Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Penelope Aug 22 2012, 09:22 PM

What does this latest disgrace mean for both the Royal Family and the image of Britain abroad?

Posted by: On the edge Aug 22 2012, 09:45 PM

Intrustive and an abuse of press freedom. Why on earth is this actually news?

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 22 2012, 09:49 PM

You've never been naked in a hotel room?

The bloke is in the Army, on leave & in Las Vegas......

Posted by: Penelope Aug 23 2012, 08:29 AM

I think it shows a complete lack of judgment.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 23 2012, 08:41 AM

By behalf of the Press and the nasty individual who took the pictures I agree..

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 23 2012, 08:43 AM

'Strip Pool' apparently. Hardly a 4 way with 2 girls & a donkey.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2012, 09:18 AM

He's also an officer and a royal heir.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 23 2012, 09:23 AM

and?

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2012, 09:27 AM

He has responsibilities above that of simply being a young adult in the army.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 23 2012, 09:45 AM

I agree here as well! Harry should have had more restraint. It's not as though it's the first time he's made himself look bad now is it?

Posted by: x2lls Aug 23 2012, 10:18 AM

Hands up all of you who are so squeaky clean that you can get on your ivory tower and preach to the world.
It's not news, he's a young man having a good time before the full responsibility of his role kicks in when his grandparents are no longer able to carry on.
He's put his life on the line, does a termendous amount of work for charity etc.

I say the press should sod off and find some REAL news.

Posted by: Ted Maul Aug 23 2012, 10:18 AM

Considering the amount of illegitimate children Charles II had (amongst other royals throughout history ho liked to put it about), I don't think Harry letting his hair down on the odd occasion warrants the kind of hysterical "OMG he's going to bring down the Royal Family!" screeching.

British press was also put under embargo at time of Wallace Simpson...

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 23 2012, 10:21 AM

The press are now using this non event as a tool to try & undermine the Leveson Enquiry.

Real news means real journalism. A thing long since dead as it does not sell newspapers.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2012, 10:42 AM

I don't think anyone is preaching, just as I would have no defences of any indiscretion of mine becoming public knowledge.

What is of more concern here is his and his staff's inability to either not get involved or stop it leaving the hotel. The technical detail of his indiscretion is unimportant, it is the security that surrounds it that would concern me.

If he doesn't want all this extra burden in his private life, then perhaps he might wish to relinquish his position in life?

Posted by: Penelope Aug 23 2012, 11:01 AM

And would you really trust his judgement when he's behind the controls of an Apache Gunship ??

Posted by: x2lls Aug 23 2012, 11:23 AM

Yes.

Just because of a bit of tomfoolery at a private venue doesn't make him incapable of being capable!
If your point is true then perhaps we should sack all of our soldiers who have ever got drunk, played around with the ladies etc.

Posted by: Darren Aug 23 2012, 11:51 AM

Blimey, do that and all we'll have left is a few goat mascots and perhaps the Welsh Guards.... Of course in the interests of equality, that should read "got drunk, played around with the ladies/gentlemen".

Has absolutely nothing with his combat ability and ladies don't appear to mind being cavorted with one little bit. Good luck to him I say and well done for keeping up the British end.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 23 2012, 12:15 PM

Maybe the Royal Entourage should have been a bit more 'Royal'.

Like some of those who accompany male princes from other more 'traditional' Royal Dynasties.

You know, entire floor of the hotel booked for the one night visit ( suites of course ), drugged up girls flown in by private aircraft & helicopter from the Royal Yacht anchored off the California Coast.....etc etc etc

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2012, 12:34 PM

Being 'not as bad' as other country's royal dynasties doesn't mean he's behaved admirably.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 23 2012, 12:35 PM

I don't believe I said that.

But if he had, we wouldn't be having this 'conversation'.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2012, 12:37 PM

The inference was in your post that other country's do it differently, and that they perhaps are more devious in their methods. And not knowing about it doesn't change the prudence employed in his actions.

Posted by: Squelchy Aug 23 2012, 12:53 PM

So because one of the most eligible bachelors on the planet gets nekkid with at least one girl in his bedroom, you think he's more likely look through his gun sights and think " I know, just for sh1t and giggles, I'll fire a few rounds at my own team"

Stop being so prudish.

If it was a R'n'R Vegas party for squaddies with all that that can entail, I'd have been more worried if he'd been photographed in bed at a sensible time reading helicopter manuals. (No 'chopper' jokes please)

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 23 2012, 12:56 PM

If we didn't know - he would have been prudent.

you said -

What is of more concern here is his and his staff's inability to either not get involved or stop it leaving the hotel. The technical detail of his indiscretion is unimportant, it is the security that surrounds it that would concern me.

