Prince Harry and THAT photo [Archive] - Canon Digital Photography Forums

dewmuw

13th of January 2005 (Thu), 03:32

Some of you might not have heard about this, but a British tabloid today ran a front cover photo of Prince Harry wearing a **** uniform to a party. It has sparked a raging debate, as you would imagine.

I don't want to get into the political debate, this forum is not the correct place for that.

However, there is another interesting debate taking place and that is suitable for this forum (I think). A number of people are now suggesting that the real issue is whether the paper should have published the photograph in the first place; the paper has replied that they have a public duty to publish and others have suggested that it is just aimed at promoting sales of the paper.

What do you think:

1. Paper should have published
2. Paper should have approached Palace and informed them of Harry's situation

This isn't the first time Harry has been in trouble over a photograph, late in 2004 he got into a fight outside a London club with a photographer.

Whatever, the photographer has got his pension sorted now!

Ikinaa

13th of January 2005 (Thu), 04:05

Living in a Monarchy too (Luxembourg is a Grand-Duchy for those who don't know it...), I guess the papers here have about the same Duty as in England.
Depending on the Tabloid who published the pictures of Harry, it sure was their duty to publish them... scandal sells :cool:
Our Monarchy is a calm one, we nearly never have any scandals and the ones you hear of are rarely published in the papers, but go from mouth to ear.
As for Harry, as far as I've seen articles about his behaviour, I guess he's seeking scandals or publicity. (Boxing photogs, etc isn't very discreet)
On one hand, a royal family is nearly 'public domain', so everyone should know what they are doing, on the other hand, I wouldn't want to change places with them, no privacy, nothing.
I think it's a question of respect from the population to the members of the royal family. Those who don't appear negatively in tabloids are either those who don't make scandals or who the population respects more.
A royal family is part of the country so...
Sure Harry made a faux-pas by wearing a **** uniform, but publishing it with a paper-size picture won't help. Someone made a mistake in education there...

dewmuw

13th of January 2005 (Thu), 04:14

You would have thought one of his advisors would have spotted the potential for this wouldn't you?

BearSummer

13th of January 2005 (Thu), 04:33

Ho hum,

yes it should be published and it wouldn't be an issue if people were not looking for scandal. It was a fancy dress party and he's part german anyway. People should lighten up a bit, its not like he's joined the BNP.

sheesh

BearSummer

Ikinaa

13th of January 2005 (Thu), 04:50

For those interested in the cover of the SUN (hmmm... isn't that one of the most respectable tabloids in GB :lol: )
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,425524,00.jpg
I read William was disguised as a Wildcat ? Now that would make a funny picture too... ;)

Cadwell

13th of January 2005 (Thu), 05:03

Ho hum,

yes it should be published and it wouldn't be an issue if people were not looking for scandal. It was a fancy dress party and he's part german anyway.

BearSummer

I didn't know James Hewitt was of German descent :?

ssim

13th of January 2005 (Thu), 05:12

Ikinaa

13th of January 2005 (Thu), 05:26

For me the story holds no interest.

Once the photograher had the shot do you think he sat and asked, "Hmm do I create embarassment for the royal family and fatten my bank account or do I let it go?" I'll bet he didn't think long.

As for the paper, I'm sure this has little to do with journalistic furtherment than it did with pumping up sales.
Are you sure it isn't the other way round like : ' Hmm how do I create embarassment for the royal family and fatten my bank account? Oh yes, there's a party with Harry tonight ...'
paparazzi-style :cool:

Belmondo

13th of January 2005 (Thu), 06:19

sdommin

13th of January 2005 (Thu), 06:34

Asking a newspaper to not publish a picture like that is like asking a fox not to attack a chicken coop - it's what they do. Expect it!

The bigger story is how a potential future leader of a major country could be so stupid as to not realize the consequence of his actions. In this case, the paper was right to publish the photo.

Andy_T

13th of January 2005 (Thu), 06:50

I think that it was a good thing of the newspaper to bring the photo ... should be educative for prince Harry.

I want to know what entered his head to select this costume. IMHO, it's NOT a decision like 'Hmmm, do I take the blue or the brown dress today' when you decide to put a swastika on your arm.

In Germany he will get arrested for doing this (§ 86 STGB, usage of symbols of national socialism, jail of up to 3 years), fancy dress party or not.

