I have a lot of thoughts about the reason Harry Wales shenanigans.
I am not comfortable about the occupation of Afghanistan. I was broadly supportive of the effort to get rid of the Taliban and dig out Al-Qaeda and firmly of the view that if George W Gump hadn't gone ahead with his lunatic and illegal invasion of Iraq, the Afghanistan problem would have been over long ago.
I have no doubt that 'Our boys and Girls in Afghanistan' are doing a fine job and are brave, but I can't get very excited about the 'poor equipment' saga. A year or so ago I was sitting in the coffee bar at my local hospital and read a flyer celebrating that a new children's hospital had been built and there was now a voluntary fund-raising drive to find £1 million to equip it...
I think it's pathetic that the only job the Royals consider doing is Armed Forces. I kind of accept that there are reasons why they can't go into commerce or industry, but there are numerous ways they could occupy their time in public service outside of the army (navy/air force). Wouldn't it be cool if one became a fireman or an ambulance person? But perhaps it has been decided that these are jobs are too dangerous for Royals. There would be a pathetic irony in that.
I was gobsmacked that the news was extended on Thursday because it had been leaked that Harry was in Afghanistan. Jimmy was furious that Gordon Brown's keynote speech on Saturday was interrupted on BBC News 24 in order to show pictures of Harry arriving at an airport. Normally, Jimmy would be muttering about the time given over to an electioneering speech by a politician.
It is clear that the BBC, and the Establishment in general, expect us the public to show respect to Harry merely on account of him being the son of the son of the daughter of the son of...an institution and family who still believes it is God's will that they are where they are in society, through birth and nothing else.
For years rumours have been circulating that Harry is the son of some bloke that Diana had an affair with (Hewitt??). Some people say it's nobody's business. Perhaps he is, and Charles decided to treat him as his son. He wouldn't be the first, or the last, to do so, and normally, I would say it's nobody's business but the individuals concerned (mother, child, biological father, legal father). But when Establishment expects us to kow tow to this person on the basis of his genealogy, don't we have a right to know - to demand - whether he really is "worthy" of us kow-towing.
