The Prince Harry thread.

There seems a certain failure of logic in Peter Wilby's argument. How does looking on someone's bare bottom allow us to satisfy us on their ability to procreate? I can see there might be a weak correlation in the case of women, as a broad bum would mean broad hips would suggest well-shaped for successful childbearing, but Harry is male.

Wilby's argument is also somewhat partial as there are many people whose role consists purely or providing public entertainment (comedians and musicians, for example) and I doubt if he'd argue that they had no right to privacy. It also seems harsh to the point of peevishness to say they have no talents beyond horsemanship: Prince Philip and Prince Andrew both competently performed military tasks during combat and Prince William is a rescue helicopter pilot, something you're not allowed to do unless you're pretty good. That William does a useful and challenging job well, of course, does not require him to have royal status.

By the way, I favour abolishing the monarchy, but I don't see a need to sneer at them.

I was thinking the same. Not exactly a rational argument. When all's said and done, Harry is a human being and therefore does have human rights, and he didn't ask to be royal, he was just saddled with it.

Petert Wilby's "column" I suspect was written with tongue firmly in cheek.

As to "talents", perhaps one should mention that Harry has already served in Afghanistan and is about to go there again. He had to be withdrawn the first time round because our great free press revealed his whereabouts, making him a target for the Taliban.

It also reminds me that Prince Andrew fought very valiantly in the Falklands, making himself a target for the exocets to protect the ships. Needless to say he wasn't awarded a decoration.

Have any of the Murdoch family - young or old - risked their lives for their country?

Why on earth not? Sneering at the royal family is a fine old British tradition - check out the cartoons of Gillray, who was far ruder about Georges III and IV than any of today's cartoonists would dare to be - and I can't see any reason why it should fall into abeyance. It's hardly one-sided, either - as recent TV interviews with Prince Philip have made abundantly clear....

Two points in reply to that, Phil. First, I don't count as sneering satire which has a serious point, such as dramatising the gulf between self-righteous preaching and mean actions, or between rich and poor. That accounts for good political cartoons. Sneering is when you enjoy belittling people to no other end. I very much doubt that Wilby thought through how to bring about a republic and decided the best way was to be rude and inaccurate about the royal family's lack of talent.

Secondly, the British monarchs of the eighteenth and early nineteenth century were powerful people and their decisions had a big impact on other people's lives. That's hardly so of Prince Harry or even QE2.

I think Keith Murdoch, Rupert's father, may have been a war correspondent. I have to admit that I did like the way Harry handled himself in public recently when that little kid put a question to him about his recent antics.

Do you know what I'd like to see? Someone hire reporters to stalk Murdoch and the other owners the way their employees stalk celebrities. If the doings of a Prince or pop star need complete exposure, then why not the newspaper owners? After all, ownership of such important bits of media makes them public figures in their own right and being a public figure is enough for them to unleash their hounds, looking for any dirt they can find.

That, and for the Page 3 girls to include girls getting spanked.

Goodgulf

I think the newspaper owners lives would make pretty boring reading and viewing actually. However I'm all behind the idea of spanking the Page 3 girls and showing it in the tabloids, and on more than just Page 3!