Isn't that a wish for a more devious Royal entourage?


You can't have a 'normal' Royal Family. You either have a Royal Family, or you don't bother.

Posted by: Baffers100 Aug 23 2012, 12:59 PM

I really don't see how this is news. He's a young lad, and like others have said he's on leave from the military. I can't believe the fuss the media are kicking up about this. At the end of the day it was not his choice to be born in to the Royal Family. Yes he has duties, but h is human at the end of the day and by virtue makes mistakes.

To diffuse the situation, maybe we will see more pictures of Kate showing us how many times she is willing to wear one pair of shoes with her expensive outfits, or pictures of moley Pippa's rear!

Posted by: Penelope Aug 23 2012, 01:19 PM

If he was my boy he would hear about it from me. Getting his **** all over the worlds media, should know better.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2012, 02:15 PM

No, that's simply being more cautions or diligent. Prudent would have been to have 'made his excuses'.


No; a more secure one, or better still, a more responsible one.


Perhaps someone should tell that to Harry and his 'team'. When you are an officer in the army, especially a royal, you have a duty to avoid controversy.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 23 2012, 02:24 PM

Perhaps his dad ought to have a word with him.
Whatever happened to the Captain?

Posted by: On the edge Aug 23 2012, 02:41 PM

Spot on!

Though makes me proud to realise that I live amongst such righteous people - pile of stones over here, anyone want first throw?

Posted by: Jayjay Aug 23 2012, 02:54 PM

With the greatest respect, your son could have behaved in exactly the same way. Unless he was famous it would not be all over the front pages and your wouldn't know it had occurred.

Posted by: Squelchy Aug 23 2012, 03:02 PM

Should it be pointed out that he hasn't got a mother?

He probably relies on his 'team' preventing untoward 'snaps' being taken. These days with mobile phones that's become more difficult to police.

As for getting his (whatever) all over the worlds media, one has to ask why The Sun felt it so necessary to bring it to our attention that it recreated it's front page picture using stand ins.

Maybe they knew it would wind up the 'tut tut' brigade. (as it seems to have done on here).

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2012, 03:35 PM

Do he do well: no (I expect the army to censure him).
Do we make the same errors of judgement: yes.
Do we do well when we make those errors of judgement: no.
Am I an officer in the army: no (I don't have the discipline).

Posted by: Penelope Aug 23 2012, 03:44 PM

I just think (and this is my last thought on the matter) that for someone so in the spotlight, under such intense media attention, it was a pretty silly thing to have done. I also think that just perhaps he aught to look again at his friends and associates and perhaps pull his neck in a little.

Posted by: Baffers100 Aug 23 2012, 04:02 PM

The blonde he was cavorting with was exceptionally attractive. Had I been there (invite lost?) I may have got nekid too. Harry was just doing what lads his age do. All this "if I was his mother" lark... nobody knows everything their kids get up to, and if you do then you need to ease off.

The real blame, should we feel so intent on attributing it, should lie with the security team who were aware of the photos being taken and evidentally did not an awful lot about stopping it.

I wish people would Harry some slack. He did not ask to be born in to this role. He has no need to 'reel his neck in.' Everything he does is scrutinised by the world's media- just look at some of you on here. He must be under a whole stack of pressure to fulfill your ideals of how he should and should not behave. If we want a Royal Family, we should accept them for being humans and people who make mistakes. Glass houses, stones and all that.

Posted by: Andy1 Aug 23 2012, 04:15 PM

What happens on tour should stay on tour

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2012, 05:25 PM

Most of us wilfully exceed the speed limit on public roads from time time to time. Does that mean we should all accept it as reasonable behaviour? Of course not, and it is rarely excusable.

Many of us do accept that he/they make mistakes; who isn't, or doesn't (a part from republicans)?

Like I said, if he doesn't want the pressure of being a royal, he could relinquish his being paid from the public purse. This is a part of the deal for being a public figure, they are there to be admired and resented.


If the argument was simply about the behaviour of a young adult misbehaving, then he hasn't done anything in particular that many of us haven't done some time in our lives, but the issue with him is greater than that.

