The Unofficial Royal Family Pages
Tuesday 26 October 2004 The Trouble With Harry...Prince Harry has had a difficult few weeks and, frankly, my heart goes out to him. From
claims of cheating on his art A-level exam, to allegations that he received special
assistance to pass the Sandhurst entrance exams, to the latest dust-up involving a fight
with the paparazzi, his life has become the tabloids favorite fodder. And its not just the tabloids; respected
newspapers like the Times, the Guardian and the Independent have all
weighed in too, with headlines like Has Harry gone Rogue? and worse. The public has followed suit. All across the internet, from Usenet
groups to message boards, people are commenting on Harrys personality, actions and
future. The majority of observers have been sympathetic or understanding, but an
increasingly vocal number of people seem to view Harry with scorn and contempt. Im not talking about those who have always
thought the monarchy was a waste of time and money; Im talking about monarchists who
generally respect the institution. Some of the opinions Ive come across argue
that Harry is spoilt and arrogant; that he was courting trouble in being in a
popular nightclub where the paparazzi lie in wait, and should have known better; and that
hes becoming a disgrace. Other people put the blame on paparazzi or Prince Charles,
before concluding like the rest that Harrys become a disgrace. Then we
have a small group which feels that Harrys done nothing wrong at all, because boys
will be boys. I dont really agree with any of these
positions, although I see some merit in bits and pieces of them. So I thought Id
examine a few of the arguments regarding Harrys recent difficulties, before giving
my opinion of the real problem at hand. Its
Harrys fault because he was asking for it. One of the most frequent arguments that Ive
come across is that Harry was at fault from the onset because he chose to go to a
celebrity nightclub where he knew the paparazzi would be lying in wait. I cant begin to fathom this line of
reasoning because it seems to demand that one should curtail one's life just because the
paparazzi are likely to be around. First, the paparazzi are likely to follow Harry
regardless of where he goes, a celebrity nightclub or Marks & Sparks. Thats the
sad reality for celebrities or royalty today, particularly royalty in Second, the argument --- taken to a logical
extreme --- would seem to imply that a royal is fair game for any media intrusion the
minute they leave their house. The theory also seems to echo the same rationale heard in
some rape cases where the defense blames the victim by alleging that they asked for
it. Its a ridiculous argument, in
my opinion, in both instances. Its
Charles fault. Another comment that comes up
concerning the nightclub fracas is that Prince Charles should be controlling his son
better. Im not Prince Charles
biggest admirer but I cant see how hes to blame for things either. Teenagers
are hardly the easiest individuals to control, and Harry is almost a man. Whats Prince Charles to do, ground him and
put him to bed without supper? Tell his PPOs (Personal Protection Officers) to take away
his drinks or cart him off to bed before the A slightly more compelling
argument is that Prince Harry might not be in these straits if Prince Charles hadnt
been so lenient and indulgent when his son was small.
