THE PRINCE'S NO CLOTHES
This last few days I've found myself asking the question where did our species go wrong?
It's a complicated question. For starters, there are a hell of a lot of things wrong with us and to isolate one is a bit silly. But there has been a rumble about naked photos of a young prince (and a prince is just a man), the possibly intellectually-challenged Prince Harry, and heads have been shaken and all sorts of comments have been made. The man, we have been told, is an idiot.
In my opinion the first absurdity is the existence of royal princes at all. The burden placed on their shoulders is almost certainly a contravention of their human rights, I would have thought. I know that in nature many species have an order with a grizzled old timer at the top, but we've hopefully progressed a tad beyond the Orang-utan stage, and anyway we measure too man people as possible heirs to a throne that some argue should never be.
But in this country we haven't actually progress very far. We still have our dynastic leader and they have children upon whose shoulders absurd expectation is piled, especially when they're often too young to cope with it.
Take this Prince Harry's dad. He knew he was heir to the throne and hence a very important person as soon as he was old enough to understand anything. One day, he knew, he would be the figurehead of a nation. He knew that upon the flourish of his pen great things might happen. He was going to be King. And he knew that before his mother became queen in 1952. And he still knows that. At an age when many have retired or are looking forward to retirement pretty soon, he's waiting for his time to come.
But his son Prince Harry is second in line after that dad. He's in no-man's land, a man who may, if something goes wrong with his older brother, be King. He's in the same position as his grandfather was in when that man's brother abdicated the throne in favour of his love for a woman – and every man must surely have the right to love the woman of his own personal choice even if that woman is a divorcee! So Prince Harry is in a weird place.
A second area where our species has gone wrong is our attitude to nudity. A naked man is not ugly or threatening or foul: he's just a man who's naked and in terms of aesthetics nowhere near as attractive as a naked woman – and even women agree with that. But I suspect that it's improper for a man to be seen naked because he has no control over his wedding tackle, and that equipment might give his emotions away from time to time. You must know what I mean by that. No man wants to be seen in an aroused state, so it's best covered up altogether, and if he's to cover up, so must she.
Of course, religion has grabbed hold of the notion of nudity and condemned it over the years. For some reason that I've never fathomed most religions see carnal activity and the bits of the body involved in it as particularly sinful. My own theory is that sex might be seen, by the poor, undernourished and overworked, as a preferable alternative to various gods and thus best suppressed by their betters under threat of hell-fire and such horrors.
So there's a whole mish-mash of mess over nudity, and if a young prince bears all it causes both shock and horror. It's a good thing that other primates don't hold similar opinions! There wouldn't be enough cloth to go round!
Go to any art gallery, though, and you can admire a whole host of nudes, mainly female though not exclusively so. They're trapped and static and hence acceptable. In my life-time the only nudes permissible on the stage had to be in a static tableaux. It's a darned good job that attitudes have changed there, because it was all so artificial.
But a pleasing portrait of a female in the altogether, skilfully painted and glorious under the sun, is a wonder to behold. It's not that we hate nudity as a species, it's that we find male nudity a bit uncomfortable. It's the the various dimensions that the male organ can unwittingly adopt if it's owner, for no better reason that boredom, gets a certain kind of thought.
So back to the prince. He was in a hotel room with friends of his own, and he was naked.
What he should be doing, rather than sniff at the outrage the publication of pictures has caused, is look at his friendship group and give some of them the sack. In our society, in any society, it's wrong to slip private photographs into the sleazy public arena. Friends don't do that.
His grandmother, now an old lady, has been a real treasure all her days. But I sometimes wonder, has she been a truly happy treasure? Has she had a group of genuine friends? And has Harry got a group of genuine friends? Or is he surrounded by pretentious gits after making a quick buck if he slips his pants off and waves his willy about in front of them? It's worth a thought.
And where, for goodness' sake, did out species go wrong?
© Peter Rogerson 25.08.12
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 41
But back to the subject in hand.
It's little wonder the princes have been a little loose in the cannon and balls respect. Their dad had probably the lowest of royal morals of recent times. Monkey sees and monkey does.
