Yes, we all know of the artificial scandal inflated by the media of Prince Harry’s “Nazi gaffe”. We know that legions upon legions of E-list celebrities and unknown politicians queued up, slavering at the chance to vomit compassion over the television and newspapers, to demand that he be branded, whipped naked through the streets of London and stoned at the door of the Liberal Democrats’ head office, before having a pound of his flesh sent to AIDS oprhans. We know that the Queen’s great-great-great-great-grand-uncle’s wife’s niece’s son’s cousin thrice removed cleaned the windows at Nuremberg. We all know that the agonised theatrics and confused confabulations concerning that ‘incident’ were completely and absolutely pointless and served no purpose whatsoever other than to let a few particularly venomous journalists bellyache for some column inches. We all know that as far as most are concerned that episode has been thankfully forgotten.
Or so I hoped. This is just taking the biscuit!
Disregarding for the present moment the shamefully obvious fact that this initiative seems little more than the ruling party deciding to selfishly seize more power with a presidential reformation a la Zimbabwe, it seems that the Rt. Hon. Mr. Arthur is labouring under quite a number of misconceptions. Most prominently is that should he acede to the throne, Prince Harry will not be “King Harry” but rather King Henry IX. If he wants to consider himself in a legitimate position to dictate his country’s constitutional status then Mr. Arthur should actually have at least a vaguely coherent grasp of what that constitution is, something that’s obviously lacking from this puerile statement.
Furthermore, by his belittling use of the term “King Harry” and the extreme improbability of his personal “nightmare scenario” ever coming to pass anyway, the Barbados Prime Minister seems to be basing his demand for a republic not actually on any sensible and reasoned basis but rather on nothing more than personal caprice and antipathy - which is hardly the decent way to massively convulse any country’s system, or a promising precedent for the way in which the ‘free’ Barbados will be ruled should this idiot scheme ever come to pass (heaven forbid). Now, I’m willing to admit that This Scept’red Isle has had a few duds in the royal arsenal, such as Aethelred the Unready or Edward VIII. Even so, that doesn’t affect the fact that I’m a devout and determined monarchist - “The man may be flawed but the instituion is divine”. Mr. Arthur’s ‘fear’ is a pathetic excuse at best and outright deception at worst, and he seems to have forgotten that you can have a bad president as easily as a bad king (and the bad president is much more dangerous since he actually is present in government).
He also seems incapable of comprehending that Prince Harry will most likely change and become much more suitable as a monarch of the U.K. and Commonwealth by the time he reaches the age where there’s the remotest chance of him becoming King. In visiting nightclubs and so forth, Prince Harry has done no more than prove that he’s just like nine-tenths of all other teenagers - and I thought that was supposed to be an admirable qality because it shows he’s in tune with the common folk? There’s no pleasing some Guardian commentators…
Even if Prince Harry is currently the ‘wayward’ prince, don’t forget that he shall be entering Sandhurst next year and the Army will readily bludgeon a healthy amount of sense into anyone.
So, will people please desist from creating international incidents about Prince Harry’s ‘misdemeanours’… and will someone please inform the Barbodos Prime Minister rather forcefully that his dislike of the Prince is no excuse for degrading his country into yet another tired, unspectacular, anonymous, also-ran republic?