Posted by: GMR Aug 23 2012, 06:31 PM

Not showing those photos smacks of collusion. It also smacksof similarities between the press and King Edward VIII and Mrs Wally Simpson.This was when the press kept their affair out of the press because of a nod anda wink between the press barons and the Royals. The world has seen those photosand of course we can see them on line (as I have done) so it is absurd that thepress can't now show them. I did hear on the news tonight that a Scottish websitewill show/ or has shown those pictures.



It is agreed that the press had gone too far in recentmonths and years but not showing those pictures after the world got a glimpseof them smacks of jellyfish gutless ineptitude. It seems our press have gonefrom one extreme to a pathetic other extreme.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 23 2012, 07:06 PM

Sanctimonious drivel

What he was doing was not illegal, not breaking any vows and was not in public. Would the people you trust pull such a vile stunt on you? What's the big deal?

I wholly agreed those who are paid to protect him have been wholly negligent and the press have learned lessons from their recent tribulations.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2012, 07:09 PM

Oh yeah, how?


He was in a room that included strangers. He is still an army officer and he is still a royal. However, while this was filmed, one should be careful what one does in front of guests masquerading as friends, who knows what mischief they might want to later reveal: ROYAL RUBBED HIS WILLY UP MY LEG SHOCKER!


Which has been my main point.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2012, 07:11 PM

I agree. Like it or not, this is censorship of an international incident.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 23 2012, 07:25 PM

LOL...

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2012, 07:26 PM

Why funny?

Posted by: Strafin Aug 23 2012, 08:07 PM

Doesn't he drive a tank, not a helicopter?

If he doesn't want to be a royal, he doesn't have to be, he can relinquish. Others have done, although I am sure it's not easy. His behaviour on this occasion wasn't that bad, but it wasn't good, and it was in public.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Aug 23 2012, 08:37 PM

Look, all that's happened here is one of Harry's minders has shouted "look out sir, she's got a camera, get that Nazi stuff off pronto"...........and the rest is history.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2012, 08:40 PM

He flies Apaches for the Army Air Corps.


He might have got away with it this time, but getting into 'strip' games with people who you hardly know is not advisable if you are a royal heir to the throne. You have to wonder also why the body guards were so relaxed about it. There could be more to this than what is apparent.

Posted by: NWNREADER Aug 23 2012, 09:11 PM

No-one here seems to have ever been to a Subaltern's party..........

As for 'International Incident'...... Hmmmmm - on the same level as Syria, for example?

He has done nothing wrong. He has been let down by some slug who thought it ok to make some money for themselves by taking photos in a private party in a private room purely to embarrass the host.

Posted by: user23 Aug 23 2012, 09:14 PM

It means:

1) Us Brits know how to party
2) What happens in Vegas doesn't stay in Vegas.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 23 2012, 09:18 PM

You obviously have some great mates!

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 23 2012, 09:19 PM

You thinking this was some kind of 'International Incident'

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 23 2012, 09:21 PM

Err, no it was made public by some greedy cash grabbin............


Maybe Harry has done a Paris.

Posted by: x2lls Aug 23 2012, 09:28 PM

CE, where are you when needed?

We miss you!!

Posted by: x2lls Aug 23 2012, 09:34 PM

I'd much rather avoid bullets than naked women!

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2012, 09:35 PM

Of course not; did I suggest it was, and did I suggest it deserved to be?


He might not have broke the law, but wrestling naked with another naked female in a party attended by people who you hardly know and who are taking pictures, is ill advised. Especially when you are a British heir to the throne.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2012, 09:37 PM

Yes, it get quite embarrassing sometimes.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2012, 09:38 PM

It is a fact so I don't see where the humour lies. This is a significant security breach.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2012, 09:39 PM

I think that is something Julian Assange is currently thinking.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2012, 09:49 PM

I was only just thinking the same thing earlier ... he must have some belters to 'reveal'!

Posted by: NWNREADER Aug 23 2012, 09:53 PM

1. I do not see some trivia about what someone does as a total jape in his private room can be an International Incident

2. Wrestling naked? Who suggested that? As for 'taking pictures', these days a mobile phone with no flash is nigh on impossible to spot.