I can see merit in that argument only up to a point. Prince Harry has always
been an energetic, outgoing boy with a much less conservative streak than his older
brother. Perhaps he would have benefited from the strict discipline that his mother often
imposed. Or perhaps not. Sometimes, an
extremely exacting, stern approach can backfire, leading the child to even greater
rebellion and wildness. Given Prince Harrys personality, its not entirely
impossible that he would have reacted this way if Charles had been more severe. We will never know what might have
been, but I dont think that means we should assume it was Charles fault. In
fact, I think its unfair to second-guess him at this late date. We didnt walk
in his shoes that day in 1997, when he accompanied his grieving children behind
Dianas coffin, draped with flowers and topped by Prince Harrys painfully raw,
emotional goodbye note. How could any father not choose to do what he truly and sincerely
thought was best under those circumstances? In my opinion, and this is coming
from someone who isnt particularly keen on the man, Prince Charles cant be
faulted for choosing a gentle approach towards two young boys whod just lost their
beloved mother. Indeed, such an approach was
probably wise on some levels, given the fact that the boys were fully aware of the
antagonistic relationship that had existed between their parents. If, as reports have it, that relationship had eased
into a more amicable one at the time of Dianas death, that still didnt alter
the need for Charles to tread gingerly. Not only had his sons had suffered an incredible
loss but one of them Harry may well have known the allegation that his
father wanted a daughter and was disappointed at his birth. There is also the fact that
Charles probably remembered how his parents raised him. Rightly or wrongly, Charles
blames his parents and the strict, impersonal childhood he experienced for a world of
injuries. Its quite likely that Charles wanted to avoid his parents purported
mistakes by choosing the exact opposite parenting style when it came to his own children. These factors might explain
Charles handling of his sons immediately after Dianas death, but was it
foolish to continue upon that path in the intervening years? Im wary of making a
judgement on this point since Prince Charles and his sons are in such a unique position. However, my instinctual feeling is yes, Charles
needed to take off the kid gloves and exercise some tough love. Most people know about the cannabis incident when
Prince Harry was 18, but what many people dont know is that Harry had begun drinking
quite seriously far before then. Although the drinking age in Britain is 18, Harry had
been caught drinking in his local pub when he was 15. In fact, hed drunk so much
that hed been barred from the premises after vomiting all over the bar and swearing
at the chef. It wasnt the first time that Harry went too far in his drinking and, as
we know now, it wasnt the last time either. We dont know how Prince Charles responded but, whatever it was,
it doesnt seem to have been very effective. A few years later the pot incident
occurred and, this time, we did learn of Prince Charles response. A scoop by the
tabloid newspaper, The News of the World, announced that Prince Charles had sent
Harry to visit a rehab clinic to observe the dangers of drug use: "Worried Charles chose to 'terrify' Harry away from drugs by sending
him to therapy sessions with hard-core heroin addicts," the paper reported. A
"family friend" declared reassuringly that "he has never done drugs
since". There was just one problem with this touching morality tale: Prince
Harry's visit to the Featherstone Lodge in south London took place before the drug-taking
exposed by the News of the World. In his first-ever newspaper interview, Mark Bolland, the Prince of
Wales's former spin doctor, admits that the sequence of events in the story was distorted
to portray Charles in a positive light and attempt to draw a line under the scandal. Ian
Katz, What came first for Prince Harry, the clinic or the drugs? at http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,1071826,00.html
So much for tough love. Or is that being unfair? Should
Prince Charles be blamed for a boys experimentation with drinking and pot? Almost
all teenagers try alcohol or pot at some point; it doesnt mean theyll grow up
to be an alcoholic or an addict. The line between experimentation and addiction is one of
degree and, without the benefit of hindsight, does a parent always know at the time
that the line has been crossed? Furthermore, how do we know that Prince Charles
didnt try other methods, privately, which is the manner by which the royals usually
deal with their personal problems or issues? I dont pretend to know the
answer to these questions and, without more information, I feel uncomfortable making
judgements. However, as a general rule and excepting cases of serious sexual or physical
abuse, I think that one cant blame a parent for everything. In the case of
Charles children, there are so many competing, external factors shaping their lives
that it seems particularly unfair to blame him for everything. Its
the paparazzis fault and Harry did nothing wrong. An equally extreme, myopic
argument is that Prince Harry did nothing wrong at all. This seems to be the position of
Prince Charles press office which released a statement over the weekend that Prince
Harry was not going to apologize because the pushy paparazzi were solely to
blame. Clarence House is not alone in its
opinion. From letters to the press to opinions
posted on the internet, more than one person has dismissed any criticism of the young
prince with an indulgent boys will be boys attitude. One poster on a royalty message group even went so
far as to say that Harry was just a young boy and nothing he does should be taken
