Prince Harry: Lock him up!

If a pug dog giving the Hitler salute can constitute a criminal act, then Prince Harry, whose costume below is well documented, should be in jail for a long time. It’s offensive! Why is he still walking around?

Yes, it’s offensive, just like Count Dankula’s girlfriend’s dog, but I don’t see prosecutions in the offing.



  1. GBJames
    Posted March 20, 2018 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

    That was 2005! People weren’t woke yet!

  2. Gordon
    Posted March 20, 2018 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    The more interesting stories lately have been the weird habits of Harry’s father about to be revealed in a new book- and the idiot is likely to become king!
    > ,<
    Daily Mail headline begins "The pampered, petulant, self-pitying Prince"

    • colnago80
      Posted March 21, 2018 at 4:39 am | Permalink

      A certain amount of caution is required before taking anything printed in the Daily Mail seriously. The Daily Mail is about as reliable a source of information as the National Enquirer.

      • friendlypig
        Posted March 21, 2018 at 9:04 am | Permalink

        When you’ve read the articles you can comment! I have and they’re even better than I thought they might be.

        I’ve never had much time for HRH the heir apparent, the only reason that he was seen to be acceptable was because of the intense PR. This should matters back where they were. Petulant! That doesn’t get anywhere near.

    • Gareth
      Posted March 21, 2018 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

      The DM seems to love him now, and his wife to be.

  3. Randall Schenck
    Posted March 20, 2018 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

    I don’t know his age in 2005 but my guess is, that’s about right. I would not have been caught dead when that age but oh well, a different generation and I am sure a different upbringing. From the U.K. of all places.

  4. Posted March 20, 2018 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

    Touché, Monsieur Le Professeur, surely the tw*ttervese cannot answer such a question!

    They will ignore it.

  5. grasshopper
    Posted March 20, 2018 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

    Beware the nazi pug-dog packing a concealed-carry schmauser.

  6. Doug
    Posted March 20, 2018 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

    Do you know that the Beatles wanted Hitler on the cover of “Sgt. Pepper?”

    And that’s just the beginning . . .

      • Randall Schenck
        Posted March 20, 2018 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

        And now we have Sir John and Sir Ringo. What a joke. What is required to get a knighthood in England. That you did not kill anyone for a couple of years?

        • Graham Head
          Posted March 20, 2018 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

          Sir John?

          • Randall Schenck
            Posted March 20, 2018 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

            Sorry about that…Paul.

            • Graham Head
              Posted March 20, 2018 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

              So what’s the objection to the ex Beatles being knighted (apart from the obvious objections to the whole honours system)? If we’re going to have honours better they go to actors, musicians and sports stars than people who have made donations to political parties and time serving politicians and civil servants.

              • Helen Hollis
                Posted March 20, 2018 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

                This reminds me of people who question who is given the Nobel Peace Prize. Not our prize to give, not our rules to question.

              • Jonathan Wallace
                Posted March 21, 2018 at 4:34 am | Permalink

                One can argue about whether or not the British honours system is a good thing but the blog post linked to does nothing to suggest either Paul McCartney or Ringo Starr are Nazi sympathisers or even guilty of tasteless or offensive use of nazi imagery (Hitler did NOT appear in the SP cover pic and it was John Lennon who wanted him on it not the others). Why therefore should their knighthoods prompt this comment?

            • Ken Kukec
              Posted March 20, 2018 at 9:48 pm | Permalink

              I like to think John wasn’t OBE material — same way Keith isn’t, even though Mick turned out to be. One cat in each group’s gotta remain true to the rock’n’roll-rebel ideal, I figure.

          • Helen Hollis
            Posted March 20, 2018 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

            I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was referring to Elton John, but realized that he may have made a mistake and meant to say Paul.
            My thoughts are that England can knight or give out titles to anyone they want to. It’s their game, their rules.
            My first thought looking at this picture was that perhaps the prince was at a Halloween party and wanted to go for the win as most scary.

