Harry's Night in Vegas: August 2012


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
This only thing that has changed in the way I see Harry is his blatant lack of judgment. It was always a problem before, but now it is been magnified by this episode. I still see him as a good natured person because of how he comes across in interviews and when I watch videos of him interacting with others on official engagements. The fact that he partied naked does not make me see him as "disgusting" or even misogynist if that is what you are implying. Partying nude may not be for me, but I don't judge those who do it. I really don't see how getting naked at a party equals being a bad person.

I don't know the girls who partied with him. No one on this forum does. But because one sold the photos to the media, and another or two more are trying to sell their story to the media, tells me they are opportunists who took advantage of Harry's severe lack of judgment - his only "crime" if you will, in this situation. Those girls could've partied with the Prince and left it alone as something to reflect on when they get older. After all, who can say they partied with a world famous Prince?

But unfortunately, those girls intended to violate Harry's trust - a poor choice of his, of course - and now he's been hurt and embarrassed in front of the whole world. I believe Harry intended for some harmless fun in Vegas, and those girls destroyed it by being opportunists.

Once again, "Poor Harry." Prince Harry certainly seems to be quite charming. But, in truth he was just as much an opportunist as the girls with whom he partied. He used them and they used him. It was an equal opportunity evening of SELFISH indulgence. Maybe those girls felt "hurt and embarrassed" afterwards, as you think Harry must feel, and that made them willing to sell those pictures.

This behavior is a pattern with Prince Harry. Which begs the question, "Has this pattern developed because he gets away with it?" Prince Harry has a clean up crew and a PR team who comes behind his every mess up. I am sure they berate him for getting caught (never for what he did), tell him to lay low, trot him out in his uniform, and then send him to visit some underprivileged children.

So, why stop messing up? Why change? He seems "good natured," he's privileged, and pampered. He gets away with it because everyone gives him a pass and says Poor Harry, he was the victim. But, unfortunately, on this earth, our actions define who we are, and the company we keep tells an awful lot about us.
 
I can not speak with any authority on whether or not Prince Harry should be discharged. I would be greatly surprised if that happened.

However, I will make a few comments. First, if one invites a group of strangers into their home, cavorts with said strangers, allows themselves to be photographed and then allows his guests to leave, then what happened is no longer "private." Said person invited the general public into his home and allowed them to photograph the occasion. Now, the pictures belong to those he invited.

As to your last comment, "How on earth is it anyone's business but his?" Well....That would be because he allowed the group (more than a couple) of, as you call them, "totally unscrupulous money-grabbing women" to take pictures of the evening and one of them decided to make them public.

I also find it very interesting that Prince Harry is just a poor, victimized, good natured, soldier boy out to blow off steam by getting drunk and naked with women he knows nothing about, but the women are "unscrupulous", "disgusting," and "money grubbing." It seems to me that the lack of scruples and disgusting behavior goes both ways. He treated them like objects and they treated him the same. Were they supposed to be so honored that he used them for the evening that they would just revere their pictures forever??? Prince Harry is reaping what he has sown.

I guess those women figured if they were allowed to take the pictures on their phones and leave with them, they could do what they wanted with the pictures. They belonged to them after all.

Well said.
 
Once again, "Poor Harry." Prince Harry certainly seems to be quite charming. But, in truth he was just as much an opportunist as the girls with whom he partied. He used them and they used him. It was an equal opportunity evening of SELFISH indulgence. Maybe those girls felt "hurt and embarrassed" afterwards, as you think Harry must feel, and that made them willing to sell those pictures.

This behavior is a pattern with Prince Harry. Which begs the question, "Has this pattern developed because he gets away with it?" Prince Harry has a clean up crew and a PR team who comes behind his every mess up. I am sure they berate him for getting caught (never for what he did), tell him to lay low, trot him out in his uniform, and then send him to visit some underprivileged children.

