|
Almost all the fuss over Harry Windsor's visit to Las Vegas in the United
States these days is about his (sex being relevant here) naked antics
during a game of strip billiards.
The great majority of media did and do not spend even one word on the fact (if
may believe the rare source which does) that Windsor, called "Prince Harry" by
monarchists, spent more than 50 million dollars (?) during a few days' stay in
Las Vegas.
How much more, Harry only knows, for the 50 million dollars, or else perhaps
dimes or cents, were merely the amount of money
(sex being irrelevant here) lost or, rather, was taken for in one game of
poker.
Everyone has the right to have fun, with ot without clothes, so long as they do
not impose themselves on others, who have the right to the same kind of fun, a
different kind of fun or no fun at all, as they prefer.
Harry Windsor did not impose
on others: the young man put on his birthday suit during a private party.
(How infinitely more likable than donning a Nazi uniform.)
It is the ones who took the pictures of him in the nude and who abused this
person's hospitality by handing them over to the press who are in the wrong.
They are to blame for his nudity having unwillingly --i
suppose-- become public.
In itself there was nothing wrong with Windsor's nudity among those who wanted
and were allowed to be there; nothing to be ashamed of; nothing that deserves
the public's special attention, let alone an obsessive media hype.
Windsor's Vegas hotel escapade may very much deserve the private special
attention of a girlfriend who thought to be the only one and now feels
'humiliated', it is none of other people's business.
If this was 'the best time of Harry's life' and if Harry will be 'back in two
months', let Harry have it and let Harry do it (provided he accepts being
dumped by those who are not fond of his type of frolicking).
Everyone has the right, too, to spend whatever amount of money they have on
whatever type of pleasure.
If the right is a legal right, then the condition is that the person concerned
owns the money legally; if the right is a moral right, then that the person
concerned owns it morally.
We may assume that Harry owned the money legally, or else that the Windsor
family owned it.
With that money this Briton can rent a hotel suite for £4,750 per night, buy
women, and plenty of Grey Goose vodka or any other legal drug.
Pace Shakespeare, i hope the alcohol will provoke the desire without taking
away the performance.
('Cause drink, Sir, it provokes, and unprovokes.)
But to what extent can someone be of the opinion that 'e can entirely
morally spend excessive amounts of money on games of poker in a world
in which ... in which ... in which ...?
Here different people will fill in the gaps with different things, but they
will find it terribly easy to think of three things to start with.
Add to this that British monarchists force the British taxpayer to spend
£120 million a year on the security of Harry Windsor's family alone, and there
definitely is something else than taking off his own (or his partner's) last
garment that is blatantly wrong with this party-loving jet-setting descendant
of
Margaretha van Mechelen
(or, should you have a different frame of reference, 'the Queen').
Whereas the courtiers of what monarchists call "The Royal Family" desperately
tried to prevent the publication in the UK of the private pictures of Harry
playing in the nude with young women, they did not attempt in any comparable
way to ban the publication of the private story of Harry playing ducks and
drakes with money.
By associating the erotic or even nudity per se with something bordering upon
obscenity that was and had to remain private the Windsor family and their
supporters thus managed to focus all attention on the innocent part of Harry's
reckless behavior, while Harry's abominable squandering of millions in a short
time, the really obscene part of that behavior, was tactically kept out of the
global limelight.
To others this drinking and gambling Windsor's squandering of money would be no
more than conclusive evidence that 'e had free disposal of unusual riches.
Now, Harry is not only a playboy: this person also donated to and even
co-founded about twenty or so charities.
Look at it and it is an impressive list indeed!
One should hope, however, that the total picture is not similar to that
displayed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons).
They spent about 1 billion dollars on charitable causes between 1985 and 2008
of the Christianist Era --an impressive sum of money indeed!
But by doing so the Church was merely donating 0.7 (nought point seven) percent
of its annual income to charitable causes.
God knows what they were spending the rest on.
On poker games, perhaps?
67.MSE
My use of figures provided by others does not mean that i do not consider
a certain figure incredible myself.
But even if a figure like the 50 million dollars quoted above turned out
to be something like 5.0 or 0.5 million, it would still be out of all
proportion.
For Harry Windsor's 'blowing the Royal bank account' i made use of PRINCE
HARRY LOSES $50 MILLION IN VEGAS at http://weeklyworldnews.com/.
For the information on the Mormon Church see Research Report: How
Secular Humanists (and Everyone Else) Subsidize Religion in the United
States in Free Inquiry, June/July 2012.
I have alluded to Shakepeare's Macbeth, Act II, Scene III, in which
Macduff asks, "What three things does drink especially provoke?" and the
porter answers, "Marry, Sir, nose-painting, sleep and urine. Lechery, Sir,
it provokes, and unprovokes; it provokes the desire, but it takes away the
performance".
|
|
|