            • Helen Hollis
              Posted March 20, 2018 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

              Ha! Smokedpaprika mentions Halloween well before I posted. Glad my instincts were on spot.

              • infiniteimprobabilit
                Posted March 21, 2018 at 4:09 am | Permalink

                Well yes precisely. I seem to recall we (the denizens of this website) already had a discussion on halloween costumes and the perpetually offended.


              • Posted March 21, 2018 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

                Turns out I misremembered, though it was some kind of costume party, post-New Year’s, in 2005. The controversy and outrage were further fuelled by the timing, since it was a couple of weeks before Holocaust Memorial Day in the UK (Jan. 27). He was a silly kid back then.

  7. Gerry Warren
    Posted March 20, 2018 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

    this was years ago, and whatever your view of it it would not have constituted a crime at that time as the legislation had not been made.

  8. glen1davidson
    Posted March 20, 2018 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

    But Harry wasn’t corrupting the pugs.

    Glen Davidson

  9. Jeremy Henty
    Posted March 20, 2018 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

    Count Dankula’s crime wasn’t training the dog, it was publishing the video online. The Harry swastika photo was leaked by someone else. So legally there is no comparison.

    One problem is that social media is designed to make people feel they are talking only to friends when they are really publishing to billions. And it’s little more than chance (unless you already famous) that determines who gets away with it and whose thoughtless piece of bad taste goes viral and wrecks a life. Neither the law or our social insticts have grasped this.

    • Jay
      Posted March 20, 2018 at 8:08 pm | Permalink

      Why is putting it online legally any different?

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted March 21, 2018 at 4:13 am | Permalink

        Because the applicable law says so…


      • Posted March 21, 2018 at 8:05 am | Permalink

        By putting it on Youtube you are publishing it. Harry was merely at a fancy dress party.

  10. Sarah
    Posted March 20, 2018 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

    Harry was at a private party and not on YouTube, as I recall.

    • Posted March 20, 2018 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

      It was Halloween, wasn’t it? Still, I’d never wear that, not even when I was a pre-teen and still unformed and impetuous. What’s wrong with people’s good sense these days? There must be something in the water. Perhaps he was acting out some of his extended family history.

  11. Liz
    Posted March 20, 2018 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

    I don’t understand how it isn’t a “backhanded” death threat. I’ve been looking into the legality of death threats and I don’t know if something is there to consider. It’s despicable either way. If it’s not a “death threat” and he’s not mistraining or mistreating dogs, I don’t know. In the U.S. he would be protected I believe. If I saw that happening I would be outraged and have the right to say something back to him.

    • Simon
      Posted March 20, 2018 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

      Why would you be outraged?

      • Liz
        Posted March 20, 2018 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

        We don’t want to repeat those mistakes and with 3 million views, there must be uneducated people about the Holocaust, and sheep in general, watching who might emulate those views in practice as well. His tone is not a joke to me. If it comes down to this is okay in the United States as is burning a cross on someone’s front lawn in terms of the first amendment, then so be it. It’s better to have these despicable forms of “humanity” on the table. But an eye for an eye. Non-violent but there are social norms that don’t fall under legality. What is funny? It’s funny that he lives in the United Kingdom. If I were his girlfriend *spit* I would have slapped him and found the best lawyers to find a way to take this to the Supreme Court. How does it not outrage you?

        • infiniteimprobabilit
          Posted March 21, 2018 at 4:17 am | Permalink

          I thought it was moderately funny.

          (I’m talking about M8 Yer dug’s a Nazi here, as I assume you are, not Prince Harry’s halloween costume)

          Anyway the Streisand Effect will now prevail and that clip will doubtless become an Internet meme…


        • Michael Waterhouse
          Posted March 21, 2018 at 4:42 am | Permalink

          What is funny, indeed?

          The risk of offending someone, or inciting the weak minded and uneducated to evil action, is too great.