The error lies with the person who took and sold the photo purely through personal greed.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2012, 10:06 PM

If you perform an internet image search for "harry naked", and you should see what I mean. As for no-flash mobiles, Only a complete numpty doesn't consider the likelihood of a person with a mobile taking pictures. Allegedly, his security knew.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2192314/Prince-Harry-Naked-pictures-viewed-millions-online--furious-Palace-acts-ban-Britain.html

Technially it doesn't qualify as an International Incident by literal definition, but I was abusing the term to mean an incident with international impact. here's a list where the pictures are posted, but hitherto, not in the British press, although The Sun is meant to be running them:

Guido Fawkes - Order Order, Westminster gossip blog
CNN International
Huffington Post US
TIME
MSNBC (NBC news video)
CBS Miami
Just Jared
New York Daily News
The Hollywood Gossip
YouTube
Brisbane Times
Calgary Herald
The Iranian
What's On Tianjin
Ghana MMA
CBC Canada
Rickey
Jezebel
Swagger New York
Nigeria News
Girls Guide To
Tribute.ca
She So Major
3 News, New Zealand
SAFM, Australia
Bechicmag.com
The Daily Shift
The Troy Murphy Show
Iamyardrock.com
News Media Images
Sympatico, Canada
Daily Update, Ireland
News Talk ZB, New Zealand
HLNTV, New York
Toronto Star
Sun News, Canada
Radio Live, New Zealand
Make Use TV
United Press International
Triple M 105.1, Australia
2 Oceans Vibe radio, South Africa
Updated News, Canada
Seattle Gay Scene
In.com
All Voices
The Frisky
She Knows
WGRZ 2
News Vine
Daily of the Day
Back 2 Stonewall
Celebrity Pop
Yahoo!
ABC 7, California
The Atlantic
People.com
Power FM, Australia
Entertainment.ie, Ireland
CBC News, Canada
Hindustan times, India
National Turk, Turkey
Zee News, India
Nation News, Barbados
Barbados Free Press
The Palm Beach Times
Global BC
The Daily Beast
Gist Us
Power FM, Australia
Times of Malta
Zimbio
Gossip Cop
Evil Beet Gossip
Daily Motion
The Wall
Fashionado
Breaking News, Canada
OchoCinco News Network
Elite Daily
Question Mark Mag
Refinery 29
The Improper
Jaunted
Trendwire
Terezownesm
Celebridoodle
Scallywag and vagabond
Care2
Eringer33
Newswhip
Goowire
Scoop
60 Second marketeer
Bazaar Daily
Socialite Life
African Limelight
Tweet Buzz
Political Parades
Twirl It
jeanmarcmorandini.com
Gossip Girl
Ocean Up
Extra TV
Every Joe
Tag Room

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2012, 10:10 PM

And his security team failing in their duty to him and the monarchy.

Posted by: x2lls Aug 23 2012, 10:28 PM

He hasn't changed sex and the chance of him becoming king is very remote indeed.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 23 2012, 11:00 PM

A private party in a public place isn't private. And if it was truly private, then he would have known every single guest. I think it is another example of bad judgement. Not a crisis, but he does deserve the flack he is getting, and is helping the republican cause along the way.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2012, 11:04 PM

His chances are much greater than mine and almost everyone else in Britain, unless he keeps this behaviour up of course!

Posted by: On the edge Aug 24 2012, 06:05 AM

See the Sun are saying they have had to publish the pictures this morning to preserve press freedom. I always thought real freedom was demonstrated when you didn't do something - i.e. freedom is choice! In my book all they've actually demonstrated is that they have no integrity. It also says a lot about what the Sun thinks of its readers - suckers who are willing to pay for what they can see free and just wanting a cheap thrill.

Only difference with print over web, is that they can't change pictures or words later when the going starts getting hot...

Posted by: Jayjay Aug 24 2012, 06:08 AM

So the general public can freely walk into the firms Xmas party at the hotel and help themselves to the buffet? Colleagues do not bring their partners?

Posted by: NWNREADER Aug 24 2012, 06:36 AM

The security team only have responsibility for his personal safety, not his personal conduct. I have seen nothing to say he was at risk of personal danger. Advice as to 'wisdom' comes from his personal staff, who may well not have been present.

Posted by: NWNREADER Aug 24 2012, 06:38 AM

Since when has a hotel bedroom (suite) been a public place?

Misplaced faith more than bad judgement. The photographer is the one who should be having the guilt problems.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 24 2012, 08:03 AM

Yes, essentially they could, it wouldn't be right and I'm sure they would be kicked out, but the room itself is controlled by someone else, therefore not private.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 24 2012, 08:06 AM

I was in the states when this story broke (at The Wynn for some of our stay!) so have had a different view of it. I was under the impression that some of the photographs were from the nightclub as per some of the video footage I have seen. Perhaps not the naked stuff, so I would agree that there is a difference between being there and being in the suite.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 24 2012, 08:11 AM

Quite right, but given what they have knowingly done suspect the photographer has no morals of any consequence. Bit like the Sun and its readership.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 24 2012, 08:11 AM

It might be after the vent that his behaviour did not immediately endanger him, but these pictures could easily have been taken by people with more sinister motives. I am certain members of his 'team' will not be getting a pat on the back, including Harry himself; the army deem officers as 'always being on duty'.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 24 2012, 08:15 AM

What is immoral about taking pictures of someone, especially if that person is not a close friend? If Harry doesn't strip naked in front of people that are effectively groupies, he will not be compromised.