Best regards,
Andy

dewmuw

13th of January 2005 (Thu), 07:21

FWIW Prince Harry seems to be making a career out of this sort of 'poor judgement'.

I did laugh when the palace tried to explain his 'fight' with the photographer as self defence, when the pictures clearly showed that he got into his car and then got back out again to have a go at the guy.

scottbergerphoto

13th of January 2005 (Thu), 07:30

It may not be earth-shattering news, but it still has to be considered news-worthy when a possible heir to the Throne dons the trappings of the most reviled enemy in his nation's history.

Then, there's the whole political correctness business; the swastika is the universal image for anti-Semitism specifically, and racial and ethnic intolerance generally.

FWIW, they are discussing Prince Harry on Fox News as I type this.

I think the article was possibly distasteful, and Harry's actions were imprudent in the eyes of many. I also think an informed population has the right to know of such behavior by its leaders, even those of the symbolic sort, so the posting of the photo falls within the general classification of news. Unfortunately, all we've learned about Harry is that he isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Well said.
As to the poster who said people should lighten up, I suspect none of his relatives were taken away by men wearing similiar attire. In addition, being of German ancestry, and being/emulating a **** are two very different things.
As to news-worthyness, I think it's fairly safe to say that a member of the British Royal Family donning a swastika is news unless he was in a play or movie production.
Scott

dewmuw

13th of January 2005 (Thu), 09:01

Well said.
As to the poster who said people should lighten up, I suspect none of his relatives were taken away by men wearing similiar attire. In addition, being of German ancestry, and being/emulating a **** are two very different things.
As to news-worthyness, I think it's fairly safe to say that a member of the British Royal Family donning a swastika is news unless he was in a play or movie production.
Scott
I do wonder if the people who are supporting him would be quite so 'understanding' if he had attended the party dressed in a white hood and carrying a flaming cross.

ssim

13th of January 2005 (Thu), 10:31

FWIW Prince Harry seems to be making a career out of this sort of 'poor judgement'.
I can remember being that age. Making sound decisions wasn't really top of mind.

Andy_T

13th of January 2005 (Thu), 11:12

I can remember being that age. Making sound decisions wasn't really top of mind.

True, but there are some decisions that are less sound than others :cry:

Best regards,
Andy

RichardtheSane

13th of January 2005 (Thu), 12:08

This was discussed this morning on the BBC national news and was also the subject of a number of viewers comments.

Views from 'This is a disgrace to our country' to ''Why does this warrant national news' were aired.

My personal opinion is let them get on with it. I agree with an earlier poster about his realtive bluntness as far as the knife in the draw analogy goes :)

Moppie

13th of January 2005 (Thu), 21:13

I think is been a little over exposed by the flash, you can see to much glare on his forehead.

This is even being discussed here in NZ.
More than a few people have asked is this the only news they can find about the Royal family?
Prince harry going to a party wearing an inappriate costume is not really head line making material, they must be doing something more interesting.
If thier not, and thats the best the media can up with, then why do we still have a Royal family?
(whole nother debate, and not worth getting into, just a question raised by the act being news worthy).

neil_r

14th of January 2005 (Fri), 02:06

First off let me say that I think this was a big mistake, he now realises this, and I am sure it will not happen again. The people making political mileage and demanding an "on bended knee" apology are not going to change any of the above.

I know that there is an added dimension to this with the 60th aniversary of the liberation of Aushwitz being so soon and the memory of the Holocaust still being so fresh in some peoples memories. (But obviously not for a 20 year old member of the British royal family)

That being said, when do historical tyrants become acceptable figures of fun?

Had Harry dressed as Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Mao Zedong, Stalin or even Kaiser Wilhelm I do not think there would have been all this fuss.

Just a thought.......

N

Belmondo

14th of January 2005 (Fri), 03:13

He could have dressed up as the Pillsbury Dough Boy, and somebody, somewhere would have been offended; goodness knows, there are always some people looking for things to complain about. The problem is, he chose the one symbol that evokes the strongest possible revulsion among right-thinking people throughout the world, and that lack of discretion was simply too egregious to ignore.

Youthful indiscretions can be forgiven, and in time, I’m sure this one will be too. In the meantime, Harry needs to do more than issue a press release saying he’s sorry. That simply won’t be adequate, especially among those whose lives were affected by the outrages against humanity committed by ****s in the last century.

Bodryn

14th of January 2005 (Fri), 12:55

When I was a little kid I remember drawing the swastika a few times - I didn't have a clue as to the significance of it, but it interested me because it looked like something running that was all legs and no head.

Maybe Prince Harry thought of it as just another harmless costume for a costume party. Who issued that costume anyway? The fist fight suggests that he is already stressed by too much public exposure and criticism. I hope he survives all this and can have a decent life. I'm not a Harry fan, but he is a human being. Another thing: if he declined the throne, he might just come to the U.S., get into show business, and become governor of some state. :confused: Then everybody would want to be his friend.

Claire

14th of January 2005 (Fri), 16:41

Saw the pics in the Swedish papers. Was surprised that even the broadsheets ran the story (without picture). My personal opinion is that of course the Sun will publish it! Heck, anything that involves the Royal Family goofing up will up the figures. Besides, if they hadn't run it I would have been far more surprised. From the reader's perspective I probably would have found it bad if the Mirror had run it and not the Sun. It's their job, they're a tabloid. Run the picture.

Now, when it comes to Harry's judgement. Ehm, at the last Halloween party I went to the guy who was dressed as Hitler won the 3rd prize for his costume. In a private party and not being public figures I thought it was pretty harmless. Now, Harry on the other hand is a public figure and KNOWS the paparazzi is following him everywhere. I mean, he's bound to understand they'll catch him and splash it over the front pages! This is the kind of judgement he seems to lack most of all. He should be media savvy enough by now.

On the other hand, at least the British Royalties are far more interesting than the Swedish ones. The only debates we get here is "should the Crown Princess marry a gym instructor?"

/Claire

CyberDyneSystems

14th of January 2005 (Fri), 18:02

If he was dressed as the Pillsburry Dough boy .. that would have made a much better photo.

I really hate to reply here as I am going to get preachy real faaaaaast......

But My god the kid deserves all he gets.

That thing on his shoulder is the symbol of everything that is the worst in human kind and no child should be too young to understand this! :mad:

Nor does one need to be a celebrity for this symbol to have the shock value effect that this image has.

Of course the image should be printed.. and his guardians and he need a firm spanking as this "laps in judgement" is collosal.

Millions of poeple.. MILLIONS lost there lives,. and Millions gave them willingly to stop the power that used that symbol... Millions... :(

To see some snot nosed brat trotting it out to a fancy dress party makes me sick.

When I was just out of Highschool ... I was once at my best frends house... and his younger brother.. a "neo Skate punk" (in my mind real skate punks had grown up by 1984) had drawn the swastika all over his school notebook...

Well I took him by the arm and dragged him into the kitchen where his mother was and asked him to explain it to her,. expecting her to tell him to get rid of it....

She defended him.. "oh he's young... to him it's just a design... he doesn't even know what it means"

Redfaced I said simply.. "well, he should"

We all should.

Jyoti

14th of January 2005 (Fri), 18:26

I think this is the best comment I've seen about the whole affair:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1390200,00.html

neil_r

15th of January 2005 (Sat), 01:57

I think this is the best comment I've seen about the whole affair:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1390200,00.html
:D :D :D

Sketcher

15th of January 2005 (Sat), 02:14

Ignorance is one thing: "The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed."

This loons idiocy is just plain crass. The tragic horror that symbol represents is beyond succinct expression. It is a sad telling of society when a stunt such as this is given a pass or explained away as youthful adventure.

Though there may be ignoble explanation, there is no honorable excuse.

*****

What do you think:

1. Paper should have published. The paper claims that it was their 'duty' to publish it; so the question is more appropriately phrased along the lines of "is it truly their duty" and do they handle it with any sense of responsibility (at least that's what i think the real issue is). Considering the reputation of that rag; the only dutiful intent in play here would seem to be tabloid exposure not an actual public service. But that shouldn't be surprising anyone.

2. Paper should have approached Palace and informed them of Harry's situation . Again, that paper's sense of 'duty' is to make money and they've not been known to exercise journalistic restraint toward the bettering of society. It would have been honorable to withhold the image and story and notify the Royals of the debacle giving them opportunity to address themselves; that is if protecting the royal image was truly an interest.

