The Prince Harry Propaganda: The cycle of calculated masculine misbehavior.

Nothing against any of the royals personally, but is anybody getting tired of the "Windsor" media-control?

Take Prince Harry, probably the most likeable royal male, at least according to the press propaganda.
I have some friends and family (mostly female) who go into vicious motherhood protection mode whenever Harry has another laddish scandal.
The poor lad - he's just a young man in the spotlight who wants to cut loose, and just because he's a Prince he shouldn't be judged.
So goes the tongue-lashing from the ladies whenever Harry is caught in a pickle (or perhaps, rather pickled).

The latest scandal included pictures of a naked Harry frolicking in Las Vegas, but one could probably compile a list of similar incidents.
All of them were quite macho and minor transgressions, where the public sympathy swamped any criticism.

And then come the pictures of Harry in uniform, apparently going to Afghanistan.
Seemingly he was there about 4 years ago, but his service was apparently cut short because the press broke the silence of his service, and thus endangered him.
That same press took some great shots of him however, before he was whisked away to "safety".
Now we see the same stuff again.

Not to question his achievements, but doesn't this all smack of propaganda?

It seems like such a forced way to put a human face on the British royals.
The "wild Prince" with his masculine derring-do and minor transgressions.
Even the most common and pedestrian people could relate to that.

For a family of what David Icke and other conspiracy theorists essentially expose as (Saxe-Coburg Gotha) parasites positioned by birth, he does deflect this quite successfully.

A naked drunken romp this week - and off to fight with troops as just another hot-blooded male a week later.

I mean really, isn't that formula getting a bit stale?

I'm not the only one who can see through it all then

Where's the ats crowd? thought they'd have been all over this

reply to post by VoidHawk

So true, but then again he is just the "spare" and not the "heir".

Although I won't deny that he is very likeable, and it does feel almost mean criticizing him.

I just hope that when he's fifty, and no longer so dashing, we'll be spared from seeing his nude romps, or his wobbling adventurism in some faraway desert or jungle while squeezed into a safari suit.
The 19th century is over, or so one would have thought.

I think even Charles got an easy ride from the media pre-Diana.

Give it twenty years and the same public that swooned over him will be creating rumors about midnight homosexual adventures in the parking lot at Tescos, his lavish spending on a model train set, and his wife being frustrated at his lack of being the ghost of George Clooney.

They definitely seem to be getting better at building the royal image, I can't help wonder if they haven't bought in some kind of professional image consultant, probably just after the famous photographs of him wearing the fancy dress swastika.

I don't think its just Harry though There seems to be a real push to portray the Royals as "just like the rest of us" and "of the people" and a sickening pr effort to bring back some kind of faked war time spirit so that we forget that we are all barely managing to pay our bills while they are doing just fine, the Queen even stood up in the rain for the jubilee imagine that getting wet just like everyone else, what a trooper.

Waves a miniature Union Jack and sings god save the queen

i do think the whole prince harry thing is kinda funny, but i dont see that his actions in las vegas were stage managed, rather a young aristocratic berk taking advantage of his privilege. and it's not new that the british royal family have had a potential heir in a conflict though, that twit prince andrew was in the falklands.

reply to post by halfoldman


yes in Australia i think we get it worse, gota laugh,funny how people worship them STILL in this day and age