So, why stop messing up? Why change? He seems "good natured," he's privileged, and pampered. He gets away with it because everyone gives him a pass and says Poor Harry, he was the victim. But, unfortunately, on this earth, our actions define who we are, and the company we keep tells an awful lot about us.

Wow. One night of harmless partying turns someone the bane of human existence? So, all of Harry's charity work and being an overall good guy goes out the window because of this one incident? That sounds very harsh to me.

I think Warren said it best here:

What I'm finding most disturbing about this discussion are the self-righteous pontifications, the sanctimonious condemnations, the complete loss of perspective, the reduction of human foibles to black and white, the presentation of personal opinion as incontrovertible fact ("that's all that's to it and nothing more"), the quick and easy dismissiveness as individuals are assessed, found wanting, and discarded ("he IS a lost boy"), all the while delivered in the tone and stance of being oh-so-morally-superior.

From my observation, what makes it even more ugly and unsettling is the apparent glee some members display in their harsh but happy rush to judge and condemn. Added to that is the underlying cold nastiness that others inadvertently reveal about themselves. Ugh. This thread, now at 33 pages in 6 days, continues to expand. The way I sense it, so is the ickiness factor.
Really, partying naked is not pure evil and it won't bring about the end of the world. If this is how you react to someone getting naked in front of strangers for the sake of fun, I wonder how you view a murderer - who really does deserve to be harshly criticized.

This thread is turning into a debate on what is decent and what is moral. I predict it will be locked quite soon.
 
Last edited:
Once again, "Poor Harry." Prince Harry certainly seems to be quite charming. But, in truth he was just as much an opportunist as the girls with whom he partied. He used them and they used him. It was an equal opportunity evening of SELFISH indulgence. Maybe those girls felt "hurt and embarrassed" afterwards, as you think Harry must feel, and that made them willing to sell those pictures.

This behavior is a pattern with Prince Harry. Which begs the question, "Has this pattern developed because he gets away with it?" Prince Harry has a clean up crew and a PR team who comes behind his every mess up. I am sure they berate him for getting caught (never for what he did), tell him to lay low, trot him out in his uniform, and then send him to visit some underprivileged children.

So, why stop messing up? Why change? He seems "good natured," he's privileged, and pampered. He gets away with it because everyone gives him a pass and says Poor Harry, he was the victim. But, unfortunately, on this earth, our actions define who we are, and the company we keep tells an awful lot about us.

Another great post! :flowers:
 
There is that harmless word again. Hey I'm not going to judge these women, as someone said Harry used the women, the women used Harry, TMZ used the women, they used TMZ, it’s all very user friendly. Underneath all the using and abusing was just plain stupidity all around.
 
Opportunist as they saw an opportunity and snapped away. They are harmless opportunist lol. It’s the way of the world.
The only difference between them and a prostitute is that a prostitute is honest enough to tell you up front that the pleasure of their company comes at a price. JMO of course.
 
Back when he was at St. Andrews', there were reports that William went skinny dipping with friends - both male and female. Granted, he knew those people and they weren't strangers, and no photos emerged.

If this really did happen, does it make William disgusting? Did he use his friends and his friends used him? Was he engaging in selfish indulgence?
 
The only difference between them and a prostitute is that a prostitute is honest enough to tell you up front that the pleasure of their company comes at a price. JMO of course.

As I said, I'm not gonna judge, because everyone got their pound of flesh so to speak. I still reserve the right to call everyone stupid lol.
 
Wow. One night of harmless partying turns someone the bane of human existence? So, all of Harry's charity work and being an overall good guy goes out the window because of this one incident? That sounds very harsh to me.

You are misrepresenting what tea-n-tiaras is saying. She is discussing the double standard being applied regarding the partier Harry and the partier women.

I think Warren said it best here:

By doing this I am assuming you think Warren was defending a particular viewpoint?

tea-n-tiaras most assuredly is engaging this debate at a high level.

Really, partying naked is not pure evil and it won't bring about the end of the world. If this is how you react to someone getting naked in front of strangers for the sake of fun, I wonder how you view a murderer - who really does deserve to be harshly criticized.

Who said it was 'pure evil'. Overwrought characterization. Why not just realize that one person's innocent romp is another's scandal - happens with juries all the time. Why not explore the endless ways people can see an event without becoming it must be this or that?

This thread is turning into a debate on what is decent and what is moral. I predict it will be locked quite soon.

Talk about righteous. To the point of muzzling debate even. The debate at this point between a few is about the double standard - the elevation of Harry to heroic status because of a 'bit of fun' and the denigration of the women who gave him that bit of fun because they dared 'out' him, dared 'benefit' from his status. Remember, he was able to have the romp because of his status. You can't have it both ways.
 
Siily question who ever said it was a woman who leaked the photo? (One of Harry's friend wasn't it?)

More photos were offered for sale by a woman but those were declined. (No one ever said it was the same person.)

There were 25 people there, 15 women. and 10 men.

Multiple people might have been taking pictures.

Also someone at the party might have taken the picture and one of their friends sold it to the press, without the consent of photographer.

Let's drop the name calling.
 
This thread is turning into a debate on what is decent and what is moral. I predict it will be locked quite soon.

And I'm not quite sure when that happened. Either it will be locked or Warren will put us all into the bad room until further notice.
 
You are misrepresenting what tea-n-tiaras is saying. She is discussing the double standard being applied regarding the partier Harry and the partier women.

I see nothing wrong with all of them partying as they did. I only think those who took the photos and sold them were wrong.


Who said it was 'pure evil'. Overwrought characterization. Why not just realize that one person's innocent romp is another's scandal - happens with juries all the time. Why not explore the endless ways people can see an event without becoming it must be this or that?
I interpreted her post as overly critical of this party, particularly when she emphasized "selfish".


Talk about righteous. To the point of muzzling debate even. The debate at this point between a few is about the double standard - the elevation of Harry to heroic status because of a 'bit of fun' and the denigration of the women who gave him that bit of fun because they dared 'out' him, dared 'benefit' from his status. Remember, he was able to have the romp because of his status. You can't have it both ways.
I'm not muzzling a debate. I am simply predicting what often happens on TRF.

And no, I don't see myself as righteous. Besides, with people's various views on this incident, the debate over what is decent was bound to happen.
 
Last edited:
I was talking to a friend about the royals today, someone who does not read the forum or EVER read about royals. I told him what a difference in thought and behavior there was among some of the younger princes. There are those who are discrete and private, who spend most of their time studying or doing athletics (like Amadeo) or even serving as family emissaries overseas (Guillaume). These young men will never be on the cover of the Tabloid-type magazines (yes, Harry is already on the cover of one of our Tabloids here in the US, Monday night). It would be nice if there were a picture of Guillaume comforting Stephanie over her mother's death, or some sweet thing like that. Harry should look at these other young royal men and think about their way of life as something he could emulate. Or maybe that's not possible in the environments he lives in?
 
Siily question who ever said it was a woman who leaked the photo? (One of Harry's friend wasn't it?)

More photos were offered for sale by a woman but those were declined. (No one ever said it was the same person.)

There were 25 people there, 15 women. and 10 men.

Multiple people might have been taking pictures.

Also someone at the party might have taken the picture and one of their friends sold it to the press, without the consent of photographer.

Good point.
 
Talk about righteous. To the point of muzzling debate even. The debate at this point between a few is about the double standard - the elevation of Harry to heroic status because of a 'bit of fun' and the denigration of the women who gave him that bit of fun because they dared 'out' him, dared 'benefit' from his status. Remember, he was able to have the romp because of his status. You can't have it both ways.

Interesting isn't it?
 
Once again, "Poor Harry." Prince Harry certainly seems to be quite charming. But, in truth he was just as much an opportunist as the girls with whom he partied. He used them and they used him. It was an equal opportunity evening of SELFISH indulgence. Maybe those girls felt "hurt and embarrassed" afterwards, as you think Harry must feel, and that made them willing to sell those pictures.

