supporters a reason to get out and about in their countryside, with the opportunity to meet others that this brings. These roadside gatherings are more social occasions than sport.

Even so, hunting must go. Sensibilities change, and time has caught up with hunting, just as it caught up with badger baiting, bull baiting, cock fighting and dog fighting. Indeed, a telling point against hunting is that none of its defenders ever seeks to justify any of the bloodsports already banned. And yet cock fighting was once a fashionable activity, popular with the nobs at York races, among others.

Well within our own time, otter hunting was fiercely defended. But it is unthinkable that the return of the otter will be accompanied by any attempt to hunt it.

So too with foxhunting. It matters little that there is not an absolute majority favouring a ban. The sport is sufficiently offensive to a sufficient proportion of people that it can no longer be part of what Britain is. After a generation or so without hunting, people will gaze upon pictures of Prince Charles hunting with the same horrified amazement that we look upon pictures of the Duke of Windsor standing proudly over his first shot lion.

In due course, I am certain, angling and game-shooting will be outlawed. And that won't be because "ignorant, prejudiced'' people, to quote William Hague on anti-hunters, are waging a class war, or a town-v-country war. Most anglers are urban. It will be because perceptions of cruelty, and the rights of animals, a concept that would have been considered ludicrous 200 years ago, will have moved on again. For the same reason all meat-eating will eventually cease.

All that may take a century or more. For the moment there is the certain death of hunting to contemplate. If it survives the present hiatus, it still has no long-term future. But its demise should give no one unalloyed satisfaction. A barbarism will have disappeared. But community life in the countryside, already diminished by the influx of commuters, second homers and job losses, will have suffered a little more erosion. Only the most fanatical and blinkered of hunt protestors will fail to detect a note of sadness in the last Tally Ho."
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 01:47 pm
Thanks for your response, Vivien!

From the Unite Against Fascism website:

Quote:
[...] 27 January will be Holocaust Memorial Day and we will be marking the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, the nazi concentration camp, where more than 1 million Jews were murdered. Prince Harry's actions are an insult to the 15 million Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, black and disabled people that were killed as a result of the nazi's murderous policies. After the Second World War, the whole world said never again. Across Europe the far right are polling high votes. Prince Harry's actions are a worrying sign that racism and fascism is becoming more acceptable. Britain has not been immune to growth of the far right - far from it. The fascist BNP has already announced that they will be standing in 100 constituencies. Last year the BNP received the highest votes EVER for a fascist party in Britain. When fascists are polling higher results than ever before, members of the monarchy should be distancing themselves from it and condemning it, not wearing their uniform.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 03:49 pm
I think there would be nothing wrong with going as Attila the Hun or Ghengis Khan or any of those old baddies.

Maybe in another hundred years or so the costume won't be so powerful.

But, I really think the sentiment of the wearer is more important than the costume.

But, we all have our opinions.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 01:30 am
Quote:
EU backs swastika ban after Prince Harry photos

By Stephen Castle in Brussels
18 January 2005


Nazi symbols could be banned throughout the EU under new moves to clamp down on racism and xenophobia following the release of photos of Prince Harry wearing a swastika armband.

A drive to ban fascist insignia yesterday won key support from Luxembourg, which holds the rotating EU presidency, and from the European commissioner for justice and home affairs, Franco Frattini.

Following the furore over Prince Harry, German politicians have called for an EU-wide ban similar to that in place in Germany, Austria and Hungary.

The proposals could embarrass the UK which, along with Italy, helped block similar ideas two years ago.

In 2003 plans for a ban failed to get the unanimous support needed. Germany had pushed for Holocaust denial to be treated as an offence.
Source
0 Replies
 
Don1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 06:30 am
Lash wrote:


Maybe in another hundred years or so the costume won't be so powerful.

But, I really think the sentiment of the wearer is more important than the costume.



Amen
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 06:50 am
Vivien wrote:
the whole theme of the party 'colonials and natives' was bigoted and insensitive to begin with but in keeping with the behaviour of the hooray henry's.


Here, here! <speaking as one from the colonies! :wink: >
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 09:55 am
I have a feeling banning the symbol will make it more appealing to some (I hope only a few.) But I guess that's been tested in Germany, Austria, and Hungary.