seriously until hes about 30 or 35 when hes a real adult. I sat up in disbelief at the latter statement because it seemed to imply that Prince Harry shouldnt be held accountable for any of his actions until hes 35. I dont know about you, but I stopped being a child far before the age of 35; I certainly was held responsible for my conduct before that age, and I think Prince Harry should be too. I think its undisputed that
the paparazzi are not poster children for saintly conduct. I
cant imagine what it would be like to have every minute detail of my life become
grist for public criticism and scrutiny. I certainly cant fathom how difficult it
would be to deal with such pressure if my mother had died when I was young because of
such media intrusion. Be that as it may, Harry should have exercised
greater restraint in the events of the other night. Hes been born into a position of
incredible privilege; and the greater the privilege, the greater the provocations and,
consequently, the greater the need for self-control. It may be unfair but like the
paparazzi its a fact of his life. Its also a fact which he needs to accept
once and for all, before his reputation is irrevocably tarnished. Harry may think that
hes just having a spot of harmless fun like all the other boys his age but hed
be a fool if he did. He is not like other boys. In fact, hes not even a child in the one
area that matters: the medias agreement to leave him alone. Unlike his brother who
is still up at university and, thus, off-limits to the press, Harrys media
protection ended the minute he left As a result, every small thing he does now further
contributes to an image that he may never be able to shake. What he may see as some
harmless fun with Page Six floozies or a simple night clubbing becomes one more nail in
the coffin of his reputation. Adding to the problem is the fact that the public
has a very short attention span. In this world of sound bites, it wont matter if
spin-doctors laboriously explain away each incident; in the end, the public will only
remember the screaming tabloid headlines. More often than not, those headlines will be
negative. Thats the reality of the newspaper business where scandal sells. The greater concern, therefore, is the
self-perpetuating, vicious cycle that will ensue if Harry gets a bad reputation as the
hostile, shiftless, playboy prince. The tabloids benefit when Harry loses control, thus
giving the paparazzi an incentive to set him up. They did so with his mother, calling her
some absolutely filthy names, just to trigger a response, and berating her even further if
she didnt give it. At some point or another, everyone breaks. Diana did, and so did
Harry last week. So, for the tabloids to get their headlines and
sales increase, the paparazzi just has to keep pushing. Harry will eventually have enough,
which will lead to behavior that further feeds into the image the media has created for
him; and around and around we go, ending up with a firebrand whom the press can needle to
breaking point whenever there is a slow news day. That wont be the only result. Eventually,
the constant drip, drip, drip of negative headlines will erode the publics goodwill.
There is an incredible amount of public affection for Prince Harry, generated by memories
of that devastated little boy walking behind his mothers coffin. But Harry has grown
up and continuous negative publicity has already started to change the publics
perception of him. A self-fulfilling negative image might destroy the publics
affection completely. Can Harry ever win against the press? Probably
not, although a successful career in the Army might help. What he can do is to limit the
vicious cycle as much as possible by not contributing to the image that the
media would like to create and actually needs to create in order to fuel sales. Can he do it? Well, Prince William seems to have
managed that difficult balancing act, and he shares a similar loathing for the media. In
fact, a recent Guardian article showed that Prince William was the subject of twice
as many photos in their archives as Prince Harry. Yet, hes managed to restrain his
temper without physically retaliating against the media. However, Prince William is very different from his
younger brother. Part of the reason may lie in the princes respective ages when
Diana died. Harry was only 12 years old, whereas William was 14. While the two years may
not seem like much, its an enormous gap in terms of developmental psychology and a
childs coping mechanisms. There are other reasons too. As the future king,
William was the focus of The Firms concern; and as a gorgeous teenager,
he was the favorite of hordes of screaming young girls. In fact, William was so handsome
that his mother nicknamed him DDG (Drop Dead Gorgeous). She treated him as her
confident, as well as a young adult. All these things may have been a burden as much as
they were a blessing, but they also imbued William with a confidence which his brother
lacked. Harry with his pixyish face was never called
DDG or seen as a teenager pin-up. Instead, he was called the bastard child of
James Hewitt. The vicious rumour persists to this day, even though the timeline of events
completely negates this possibility. It must have hurt Harry tremendously. Its been
said that, at Eton, Harry was made to react with anger and hurt simply by
whispering, at the bottom of some Wall Game pile-up, the one word:
Hewitt. http://tinyurl.com/5vxb3 Equally painful must have been his
mothers charge in the War of the Wales, that Charles was so disappointed
by the birth of another son that it effectively led to the end of their marriage. If Harry
was taunted by the Hewitt rumour, Im sure he would have heard this allegation as
well. Living in the shadow of his more glamorous brother and hiding these
wounds, Harry became a little terror who overcompensated by making
himself the centre of attention. http://tinyurl.com/4k4mx Then, his
beloved mother died. At the time, Harry was reportedly far
closer to his mother than to his father. Im not saying that Harry didnt
love his father; I think he did and he still does, probably more than ever. Im
merely saying that, in 1997, Harry was closer to his mother.
