trappedslider
Legend
nothing to see here
Last edited:
Halloween costumes -- where is the taste line drawn?
- Status
Remus Lupin
Adventurer
Well, I'll let the people who live under the monarchy comment about what it might or might not mean (though, if current employment possibilities come to pass, I may be among them soon!). I'm simply stating that Prince Harry is more than just a guy. In his person he carries huge symbolic weight, so what he does is evaluated on the basis of that weight.
But then how would Rupert Murdoch sell newspapers? It's not like he ever reports actual news.
delericho
Legend
Are you from the UK? Because from where I'm sitting it means a whole lot more than you might think. Sure, it's not something we talk about a lot... until, that is, someone starts talking about getting rid of it.
You might well be right. But once you get to requiring that, you might as well be shouting at the tide to go back.
It's the answer to your question, that's why. You said: "A couple years ago, one of the British princes dressed in a Nazi uniform for a costume party. There was a lot of uproar about it." I'm pointing out that there wasn't lots of uproar about it, outside of his newspapers plus, perhaps, the Daily Mail. Nobody else here gave a crap.
I repeat, form a sociopolitical viewpoint, he is more than "just a man". You don't believe me? Imagine you personally trying to make a change in your society. Now imagine him trying to make a change in his. Who will have the easier time of it? Probably him - he carries a heck of a lot more social weight than you or I do, or any "normal man" does. Ergo, he's not "just a man" in these terms.
First, yes, it is a construct. But "construct" does not mean "has no value". The computer you use to post is a construct, but it has value to you, no? Millions of people pay money for sci-fi and fantasy novels. So they have value - even fictions can have value! FIctions you don't personally care for have value! The construct is only minimally relevant to those not of England, but that's still millions of folks who have a stake, and who seem to get a lot out of it. So, I don't think we can say it is of no value.
Second, the need to be respectable is part of the "modern Prince" construct - it *is* innate to the position. Until his people change the construct, that's what it is.
Irrelevant. Now that they have put him there, and he agrees to be there, the rest follows - with the power, prestige, and wealth comes responsibilities to uphold. So long as he does not abdicate, he is open to criticism.
Consider it this way - you have a job, right? Do the people you do that job for have a right to criticize your performance? Yes. Well, think of being a prince as his job.
His position is part of the context. It makes him such a public figure that pretty much every action of his is "public". It goes with the job - he gets almost zero privacy.
Last edited:
Zombie_Babies
First Post
In this case, though, what he did was improperly evaluated. I keep saying context, I keep saying costume at a costume party and nobody wants to talk about it. So apparently placing people above us means that reality should no loner apply to them ... or something.
Good point.
Oh! He could ... he could ... maybe hack celebrity cell phones? Nah ... What can he do. If the answer is 'nothing' or 'not a whole lot' then maybe - just maybe - some of the expectations you have for his behavior are a little out of scope?
Fair. What's also fair, though, is that no change ever happened because nobody even bothered to talk about the problem. By the way, I have no illusions of changing the incredible stupidity of humans deciding to place other humans above themselves for no good reason at all. I mean, if we think that coming out of a specific woman's hoo-hoo is reason enough to elevate a man above us, well, there's no reasoning with someone like that, is there? At any rate, it's something that bothers me and this is a message board so, you know, I get carried away.
The fact that there is a difference is the problem I'm currently railing against. You say there is a difference and I say there is not - however, that's sort of a short hand articulation of the issue. I'm saying there should not be because, in reality (er, the reality that should matter) there isn't one.
What value does the construct 'prince' have? Sure, I suppose it does increase the preceived value of the queen's lady bits but what value does it actually have? Do you suggest it has as much as a computer - something physical which does actually accomplish things, aids in day to day life and is, in no small part, responsible for the world as we know it today?
What - and this is an honest question - do people in England get out of having a prince? Is what they get out of it something they couldn't get any other way?
Sorry for the loads of questions, it's just that this thought process baffles me. That and the examples posted to counter my assertions thus far have been, well, completely different from what I'm supposed to relate them to. I'm honestly trying to understand here.
Respectable, unfortunately, is a very nebulous term. Some people can and actually did find what he did perfectly within the scope of 'respectable behavior' because, to some, wearing a costume as as costume to a Halloween costume party is something perfectly normal for anyone - even beloved princes - to do.
And that's the problem with silly constructs like this: The rules don't exist. And that's another reason why I say this particular construct has no value because it obviously has no set meaning. It's crap.
What responsibility did he fail to uphold? Remember, some of the people you agree are fit to judge did not judge him negatively for his behavior.
And what, exactly, is 'the rest'? Is it really something of value to add 'cannot wear costumes I'm personally uncomfortable with ('I' being your random English citizen) to Halloween costume parties' to 'the rest'?
Define a prince's job.
Secondly, I do have a job and I would most likely eat a steaming pile were I to wear a Nazi uniform to the Halloween costume contest later this week. However, I would not eat a steaming pile for wearing a Nazi uniform to a friend's party on the weekend. You see, I wouldn't be at work at the time. Again, he didn't wear this to a UN event or a press conference or a military dance or a ... Why is that so easy for some to ignore?
Wrong. He is entitled to his privacy as much as anyone else. The fact that some people are sick-o vultures does not mean he isn't allowed a private life. What you're saying is that because people pry he has no right to expect a life free from prying. That's unfair.
Just because you or I don't know them doesn't mean they don't exist.
As I posted upthread, if the Governor of Texas had chosen to wear a confederate- or worse, blackface- costume, he'd get crucified in the press for doing so. Are there guys out there who wear confederate costumes for Halloween and other parties, without repercussion? Sure.
But they're not in the public eye. More specifically, they're not in government.
Fair? Probably not. But that is the reality.
The law says differently. Shorthand: if you are a public person, different rules apply. It's one reason people often cite for declining to run for certain offices or quitting certain jobs- they don't want the scrutiny.
We aren't ignoring it.
A prince's job is, in no small part, to be a symbol of his government and his people. As such, when he is in public, he is expected to maintain a certain decorum. That means he can't get away with doing dumb stuff like 99.99% of the populace could like wearing an offensive costume once in a while.
If he wants the freedom to wear stupid costumes without taking flak in the international press, his option is to quit the job- abdicate.
Last edited:
Zombie_Babies
First Post
Well then maybe someone can enlighten us? Or, maybe, they're so nebulous that the effectively don't exist.
Not quite that simple. There are also rules in place that dictate what the vultures can and cannot do. Why? Because some people in the public eye still do have a (reasonable) expectation of some level of privacy.
Offensive to who? Plenty of people didn't take offense to it. If they've the same agency to criticize as those that did, why don't they count? Seems sort of selective to me ... which means that the rules are too vague to matter.
Let's say you're right - that he can't get away with doing dumb stuff like 99.99% of the population. What makes wearing a costume to a costume party on Halloween dumb? That's the context that nobody has bothered to address.
Oooooor ... he could say f-you to the morons that think he did something terrible because he quite plainly didn't. It's a shame he chose not to.
- Status
Similar Threads