The Royal family is well educated and not inexperienced in living in front of the camera 24/7. They deal with this sort of exposure more than our own Hollywood elite do. If they (or any one of them) are foolish enough to perform public displays of idiocy I think they're due whatever attention they get. They certainly advocate the paper circulation when they're smartly dressed and attending humanitarian/civil functions. A 'news' tabloid claiming journalistic license stating it's their 'duty' to publish or that they're performing a 'public service' however, is silly. they do it for the money.

neil_r

15th of January 2005 (Sat), 02:31

1. Paper should have published
2. Paper should have approached Palace and informed them of Harry's situation

This isn't the first time Harry has been in trouble over a photograph, late in 2004 he got into a fight outside a London club with a photographer.So the thread started with a photography related question and has now sunk to a rant about the behaviour of an individual.

People make mistakes, some wear inapropriate fancy dress costumes and offend a lot of people, some invade countries in the middle east and kill a lot of people either way self righteous indignation expressed on this forum will change neither

N

Sketcher

15th of January 2005 (Sat), 09:38

So the thread started with a photography related question and has now sunk to a rant about the behaviour of an individual.

People make mistakes, some wear inapropriate fancy dress costumes and offend a lot of people, some invade countries in the middle east and kill a lot of people either way self righteous indignation expressed on this forum will change neither

N The OP didn't start with a photography related question; he gives a nod to the alternate discussion before stating his inquiry. He does provide framework for 'photography' discussion at first, then sandwiches his question with a comment regarding more of Prince Harry's antics.

If genuflect recognition of photography is the goal, then an appropriate example of restraint should be the hallmark of the inquiry. There are some topics that no matter how carefully crafted will not lend themselves to other than myopic discussion. Case in point as noted by your own acknowledgement that the thread is derailed the while holding the lever keeping it thus.

The conversation has been well within the framework established by the OP.

neil_r

15th of January 2005 (Sat), 10:01

The OP didn't start with a photography related question; he gives a nod to the alternate discussion before stating his inquiry. He does provide framework for 'photography' discussion at first, then sandwiches his question with a comment regarding more of Prince Harry's antics.Dont know.... looks like a debate on the merits of a newspaper publishing a picture to me

I don't want to get into the political debate, this forum is not the correct place for that.

However, there is another interesting debate taking place and that is suitable for this forum (I think). A number of people are now suggesting that the real issue is whether the paper should have published the photograph in the first place; the paper has replied that they have a public duty to publish and others have suggested that it is just aimed at promoting sales of the paper.

What do you think:

!If genuflect recognition of photography is the goal, then an appropriate example of restraint should be the hallmark of the inquiry. There are some topics that no matter how carefully crafted will not lend themselves to other than myopic discussion. Case in point as noted by your own acknowledgement that the thread is derailed the while holding the lever keeping it thus.

The conversation has been well within the framework established by the OP.I don't understand, have another go in English. :D

N

Sketcher

15th of January 2005 (Sat), 10:20

If genuflect recognition of photography is the goal, then an appropriate example of restraint should be the hallmark of the inquiry. There are some topics that no matter how carefully crafted will not lend themselves to other than myopic discussion. Case in point as noted by your own acknowledgement that the thread is derailed the while holding the lever keeping it thus.

The conversation has been well within the framework established by the OP. Dont know.... looks like a debate on the merits of a newspaper publishing a picture to me

I don't understand, have another go in English.

N Thanks for giving me another chance Neil. I appreciate the opportunity.

A go in English... well. Some topics, no matter how well the OP is crafted just can't be kept on topic.

1. Sure, he claims to debate only the issue of whether that particular bit of photography was handled well. But he begins and ends acknowledging the sensational aspect of Prince Harry's antics in the public eye. What I mean by this is that Damian doesn't really mean to stay on topic, or that the topic really isn't all that refined.

2. Damians subsequent posts (in plain American/internet forum english) do nothing to debate the merit of photography; rather they further discussion toward the antics of the royal family in the public eye. What is meant by that statement is that he doesn't even follow a guideline himself, why should anyone else.

If you want to point an indignant finger at someone for not adhering to a refined discussion, then blame the OP for his own posts not being to your liking. What I mean here is that everyone else (including the OP) is quite comfortable in oggling the debacle that is the royal family.

I answer the OP question regarding the two points in question. I also provide detail regarding my opinion of the relevant issues as have a few others and three moderators. I would think that if there were some forum impropriety being conducted here it would have at least been noted by the mods, not sidestepped entirely. What I mean by all this, is that if there's a discussion regarding merits of photography, this thread ain't it.

:) <-What I mean by that smiley is; well, that this dicussion in and of itself is not a pissing match. just an explanation of perception.