I love this conversation.
There is nothing in the world negative aboout the human body. There is nothing in the world negative about being behind closed doors in a hotel room. The doors shut mean privacy. The negative aspect comes when the romping (whatever type it was) became public because of the negative behavior of some so called friend with a camera. THEN Pandora's lid was lifted and ALL negativity broke loose.
Human nature is always grasping for something exciting to chew on and sometimes what it bites off becomes a choking hazard. All the behavior of the royal men in Peter's post says only one thing...they are human.
Human behavior sometimes causes fireworks that explode and the aftermath can be a pile of ashes. Fireworks cannot be contained within the walls of a hotel room or for that matter within any walls. It eventually comes out whether seeping or blowing steam.
The royal family has been beset by negativity in their love lives and even deaths but we are not talking about love here, only foolish exhuberance. For some, growing up takes an entire life time...and in the meantime the rest of the world has something to talk about or choose to sweep their own doorstep.
As a British taxpayer, I would like to have it explained why the 2 close protection officers present did not point out to the slightly worse for wear gents that the floozies taking photies were probably NOT taking them for their albums!
Isabel
ScotsNat
But I have to live with Mitt Romney and the Ryan guys, so I have to thank the prince and his personal guards for this little focus change from our elections to royal nudity...
It is an welcome change.
I am also glad that your Secret Service, matched our Secret Service when it came to floozies.
At least now, the prince can make some honest money, he was offered a $10 million contract for a movie yesterday... And a lot of magazines offered millions for his posing...
Here. Here.
It would be interesting if he did try and earn an honest shilling from his flesh, though, Crin.
Hey, if there is a market for his Royal Highness, why not. I don't see the difference between showing up naked in front of a camera and eventually performing a sexual act, vs. getting dressed in dark suit, going in front of the world and saying the Iraq has WMD and we should start a war, knowing damn well that you are telling a lie...
All humans have bodies, some beautiful, some not as perfect, we can't really control that, but lying and deceiving is a personal choice, graver on the indecency scale if you asked me...
Even tho' I find this prince utterly charming & charismatic, I wholeheartedly agree~along with all the other points you made in this post. "Friends don't do that," and the guy (presumably) that did needs a good a**-whooping!
'save that he loved one woman but the expectation was that he marry another' is th most understanding piece I've seen written about Charles and I wholeheartedly agree with you.Expectations wee always high. Like us, the Royal family make mistakes but get lambasted worse than we do because of their position. But they're only human.
Sorry August Lady, I disagree with you. If we didn't have the Royal Family we'd have gone the American route with Presidents, Pres. Blair, imagine that. ugh. There doesn't seem to be a Republic that works after losing the Monarchy. France, Germany( close) Greece. The Royals are the glue that hold us together where Politicians separate us.
Really, Mr. Prosser - you give those who - on the public dime - rim the ears of the brain dead U.S.A. masses too much credit with your capitalisation.
Good food for thought on retaining your (formerly our) monarchy. I don't see Prince Charles as being immoral for his love of The Duchess of Cornwall.
I hope he is happier being with one he loves, instead of unhappy trying to please those who moralise on others' sexuality. While they don't have a clue or refuse to admit the anti-environ mental sickness in their own sexuality.
I'm a big admirer of Prince Charles for his architectural & environmental advocacies. Love him!
As for my hugging strangers, well it's just to make sure I'm at war with no-one though my views on religion don't gain me many friends.
Just for you guys:
“…your cruel and violent beliefs are really just a form of patriarchal malware installed in your operating system by your ancestors.”
-Antares, 1 June, 2012, 12:12 http://saudijeans.org/2012/03/07/free-hamza-kashgari/
Ethically questionable hugs (my fave kind) to Misters Prosser & Rogerson!
I hope Hamza Kashgari is freed to show the malware is slowly being deleted but doubt it will be fast with people like Wayne Millard about.
Any chance of ordinary Hugs instead of ethically questionable since I have no idea what the ethics in question are?
Hugs
Ambiguity clearly illuminates this act. Alcoholic drugging & hugging.
Thanks for sharing and submitting to
The Surreal Circus.