          I suggest a ban on all humor {alleged} that does, or may, offend someone, or potentially incite the uneducated to some oafish action.

          In fact a ban on all speech, on pain of jail should do it.

          • Liz
            Posted March 21, 2018 at 11:34 am | Permalink

            The risk of inciting the weak minded and uneducated to evil action is not something that should be ignored in the process of defending the first amendment. Protecting someone else’s right to express freely should never be confused with indifference. Free speech is a difficult topic. It’s harder than physics.

    • Helen Hollis
      Posted March 20, 2018 at 8:48 pm | Permalink

      I wish I could ask his girlfriend what she knew and when did she know it.

    • Posted March 24, 2018 at 1:07 am | Permalink

      You have full right to say something back to him, the problem (to me) is that he is being sued and may be jailed.
      As for the current threat to Jews, we all know that it does not come from people like him but from militant Muslims and their sympathizers. The threat is not addressed by persecuting this fool, rather, it is enhanced.

  12. boggy
    Posted March 21, 2018 at 2:59 am | Permalink

    Harry’s predecessor the Duke of Windsor and his wife Wallis Simpson were at least sympathetic to the views of Hitler and met him on several occasions. So the Nazi traces still exist in the royal family.

    • Posted March 21, 2018 at 8:12 am | Permalink

      Sympathy with the Nazis is not hereditary and even if it was, Edward VIII was not the ancestor of any of the current Royals.

      In any case, he denied being pro-Nazi.

      • Posted March 21, 2018 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

        If you’re able to, please watch the last few episodes of The Crown. I was shocked to hear that Edward might have had a secret deal with Hitler that would allow the latter free rein across Europe, provided that Hitler made Ed the king of England, once the dust settled. If the series remained true to historical facts, then this was well-nigh treason. And so, as The Crown depicted, his banishment became even more entrenched. I wish I know how it all really transpired.

        • Posted March 21, 2018 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

          (See Season 2 Episode 6.)

        • Posted March 21, 2018 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

          Edward himself claimed that he was not pro Nazi. That doesn’t mean he didn’t have a secret deal with Hitler, but I would want better evidence than a Netflix drama before making that call. Also, the evidence in the WaPo article really isn’t that convincing.

          in any case, even if the Duke of Windsor was in daily contact with Hitler and discussing how to bring down the UK, it doesn’t make any of his living relatives tainted as you put it. I don’t believe in original sin and neither should you.

          • Posted March 23, 2018 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

            There was definitely some well-researched funny business in the Windsor Files.

            It was ‘boggy’ who made the comment wrt Nazi traces still existing in the family, not I. I don’t believe in original sin, so do keep your ill-placed admonishment to yourself.

  13. Michael Waterhouse
    Posted March 21, 2018 at 4:43 am | Permalink

    I am now very reluctant to visit the UK.

    • David Coxill
      Posted March 21, 2018 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

      Why ?

    • GBJames
      Posted March 21, 2018 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

      Not me. My wife and I are going to spend a couple of weeks in Scotland this fall. Looking forward to it!

      • Nobody Special
        Posted March 21, 2018 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

        Hope you’re there on Scotland’s annual day of sunshine. 🙂

  14. TJR
    Posted March 21, 2018 at 6:02 am | Permalink

    I thought any sort of Nazi stuff was illegal for Germans anyway?

  15. Posted March 21, 2018 at 8:18 am | Permalink

    No – for me that is his family heritage!

    Actually we should put his head on a spike over London Bridge…

  16. Nobody Special
    Posted March 21, 2018 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

    It can’t be Harry’s family heritage; his mother was a Spencer and his father (allegedly*) an ex-army Major named Hewitt.

    *allegedly, but he certainly bears no resemblance to the other royal males and quite a lot to the Major.

    • Sarah
      Posted March 21, 2018 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

      I think he looks like his uncle Charles Spencer. Anyway, people don’t always look like their parents.

%d bloggers like this: