trappedslider
Legend
nothing to see here
Last edited:
But the monarchy doesn't really mean anything. And, you know, there's the intent - which is the part of the context I'm talking about. His intent was to wear a costume. People, because of this silly notion of station, have decided to ignore that intent. A Halloween party and a UN meeting or a public address or myriad other political functions are very, very different things and it's insane to act otherwise. I could agree that if the prince was caught in this uniform outside the confines of politics or a Halloween costume party that some uproar would be warranted. That's not at all what happened, though. It's incredibly obvious that he intended to wear a costume at a costume party. That's ... harmless. People need to get over royalty and get over themselves, too.
But the monarchy doesn't really mean anything.
People need to get over royalty and get over themselves, too.
You've invoked this name about three times in this thread. Who hates who most: he hates the Royals, or you hate him? (I'm only presuming he has some problem with the Royals, because you keep bringing him up in this context.)Morrus said:But then how would Rupert Murdoch sell newspapers? It's not like he ever reports actual news.
You've invoked this name about three times in this thread.
Nope, he's just a man.
Everything assigned to him beyond that has been assigned to him. In other words, it's not innate to him or the position. It's a construct and has no value.
The reason people of that station are of that station is because people like us are all too willing to put them there.
Aside from that, what responsibility is it of his to have his Halloween costume approved by the general public? Again, this comes down to context and, for reasons unknown to me, why some of you seem hell bent on ignoring it in certain cases.
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.
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.
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.
Just because you or I don't know them doesn't mean they don't exist.The rules don't exist.
He is entitled to his privacy as much as anyone else.
Define a prince's job...(edit)...Why is that so easy for some to ignore?
Just because you or I don't know them doesn't mean they don't exist.
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.