For the reasons listed above, Harry probably had a
much harder time dealing with Dianas death than William. William obviously suffered
too but he seems to have the emotional tools or the personality to handle it better. Which
brings me to what I think is the real problem with Harry
The Real Trouble With Harry
In my opinion, Harrys personality is much
more sensitive, high-strung and troubled than his relaxed, friendly, good-humoured facade
would indicate. In fact, Harry seems a lot like his mother, a comparison which he himself
has made in recent interviews about his AIDS and charity work. Unfortunately, that
similarity may extend beyond charity work and to more worrisome areas. Diana was a woman of extremes; simultaneously
passionate, fragile, sensitive and free-spirited. Just
as she felt things to the extreme, she sometimes did things to the extreme too.
Thats not always a bad thing but, in her case, it led to such harmful behavior as
bulimia and self-cutting as a way to ease her pain. Thankfully, Diana received the help
she needed and found new, more positive ways to fill the emptiness. I think Harry is following in Dianas
footsteps and, like Diana, he needs serious help. In his case, its alcohol, not
food. Harry seems to have gone far, far beyond being a social drinker, even by teenage
standards. Reports of his drinking routinely
include descriptions that he became so leathered that he needed assistance
getting up, not to mention getting home. Accounts of his nightly intake include vodka,
beer, tequila, all combined. And this happens night after night. Im simply baffled by the fact that no-one in
the press or public is mentioning the serious nature of Harrys drinking, and calling
for something to be done about it. For his own sake. Harrys drinking is like some
sort of 900-lb elephant in the room; everyone gingerly treads around it and, occasionally,
makes a quick, veiled comment about it, before running away. In a world where the British
tabloids have not hesitated to comment on every one of his other perceived flaws, Im
floored by the fact that people are so hesitant to bring up this one up. Im sure someone will be quick to retort that
Harrys drinking is typical of other teenagers but I strongly disagree. First, let me
say that Im not a puritan teetotaller who opposes all drinking. In fact, I grew up
in In the case of Prince Harry, his
drinking has become too heavy to be dismissed as typical teenage behavior. Harry allegedly
started drinking at 14 with occasional glasses of vodka, here and there; by the age of 17,
there were reports of him drinking 6 bottles of Smirnoff Ice the equivalent of 9
shots of vodka in addition to other things, at a party where cocaine was found; in
February of this year, he outlasted Prince William at Chinawhite, adding Sex on the
Beach cocktails to the mix of vodka and champagne which hed been consuming
with his brother in the preceding hours; and now hes going out every night of the
week, drinking a combination of vodka, tequila, champagne and beer. The list can go on
indefinitely. Its not just a few drinks either. Witnesses
have said that Prince Harry sometimes needs assistance just to stand up
or not to fall over. This simply is not normal behavior
and people need to stop dismissing it as such. There are numerous telltale signs of
someone who is either an alcoholic or close to becoming one. And alcoholism isnt
limited to adults. There have been numerous celebrities who
became alcoholics at a young age. Just a few
weeks ago, Tatum O'Neal came out with a book discussing her addictions and the age at
which they started out. I listened to one of her television interviews where she described
her evenings out as a teenager. How she acted when she was when she was 17 sounds a lot
like Harry's behavior now. Whether its Tatum O Neal or a youthful
Drew Barrymore, the common factor in many of these cases is that the person experienced
loss, stress and pressure at a very early age. Unable
to cope with it, they started leading an increasingly uncontrolled, rakish lifestyle but
