Open Discussion:
As you probably know (unless you were lucky enough to avoid this “news”), Prince Harry, the 3rd in line for the English throne, was secretly photographed doing silly things while naked in Las Vegas. Said photos were sold and made public and are now everywhere, the letters stamped “TMZ” across them.
No, I’m not putting the photos here, but feel free to give Harvey Levin some page views if you want to see if the carpet matches the drapes or whatever.
What I am wondering is this: Do naked photos of a 20 something rich kid in Vegas change the way you see the guy? What if he weren’t a prince?
Does Harry Windsor have a duty to maintain his composure moreso than any of his peers?
And finally, does any of this really matter in the grand scheme of things? How about his future as potential king? King Naked-Billiards?
Image of crown courtesy of Shutterstock
I’m sure every human alive is naked at some point or other. The MUCH bigger question is who took the pictures and, even worse, sold them?
They did catch Erin Andrews peeper pretty fast and I don’t have as much sympathy for her as I do for Harry or the woman who was reported to be in the pictures with him.
It would be one thing if he posed for the pictures, invited, or sold them. He was taken advantage of and will probably garner some sympathy. He’s also young. I had the good fortune of not having (most of) my stupid youthful exploits photographed. I don’t see a problem with it.
Pfft. Semi-nude photos? Really? I don’t see what the problem is. He’s naked. So what? We were all born naked after all, so what is this fuss about? Real news is happening in the world and people are worrying about a half-naked guy who just happened to born lucky. Pfft. Know what? How about we abolish clothes altogether? Then there’d be no problem. Yeesh. He could have been born in a room of diamonds and his diapers solid gold and it still wouldn’t change the fact that he’s human JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. Can we move on know? Or am… Read more »
I’m quite sure the prince is well aware that no ginger will ever wear the British crown, so he throws caution to the wind…I bet those pictures fetched a good Vegas dollar $7777$
This is both racist and historically inaccurate. Think about where his name comes from. Bloody hell, the ignorance…
Naked in a private suite at a private party. This is news because…?…
Okay, so it’s more skin than what you see with William wearing is tiny little water polo speedo, but not by much.
If this is the most scandalous thing the royal family is up to, then obviously people have very little understanding of history. Harry has a LOT of catching up to do if he wants to be anywhere near as decadent as Charles II in the seventeenth century.
So a scion of the worlds most successful welfare case is caught cavorting naked.
And it’s news?
Honestly, what do we care?
You cared enough to comment.
Well as a Brit – first he’s Third In Line for the crown of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not just England! P^) Second – It don’t change anything in my eyes. He’s 27, footloose and fancy free – he does a great deal in his official capacity and what he does in private is totally up to him – Provided it’s legal … and last time I looked naked pool was no crime. It will be interesting to see what happens in future. The media and paparazzi have a habit of going after the spare once the heir is… Read more »
We should have naked photos of all the royals printed on TMZ and just get over them…. We have all heard so much of their dirty laundry…Charles wants to be a tampon inside Camilla, the obsession with Pippa’s derrière, Diana’s romps with Squidgey or Dodi or Dr. Whoever….Let Harry have some fun! The royal family all look constipated!
Its not a big deal at all, and as far as I can tell no British person cares about it, hes still a young man who got naked in the privacy of his own hotel room, what he does in there with other people is his own business. The person who invaded his privacy and took the pictures should be named and shamed though, its pathetic that someone would take pictures like that and sell them off to the highest bidder. Hes a young man on holiday, if you are all telling me none of you have ever stripped off… Read more »
I cannot stop laughing. I think it is both hysterical and utterly gorgeous. Good on him for having fun, that is no sin in my eyes. Henry VIII cut Queens heads off, that IS shameful, to say the least. Go Prince Harry, the world is your oyster. I am more baffled and disgusted by the news today that the Sniper in Norway only got 21 years for killing 77 people. WTF. Have fun little Prince, life is hard.
Personally I think it brings a bit of normalcy to an otherwise reserved monarchy. He’s a guy, that likes to do guy things. The only reason the photos are a bog deal is because he’s a prince. And that’s all.
The monarchy is pretty silly, if you ask me.
Americans always find the monarchy silly. That’s why you haven’t got one. You have the second amendment instead, and 11,493 gun homicides a year.
(figure from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm )
Please, we Americans have forms of monarchy, we just don’t like to admit it. Dubya became president completely independently of the fact that his dad was president?
There’s no way to fully explain Americans’ fascination with the Kennedy family without seeing them as a kind of royal family. The reference to JFK’s presidency as “Camelot” is no coincidence….
How many fairy tales and Disney movies still have royalty as their characters? We never really let go of the whole royalty fetish.
Oh, snap!
wellokaythen, sure, we still worship power, but we don’t have an actual monarchy. As Sarah points out, instead we have a second amendment. Did you know you could just sub one out for the other? Not just Kennedys/Windsors, but monarchy/well-ordered militia.
Sarcasm is the mark of a man outflanked Justin. Read back on your own history, the entire point of the second amendment was to prevent any person or body from being able to hold unelected and absolute power. You may not like the comparison but it holds true.
The snarky thing I’m tempted to say is “and how’s that working for you?”, but I suppose there’s a lot of truth to this interpretation. That original intent would have been much more effective in the 1790’s, when the firepower of the citizen and that of the government was much more comparable than it is today. Today, that collection of revolvers in your cabinet, compared to what the Pentagon has available, is a very different situation. “Red Dawn” gives a very poor indication of the real chance of success with small arms.