;) <- That particular smiley is simply for disarming effect

Penguin_101_1

15th of January 2005 (Sat), 10:25

To answer the photography related question: It should have been published, printed, posted on the net, ect. I don't know what your laws are because my family stopped listening to them in 1776, but the consitution allows this here.

Also, there is no point in yelling at each other on if it was a photography or political question. It dosn't matter, the thread will be over on page 3 in a week and it will never be posted to again. So get back on topic.
;)

neil_r

15th of January 2005 (Sat), 11:01

Thanks for giving me another chance Neil. I appreciate the opportunity.
Many thanks for that, I genuinly did not understand what you meant, I think I do now, and I aint falling out with anybody.

N
xx

PhotosGuy

15th of January 2005 (Sat), 11:04

Youthful indiscretions can be forgiven, and in time, I’m sure this one will be too.
Sadly, that pic will probably follow him to the grave. Remember pres Carter & the "Killer Rabbit?" The Clinton/Lewinsky shot?

Might as well publish it. It's going to get out one way or another. He's not a "Private Figure" after all, & the people of Great Britain have a right to know how 'smart' a future leader isn't.

JAZZ D.P.G.

15th of January 2005 (Sat), 11:47

:oops: Ain't it a b*tch when the real world crashes down around your ears:oops:

Dumb *ss move. This kid shouldn't be allowed out without a full escort. As much as he is an individual, he is very much public property, and represents a nation.

The paper did what papers do, and this must be expected by public personalities.

A trip to the 60th anniversary ceremony is not the answer here, but a trip to the woodshed might get the point across:evil:

Bodryn

15th of January 2005 (Sat), 17:20

To gain a bit of perspective, it is probably worth repeating that Hitler didn't invent the swastika but borrowed it for his own horrific purposes. I see by my book "Dictionary of Symbols" that in the early Buddhist culture it was used to signify "rebirth" and "prosperity". In Scandinavia, it was once called "Tor's Hammer". It also occurred in ancient Greece. In Finland, the swastika was used as a symbol of liberation from Russia in 1918. I'd bet that in future centuries historians will find the hyper-reaction to the swastika symbol rather hypocritical (albeit understandable) in view of the many instances of mass genocide which have occurred since WW2 and continue to this day.

CyberDyneSystems

15th of January 2005 (Sat), 22:40

Bodryn,...

I am not contradicting what you say in any way.. the original symbol is ancient indeed...

However.. that is completely beside the point for two reasons.

1. Unfortunately due to far more recent and world wide events than ancient Greek pottery or Indian Buddhism,.. the symbol has become universally recognized throughout the world as that of the **** Party, Aryanism, Prejudice and haterd. This is a fact that is not likely to change for many many years to come.. (hopefully) I truly think that you are mistaken on that point,.. I am sure that the symbol,. like the name Hitler,. will,.. for as long as our history remains in tact,. be soiled for use of any other sort other than a reminder of its infamy.

2. Intentions. (and more to the point) When Harry put a red armband on bearing a Swastika,.. he was not thinking about ancient Greek pottery or Buddism.. He was thinking about the **** Party.

VegasGeorge

16th of January 2005 (Sun), 10:02

I don't see the issue here. If someone (Harry, in this case) is doing something publicly (as he was in this case), then why should a photographer be accused of trying to embarrass the person by publishing a picture? The embarrassment, if any, would result from the public display, and any public display is likely to be photographed these days.

On the other hand, if someone is doing something privately, and a photographer happens to get a picture if it, then a legitimate issue exists. Even if the person photographed isn't legally protected by privacy rights under the circumstances, a photographer and publisher should respect the person's reasonable expectations of privacy. Of course, often they don't. The classic example of that was Larry Flynt, who published nude photos of Jacqueline Onassis sunbathing on Skorpios.

dewmuw

16th of January 2005 (Sun), 15:01

1. Sure, he claims to debate only the issue of whether that particular bit of photography was handled well. But he begins and ends acknowledging the sensational aspect of Prince Harry's antics in the public eye. What I mean by this is that Damian doesn't really mean to stay on topic, or that the topic really isn't all that refined.

Jeff

Thank you for interpreting what I did and didn't mean - are you a qualified psychologist by the way?

I have this recurring dream about a cow that plays the banjo, fancy a go at interpreting that too? Or do you keep your condescension solely for other people’s posts?