I have mixed feelings - an instinct towards banning, and a view that one should look the devil in the eye, as it were, and defuse the symbol of power - not that that would be easy - rather than try to bury it.
0 Replies
 
turaido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 07:18 pm
Quote:
BRITAIN'S NAZI MESS

Prince Harry Isn't Alone in Needing a History Lesson


By Matthias Matussek

The photo of Prince Harry that has angered the world doesn't show a young Nazi doing the Prussian goose-step. It shows a thoughtless rascal trying to impress a few other mindless twerps at a party of the young and fashionable. But it also underscores a more disturbing fact: Brits lately have been doing a worse job of dealing with history than the Germans.

The drink, the cigarette, the swastika -- somehow they all belong together.

The photo of Harry that has angered the world doesn't show a youthful Nazi doing the Prussian goose-step. It shows a thoughtless rascal trying to shock a few other thoughtless brats at a party of the jeunesse doree.

For a few minutes, some actually managed to turn their eyes to the ground in embarrassment at the Wilshire country estate on Saturday night. Then they continued partying -- the girls bared their mid-riffs and Harry's big brother, Prince William, came dressed in a lion costume with stuffed paws.

Whichever member of this Young Burberry Clique sold the photo to the Sun didn't do so out of concern for decency. If he or she had, the person would have cornered the prince, had a word, and torn the historically charged arm band off his shirt. Instead, whoever it was turned the event into a major scandal and probably collected a large check in the process.

But back to the young royal. Prince Harry did what he always does. For him, this was just another juvenile party prank in the vague haze of alcohol and the fog of a historical knowledge that's apparently extremely fragmentary.

What's really shocking here isn't even Prince Harry -- it's what his gaffe represents. A recent survey found that over half of British youth have no idea whatsoever what the word "Ausschwitz" really means. And this, despite the fact that documentary films about World War II flicker across British television screens at least every other night. And they're always about Winston Churchill's bravery, the good Brits, the evil Germans and the victims.

So a prince with a swastika? Apparently the British have been focusing too much on their own triumph and too little on the history of the victims. It now appears the British have a greater problem with the past than the Germans.

Up till now, this avoidance has worked exceptionally well: In British daily life, Germans play the roll of Nazi caricatures -- and the supporting cast in mass murder -- who could be thrashed about at will. Even 60 years after the war, 10-year-old German kids are chased in London parks just because they're "Krauts."

In this self-righteous, ideological milieu, even Prince Harry drew from this well of ignorance. He wore a German army jacket to cover his swastika. His message at the costume ball: Germans, Nazis, Krauts? They're one and the same. The new democratic Germany? Absolutely boring. With a slight twist of the shoulder, the jacket slips off and the Nazi killer beneath becomes visible. Usually, when people wear these kinds of costumes, they feel a little creepy. Who knows what Harry felt.

He certainly didn't wear the swastika to commemorate the enthusiasm British aristocracy showed for Hitler during the 1930s. What he did was even stupider and more screwed up because back then, at least, Hitler's English fans didn't know about the Holocaust yet. The grand masquerade surrounding Hitler ended as soon as they did.

It's not the political grimness of the Harry photo that's scandalous. It's the casualness and nonchalance in which he wears the swastika. The emblem of the murder of the Jews on the arm and a drink in hand -- that's the contemporary horror here. It's an example of the insensitivity and total oblivion of this jet-set party world.

And few could be bothered to write more than a line in passing about the theme of the party held by these snobs, who otherwise while away their time vociferously fighting for the aristocratic right to fox hunting.

The theme? "Colonials and Natives."

It's not clear what Harry was thinking when he decided to dress up as Nazi General Erwin "Desert Fox" Rommel -- but given his racist, British Empire presumptuousness, he must have thought dressing as a Nazi would just escalate the idea of the party's colonial officer theme. He wasn't far off the mark, either -- after all, Nazis wore boots and carried riding whips, too.

And Harry's girlfriend Chelsy? Her dad is said to enjoy the best of relations with Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe's bizarre, Hitler mustache-wearing dictator. And of Chelsy, Harry, who otherwise likes to make himself available for touching African charity photo opps, recently told a friend, "she's not black or anything, you know."

In a sense, there's no reason to get overly excited about the scandal. The evening's imperial theme certainly gave the upper class loons another chance to do a couple of ironic pirouettes.

And a few gaffes.


Source: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,336739,00.html
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 07:50 pm
Good article, to me.
0 Replies
 
turaido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2005 11:58 am
Another article...
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,337722,00.html
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2005 10:28 pm
Nice link.
0 Replies
 
Duke of Lancaster
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 03:12 am
Let the boy wear anything he wants.....afterall, it was a custom party. And, once again, he's the Prince. :wink:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 06:21:26