Across the pond

The first ten minutes of the BBC 6 o-clock Television News tonight was spent with latest shocking news about the Royal Family. Whereas we all thought that Prince Harry, the second in line to succeed Queen Elisabeth II, was chasing the girls on the Mayfair party circuit, has been ‘secretly’ fighting on the British front line in Afghanistan. There was a lot of publicity in November because the army deemed it was too dangerous to allow Prince Harry to indulge in war games in Iraq. But apparently they allowed him to go to the other war theatre in Afghanistan in December.

Given their past record on such matters, it is no surprise that the British press agreed not to tell the British public what was happening. More surprisingly the mainstream international media also agreed to keep it under wraps. Until today, when the Drudge report broke the story on its website.

The BBC was dutifully shocked by the irresponsible behaviour of these so-called journalists. Their ten-minute packagge included the boss of the army expressing his ‘diappointment’ at this dastardly behaviour. But most of it was devoted to BBC films of Harry on the front line, firing his gun with that inimitable soppy smile on his face. And extracts from a long interview with Harry about his desire to do his bit like an ordinary soldier.

 But of course he is not an ordinary soldier.

But what I find shocking is not Harry’s behaviour. It is the behaviour of the media in agreeing not to mention it. And the behaviour of the Royal advisers who don’t seem to realise that unlike that other Harry who led the troops at the battle of Agincourt, the presence of any member of the front line in 2008 is a drain on national resources and a distraction from defeating the enemy.

How many other troops had to be deployed to make sure Harry was in no real danger while he fired off his rounds?

And what on earth was the British press doing in agreeing to conceal what was happening.

Parliament and the people should surely be in on the debate about what our currently rather enormous Royal Family should be doing on our behalf. They could do far more for the economy if they went in advertising or television. They would be far better role models for the younger generation if they went into some of those less well paid public sector jobs, like the Civil Service or school teaching.

The media should be leading this kind of debate. But, of course, Royals in suits travelling on the tube to Westminster offices or teaching kids in schools in the East End do not make such exciting television pictures as men in uniform exploding shells against the Taliban in the beautiful mountains of Afghanistan.