If I organise a get-together at my house with friends and acquaintances and I end up doing something embarrassing, I can be confident that images could get posted on Facebook, or similar.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 24 2012, 08:26 AM

If I have to spell it out then we really do have a problem! If that's the case, why is anyone at all upset about seeing the Prince naked? Can see much worse / better on many continental beaches. Really nice society we live in isn't it?

Posted by: MontyPython Aug 24 2012, 08:59 AM

Exactly - there may be a need to report the incident - but no need to publish the photos, or are we to have photos of all of the Yorkshire Rippers victims to prove that happened.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 24 2012, 10:01 AM

I doubt you see many British statesmen frocking naked with naked women on continental beaches. I think the only people truly upset by his behaviour are those with a vested interest in him keeping his 'nose clean'. My comments are an observation; he has been through a makeover recently and this has set his reputation (with the establishment) back.

Of course the young 'WKD brigade' tend to support him.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 24 2012, 10:03 AM

sod the establishment.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 24 2012, 10:04 AM

The 'need' will be determined by the popularity of the paper. The paper are sure to be responding to an accusation if being censored.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if some of this wasn't 'orchestrated'.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 24 2012, 10:05 AM

I would imagine it is a part of the establishment he would wish to be, so it is up to him. He could always give it up, but he might regret that come the time the rent is due, and he might then find out who his friends really are.

The royals have been on a popularity surge of late, but this kind of 'scandal' won't help the cause where there are those who are more sceptical of the monarchy.

Posted by: Jayjay Aug 24 2012, 11:28 AM

Maybe I do not see the harm in what he has done as I can remember some of the silly things I did in my youth. Skinny dipping in the hotel pool, on many more than one occassion being outrageously drunk, swopping neighbours garden furniture around, taking a gnome on holiday around europe and playing spin the bottle. Now at my tender years I am too old to be silly and have that much fun. This time next year he will be putting his life on the line in a foreign country. Harry, have fun, be a little outrageous, you are a long time dead and being old is boring.

Posted by: x2lls Aug 24 2012, 11:43 AM

Bang on!!!

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 24 2012, 12:03 PM

It isn't a 'scandal'.

Some will try & make it one, but they have their own agenda.

I think the Royals would be able to pay the rent without state help.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 24 2012, 12:06 PM

Only if he continues to 'court the media'.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 24 2012, 12:08 PM

Of course, but today it is simply high jinx, on another day, it is a gold-digger claiming he molested her at a private party. What you are all forgetting is most of us are not multimillionaire celebrities.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 24 2012, 12:54 PM

Boris sums it up well - "I think it'd be disgraceful if a chap wasn't allowed to have a bit of fun in Las Vegas. The real scandal would be if you went all the way to Las Vegas and you didn't misbehave in some trivial way."

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 24 2012, 01:27 PM

I'm not sure that we should look up to him as a paragon of virtue.

Interesting that people, quite rightly in my view, complain about the actions of the press. It seems The Sun has been rolling off the shelves today; now, who do you think is the more likely customer: an inquisitive soul buying out of a sense of moral outrage, or one that has a penchant for salacious tales? In my view, Prince Harry is feeding those that people on here seem to despise.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 24 2012, 01:36 PM

Err, the Sun is doing the feeding. They have drummed up some interest & then they wait a day to maximise sales. And the British public fall for it every time.

Harry was just caught with his trousers down. Where is the moral outrage? Certainly not with me.

Even Max Clifford, not one to walk away from making a quick buck from non-news kiss & tell said - In my view it clearly invades his privacy and the ends don't justify the means

Posted by: On the edge Aug 24 2012, 01:41 PM

Interesting stance Andy C - didn't have you down as a supporter of the Lord Protector - still live and learn!

According to the Metro, News International want all their titles to have values and aims. Presumably the The Sun could say it's main aim is to keep Britain hard at work.

Posted by: Newbelly Aug 24 2012, 02:15 PM

Like many other papers, The Sun had already reported on the incident.