This behavior is a pattern with Prince Harry. Which begs the question, "Has this pattern developed because he gets away with it?" Prince Harry has a clean up crew and a PR team who comes behind his every mess up. I am sure they berate him for getting caught (never for what he did), tell him to lay low, trot him out in his uniform, and then send him to visit some underprivileged children.

So, why stop messing up? Why change? He seems "good natured," he's privileged, and pampered. He gets away with it because everyone gives him a pass and says Poor Harry, he was the victim. But, unfortunately, on this earth, our actions define who we are, and the company we keep tells an awful lot about us.

Great post :flowers:.

Back when he was at St. Andrews', there were reports that William went skinny dipping with friends - both male and female. Granted, he knew those people and they weren't strangers, and no photos emerged.

If this really did happen, does it make William disgusting? Did he use his friends and his friends used him? Was he engaging in selfish indulgence?

To me the, the difference (if the scenario indeed happened) is, the fact that William more than likely didn't foolishly invite complete and total strangers that more than likely had cameras and were looking for an easy buck to take part in this skinny-dipping. There was no opportunity for a (pardon the language) skank to sell the 'evidence' to a sleazy site and make any sort of profit. The world didn't see anything indecent, but William still had his 'fun'. So, the point here is that one was careful, while the other was not. Neither one of them is evil, but one certainly lacks good judgement.
 
This thread is turning into a debate on what is decent and what is moral. I predict it will be locked quite soon.
I wanted to add that I actually don't mind reading that debate, but I think it's a small part of the thread. I'm still finding the thread very interesting and amusing with some amazing articulate responses, which has given me food for thought. I like when I'm challenged in my thinking.
 
I see nothing wrong with all of them partying as they did. I only think those who took the photos and sold them were wrong.


I interpreted her post as overly critical of this party, particularly when she emphasized "selfish".

The definition of selfish is as follows:

self·ish/ˈselfiSH/
Adjective:
(of a person, action, or motive) Lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.

How would you characterize his motives? He invited complete strangers to his room to drink and disrobe? How would you characterize the girls' motives? As I said before, "He treated them like objects and they treated him the same." They were all in it for themselves.

I felt it was an accurate word. I was searching for accurate words to make the point that some have chosen to use a double standard in evaluating this event. And it is in part this very double standard that enables Prince Harry to go on in this reckless way of living.

It actually goes beyond selfish indulgence to self-destructive. Because, he didn't even protect himself. He must learn to govern himself.
 
:previous: Evidence would suggest that posters are losing the plot on this thread!

Question: How do you know that Harry treated anyone, let alone the girls invited to the party, as objects.

Answer: For all the pontificating . . . you do not!

Please at least try to be objective and preface your opinions with IMO.
 
I'm waiting for an answer to this as well. Inviting girls to a party does not mean he was treating them like objects. And I also do not have sympathy for a girl who goes to a strangers hotel room in Las Vegas, even freshman in college know what that can lead to. These girls are just like every other low life who kiss and tell and want to make money off it. Male and female.
 
I don't think this should be treated as a huge scandal (he's not cheating or doing anything illegal) but Harry should really know better than to do these kind of things, specially these days when everyone has a camera available on their phones.

It goes against his privacy and the pictures should have never reached the media but he just should stop being an easy target, not stop having fun but be more careful about with whom and where he has fun, there are far too many pictures of his escapades for it to be circumstantial.

And yes, many young men do it, but they aren't Princes of the United Kingdom, Harry has to remember who he is and be more careful about what he does.
 