the press or the public dismissed it with the standard, oh, ____ is just being a
teenager. Only later was it learnt that theyd become addicted to alcohol or
drugs. In the case of Prince Harry,
people need to stop skirting around the obvious fact that he has a problem. Its a
problem that is much more serious than the question of his image or how the media treats
him. And Prince Charles needs to do something, immediately. Harry deserves much more than to
be treated as a royal nuisance who must be disposed of as quickly as possible. According
to an article entitled, Prince Harry: Spare to the Throne, thats
the awful attitude shared by some royal aides and royal watchers: There is now a palpable sense of panic about how Harry will occupy
himself until January, when he begins his army training. As a senior royal aide says, 'It
would be fair to say that there is a sense here that the sooner Prince Harry is under the
umbrella of the armed services and starts at The consensus is that at 19 months his 'gap year' is in danger of
stretching everyone's patience. 'He wants to go into the army? Well, he should go into the
army and disappear. Stop going to Eurotrash nightclubs. That's his best hope,' says one
royal biographer impatiently. Go into the army and
disappear. I think that line says it all; just go and disappear, will you?! Charming. No wonder the royal biographer didnt give
their name. Frankly, Im appalled by his or her attitude. Im even more appalled
that senior royal aides may share it. I think Harry deserves better, especially from those
who serve the royal family. Instead of trying to shunt Prince
Harry out of sight, to be left to his own devices, I think someone
should step in and make sure he gets some help. Prince
Charles is the obvious candidate. Rather than have his PR flacks spin up a new
fairytale regarding charity work or orphans in A rehab clinic is the right
solution for a number of reasons. First and most obviously, it would help Harry with his
drinking. Second, it would only benefit him
in the long run if he explores some of the issues which led to his reliance on alcohol in
the first place. Harrys fracas with the media showed just how much anger hes
bottled up inside him towards his mothers harassers.
Dealing with that anger can only help Harry in the future when faced with
the paparazzi. In addition, hed learn some coping mechanisms to help him deal with
the pressures of his life. Instead of
suppressing his emotions or turning to alcohol, he would learn healthier ways of handling
problems. Third, there are the pragmatic
benefits. It would generate a lot of goodwill for the young prince. Members of the public
who have begun to condemn him may soften their attitude, if not change it altogether. At the same time, people who have always criticized
Prince Charles as being a bad parent would be effectively silenced. And the media might
temporarily be shamed into some self-restraint, although I wouldnt hold my breath
waiting. Lastly, its probably what his mother would
do if she were here today. For all her flaws, Diana loved her sons passionately. She tried
to instil in them a deep sense of responsibility towards their position and the monarchy.
She also was a firm believer in self-help, as she had seen the benefits of counselling in
dealing with her own problems. She would never have approved of her son falling over on a
public street at three in the morning, smashed beyond all dignity. She would never have
stood by while he became a figure of scorn and derision.
She would have done something. Immediately.
Diana may not be here but, for Harrys sake, someone else needs to step in. Soon. He deserves as much. -
|
Previous Pandora Box columns can be found in the archive
This page and its contents are �2005 Copyright by Geraldine Voost and may not be
reproduced without the authors permission. The "Pandora's Box" column is �2005 Copyright by the author who has kindly given permission for it to be displayed on this website.
This page was last updated on: Tuesday, 26-Oct-2004 09:12:58 CEST