The publication of the photos today was more about increasing revenue and perhaps sticking 2 fingers up to Leveson.

If The Sun wants to fight the corner of freedom of the press to report on a matter of public interest, then this is a pretty feeble case on which to do it.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 24 2012, 02:45 PM

I'm suggesting that Harry is feeding The Sun with potential. Much like his mother did. In the main, it seems this has raised his profile with the young and free spirited, but stuck a couple of fingers up at the prudish. If anything, he has won popular support.

Nice work. Even if unintentional.


Nor me. Although I think he does sail close to the wind.


I'm not. I'm more or less neutral.


It has been a long time since I have bought a NI publication.


I tend to agree, but the sale sales figures for The Sun today might suggest it was in the public interest.

Posted by: Newbelly Aug 24 2012, 03:01 PM

In a perverse interpretation perhaps! I was thinking of "public interest" more in terms of a defence that could be claimed by a newspaper buying stolen information to expose stealing by MPs, or pollution by an oil company, for example.

The publication of the photos added nothing further to an already reported story, other than to please those who wanted to see a naked body.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 24 2012, 03:32 PM

I suppose it could be argued that people wanted to see what all the fuss was about that compelled the palace to allegedly threaten papers with legal action. A policy that nearly always fails.

If this was about a paparazzi shimmying down a drain pipe to take pictures through a window at Balmoral, I could see the outrage of a breach of privacy. In this instance, this is about a guest that took pictures and sold them to a publisher. Bearing in mind that no-one has broken the law, but there is a brouha about it, I can only think that Harry or his team have been foolish to do what they did (if he prides his reputation as a statesman). If he doesn't, then fair play to him, but if I were his official 'guardian', I'd certainly keep a closer eye on him. At the moment, he can get away with it, but it could just as easy go nasty.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 24 2012, 04:10 PM

To me it is a bit like skulking around on a beach in the South of France taking shots of sunbathers & then selling them to be published.

Candid Camera Page Three if you like.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Aug 24 2012, 07:37 PM

What concerns me most is how rubbish he must be at billiards.

Posted by: NWNREADER Aug 24 2012, 08:00 PM

The rules were to remove an item of clothing if the player missed. He only has swimming shorts on...... I rather suspect he anticipated the girl losing........

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 24 2012, 08:10 PM

I think he was going for the screw, giving it a lot of bottom to get on the pink without fouling the brown. Mind, if it was a touching ball he could have just played away.

Posted by: NWNREADER Aug 24 2012, 08:38 PM

Quality

Posted by: Squelchy Aug 25 2012, 09:26 AM

I fear you have confused Billiards with Snooker. (A different set of balls altogether)

Posted by: Penelope Aug 25 2012, 09:49 AM

Ahh, yes, but royalty play by their own set of rules.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 25 2012, 09:51 AM

It's probably not the most important detail of the story, but the game they were playing was variously described - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/daniella-gibb/prince-harry-what-happens-in-vegas_b_1821067.html?utm_hp_ref=uk. I wasn't there so I can't know, but even if I was I wouldn't tell.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 25 2012, 12:50 PM

It looks to me like The Wynn/Encore have pool tables in their suites.

http://www.wynnlasvegas.com/Rooms/EncoreTowerSuites/ThreeBedroomDuplex#

Posted by: JeffG Aug 25 2012, 02:29 PM

Although they look like pool balls, the caption calls it a billiard room. Which is weird, because if it was billiards there would only be 3 balls on the table.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 25 2012, 02:37 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cue_sports This offers some explanation

Posted by: NORTHENDER Aug 25 2012, 02:42 PM

I have spent a fair time in the States and cannot recall snooker ever being mentioned, it was always Billiard rooms in the places I frequented to play snooker, and have never had a game of billiards in my life.

Posted by: NWNREADER Aug 25 2012, 02:50 PM

Maybe Hitler was there?

Posted by: Darren Aug 25 2012, 03:04 PM

Perhaps they were playing a variation of what passes for Variety in Bangkok with billiard balls rather than ping pong balls?

Makes watch more of a dangerous sport than normal.

Posted by: Penelope Aug 26 2012, 01:02 PM

Could have been playing Texas hold em.

Posted by: Timbo Aug 28 2012, 08:43 AM

He died, didn't you hear?

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 28 2012, 11:49 AM

Didn't that happen before you were born too?

Posted by: x2lls Aug 28 2012, 02:50 PM

LMAO!!!