Last edited:
I was talking to a friend about the royals today, someone who does not read the forum or EVER read about royals. I told him what a difference in thought and behavior there was among some of the younger princes. There are those who are discrete and private, who spend most of their time studying or doing athletics (like Amadeo) or even serving as family emissaries overseas (Guillaume). These young men will never be on the cover of the Tabloid-type magazines (yes, Harry is already on the cover of one of our Tabloids here in the US, Monday night). It would be nice if there were a picture of Guillaume comforting Stephanie over her mother's death, or some sweet thing like that. Harry should look at these other young royal men and think about their way of life as something he could emulate. Or maybe that's not possible in the environments he lives in?

With all due respect, you're comparing apples with turnips. Amadeo and Guillaume could walk down 5th Avenue in New York and no-one would have a clue who they are. We have no idea what they do in their private time because the tabloids don't care enough to find out. Papparazzi don't follow them in every step they take. If they turned up at a pool party in Vegas none of the girls there would know that they're princes, so the chances of anyone selling information on them is almost zero.

Let's evaluate Harry's performance as a Prince. He's served in his grandmother's Armed Forces with distinction, including a stint on the frontline in the most dangerous place on earth, Afghanistan. By all accounts he's a top quality helicopter pilot, given the Army (which is seriously, seriously skint) are letting him fly Apache attack helicopters which each cost £35 million (55 million USD). He's done a lot for good causes including setting up his own charity to help children in Africa.

He comports himself very well while completing royal duties. He impressed everyone with a wonderful tour of HM's Caribbean realms for the Jubilee. The UK government asked him to visit Brazil on behalf of UK Trade and Investment, and Harry again thrilled everyone with the Culture Secretary saying:

“Prince Harry has the impact of 1,000 politicians. Watching him during his tour of the Caribbean and in Brazil, he is becoming an extraordinary phenomenon. He has not been on top of our list before as an ambassador, but seeing the electrifying effect he’s had here, his real connection with children and sport, shows just how he has taken to the role.”
He added that it “again shows what an asset the Royal family is”.

The British government now have plans to use Harry as much as possible (Army schedule permitting) to promote the UK abroad because he is considered such a huge asset.

Getting drunk while on a lads weekend, and having some fun in his hotel room in the buff changes none of this.
 
The Danish tabloid BT has a gallery of apparantly a new trend: A Facebook group called: Support Prince Harry with naked salute.

WARNING! Do not watch this gallery if you are disturbed by photos of persons who are less than dressed. (No fully nude or topless pics though).
Ny trend: Nøgen-honnør for prinsen | www.bt.dk

Don't say the British don't have a sense of humour. :lol:

---------------

Personally I think Harry's little - mishap - will be soon forgotten. If anything I think it will actually endear him even more to a large segment of the population, who are atracted to the fact that Harry is very much a human being, while they perhaps don't really relate to the more polished image of royalty in general.
However, if William had pulled this stunt, he would have been hit on the head with the big hammer!
But Harry can get away with a lot more than William, I think. Partly because he is the second Prince but also because he is Harry.
 
Last edited:
However, I will make a few comments. First, if one invites a group of strangers into their home, cavorts with said strangers, allows themselves to be photographed and then allows his guests to leave, then what happened is no longer "private." Said person invited the general public into his home and allowed them to photograph the occasion. Now, the pictures belong to those he invited.

As to your last comment, "How on earth is it anyone's business but his?" Well....That would be because he allowed the group (more than a couple) of, as you call them, "totally unscrupulous money-grabbing women" to take pictures of the evening and one of them decided to make them public.

I'm sorry, where is the proof that Harry 'allowed' himself to be photographed? If there were 25 people there, it's very, very easy for someone with a camera phone to snap a few pictures without arousing too much suspicion.

What would you have had Harry do? Confiscate this woman's phone? Refuse to let her leave the room until she handed it over? Obviously Harry's protection officers didn't search the people who were invited to the room, or their bags etc. with any degree of thoroughness, if they searched them at all. Apart from anything, that's a huge security risk and the officers in question will need to explain themselves.

