Whose role model is he anyway?
Republicans were in for a treat last week. As the future king's cousin was exposed by The Oxford Student as ringleader of the tweed-wearing, bottle-smashing, abuse-hurling Bullingdon Club's pub brawl (perhaps itself a rather too tenuous reason for abolition of the monarchy), Prince Harry showed us just how few brain cells are needed for a premier position on the social ladder, as he obliviously donned Nazi regalia at a friend's 'colonial and native' themed party. Off with their heads, you screamed!
Well maybe not quite, but I imagine a collective eye-rolling across the nation when our riotous Royal's latest prank was revealed - nice one, Harry. So the week's Great Debate began: was it a stupid gaffe or calculated rebellion? It seems no matter how much Nazi gear is hired out for fancy dress parties by Joe Public each week, an heir to the throne acting in this way is distinctly out of line, or at best, plain silly (and of course nothing to do with the fact that it just makes for a juicier story).
But hey, that's what comes with privilege. The rules don't hold for the rest of us: fill a sweaty room with cheap booze, cheesy music and the promise of a themed costume party and students love it. There have been Gazzas and Shazzas, Rappers and Slappers, and - what must be the most original I've heard - Chinese cockle pickers at an 'Under the Sea' bop. I've even heard of party-goers dressing as Iraqi amputee Little Orphan Ali and Soham victims Holly and Jessica at 'bad taste' bops. Is impersonating the innocent less offensive than dressing as a criminal? Of course nobody entertains the thought of public apologies to the subjects mimicked: maimed children in war zones or, heaven forbid, 'chavs' in Blackbird Leys. Apparently it doesn't matter what undistinguished people do. But if such garb is considered acceptable for everyone else, why does it matter what example Harry sets? Whose role model is he, anyway? (One wonders about Harry's own role model, and hopes it isn't his Oxford-based elder cousin). What kind of Public Relations advice must Harry get that he was able to wear such an outfit without attracting the attention of a royal official. Presumably none.
There are lots of 'baddies' that the prince could have played without a reaction - an Osama bin Laden costume would probably have provoked more mirth than outrage. But despite the al Qa'ida fear we live in post 9/11, the swastika still remains one of the most ingrained images of evil in the West. What adds insult to injury in the case of Harry's costume is of course the bad timing: less than a month before the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.
Although Harry's influence on his British contemporaries may not matter, he represents the idea that the realities of the Holocaust are increasingly irrelevant to the younger generation - precisely the reason why anniversaries are pointedly marked. It is also why Nazi iconography remains banned in Germany, yet this did not prevent the country's neo-Nazi National Democratic party from making huge gains in the eastern state of Saxony in September. Restrictions, therefore, may not be the answer: would a European-wide ban of Nazi symbols, as is now being called for by a number of politicians, really curtail the success of fascist groups here and on the continent? There is a danger that the policy could backfire and intensify the feelings of those on the far Right and religious groups such as Hindus and Jains for whom the swastika is a religious symbol.
But as neo-Nazism lives on in Europe and America, those old enough to remember the past horrors relating to the Nazi costume are understandably at pains not to let us forget. Alarmingly, six out of ten people under the age of 35 have never heard of Auschwitz (at least they hadn't in a December poll - the numbers may have risen since this recent episode). This is remarkable, given the dominance of Nazism in schools' history lessons. My teacher often complained how the syllabus was such that students could take history up to A-level and only ever learn about Hitler and World War II. It is unlikely Eton's history classes are to blame for Harry's faux pas, but if he is lacking in historical knowledge, The Sun has kindly intervened, offering to fill in the gaps by delivering a box of Holocaust educational aids to the princely residence, Clarence House, on Sunday.
So why did the party prince do it? On the plus side, he has stimulated much coverage of the upcoming day of remembrance; even The Sun's readers should be fairly clued up about it by now. But I somehow doubt this was his intention - the prince was lacking in either thoughtfulness or intelligence. One wonders why none of his pals advised him against the idea, but then no one's got around to telling him loafers are uncool either. In true Trinny and Susannah style, Harry has even shown us what not to wear. If there's one thing he can learn from his mother's relationship with the press, it's that a royal's taste in clothing never goes unnoticed.
20th Jan 2005