I also find it very interesting that Prince Harry is just a poor, victimized, good natured, soldier boy out to blow off steam by getting drunk and naked with women he knows nothing about, but the women are "unscrupulous", "disgusting," and "money grubbing." It seems to me that the lack of scruples and disgusting behavior goes both ways. He treated them like objects and they treated him the same. Were they supposed to be so honored that he used them for the evening that they would just revere their pictures forever??? Prince Harry is reaping what he has sown.

As I've said previously in this discussion, Harry made a stupid mistake in inviting these people to his room. Evidently he'd had too much to drink and it clouded his judgement. His father has apparently let him know exactly what he thinks of his behaviour, and I'm sure his Commanding Officer will do the same.

The person who took these photos and sold them without the consent of the people at the party are absolutely beneath contempt. Whether there was a royal in that hotel room or not, she was invited into the private space of these people in good faith and betrayed their trust. Anyone who comes into contact with her in future will know that, for the right price, she won't hesitate in selling them out.

Where is the proof that Harry treated these women like objects? There's a heck of a lot of projecting going on here. The woman/women who took these photos and sold them for personal gain objectified themselves.
 
Last edited:
:previous: Evidence would suggest that posters are losing the plot on this thread!

Question: How do you know that Harry treated anyone, let alone the girls invited to the party, as objects.

Answer: For all the pontificating . . . you do not!

Please at least try to be objective and preface your opinions with IMO.

good post :) but in this thread it would be easier to preface the actual fact-posts (which are probably all on page 1 :) ) as there are very little actual facts and loads of opinions, 'what-if's and gossip

IMO, obviously :)
 
tea-n-tiaras said:
The definition of selfish is as follows:

self·ish/ˈselfiSH/
Adjective:
(of a person, action, or motive) Lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.

How would you characterize his motives? He invited complete strangers to his room to drink and disrobe? How would you characterize the girls' motives? As I said before, "He treated them like objects and they treated him the same." They were all in it for themselves.

Like Marg said you have no idea what went through these people's minds so you can't make such assumptions.

Believe it or not, men and women can party naked together without objectifying each other. Better yet, being nude does not automatically mean someone is less than human.

Its like going to a nude beach. Are those people objectifying themselves? There are a lot of people who see nudity as a completely natural state.
 
The Danish tabloid BT has a gallery of apparantly a new trend: A Facebook group called: Support Prince Harry with naked salute.

WARNING! Do not watch this gallery if you are disturbed by photos of persons who are less than dressed. (No fully nude or topless pics though).
Ny trend: Nøgen-honnør for prinsen | www.bt.dk

Don't say the British don't have a sense of humour. :lol:

---------------

Personally I think Harry's little - mishap - will be soon forgotten. If anything I think it will actually endear him even more to a large segment of the population, who are atracted to the fact that Harry is very much a human being, while they perhaps don't really relate to the more polished image of royalty in general.
However, if William had pulled this stunt, he would have been hit on the head with the big hammer!
But Harry can get away with a lot more than William, I think. Partly because he is the second Prince but also because he is Harry.

I think you are right, there Muhler. I also think if this were Beatrice or Eugenie, not only would they have been hit on the head with a hammer, they would have been forced to wear scarlet A's beneath their very fascinating fascinators. That is what makes me most angry about this incident.

I read a comment in another comment section that somewhere out there Fergie is relieved that this was not her! :ROFLMAO:
 
I think you are right, there Muhler. I also think if this were Beatrice or Eugenie, not only would they have been hit on the head with a hammer, they would have been forced to wear scarlet A's beneath their very fascinating fascinators. That is what makes me most angry about this incident.

I read a comment in another comment section that somewhere out there Fergie is relieved that this was not her! :ROFLMAO:

for me: had it been Zara Philips, i'd feel the same i do now; works hard, party to blow off steam, should be more careful who to party with
Beatrice/Eugenie i don't really know (well, not that i *know* any british royal...), but still don't think i'd be shocked about a blurry pic like this...

nudity for me just doesn't have the shock value that for instance violence or weapons have
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom