Helicopters, hot air… and hypocrisy of Prince Harry
By Paul Homewood
Finally somebody has had the courage to highlight the latest royal hypocrisy.
Step forward, Amanda Platell:
The bewildered boy who walked behind the coffin of his mother, Princess Diana, became a man in our eyes when we learned he had been secretly embedded in Helmand Province in 2008.
Prince Harry later did a second tour of duty in Afghanistan as a co-pilot in an Apache helicopter, a role in which he distinguished himself. How ironic, then, that it was a helicopter this week that brought him crashing to earth.
Just two days before Harry made his impassioned speech to 12,000 children, urging them to act on climate change, he took a private helicopter from London to Birmingham for two brief official engagements.
True, he saved himself half an hour in travelling time. But the flight cost around £6,000 and a massive carbon footprint, whereas he could have got a first-class train ticket for £34.
And don’t forget that, despite the fact he implored the children to save the planet, his wife Meghan happily flew in a private jet last month to New York for a £300,000 baby shower party — even though she presents herself as a fervent anti-poverty campaigner.
It’s all very well for Harry and Meghan to embark on a preachy crusade, telling people to set high ethical standards and save the world from climate change and poverty, but nothing corrodes the credibility of a Royal faster than a ‘do as I say, don’t do as I do’ mentality.
It’s the sense of entitlement and privilege that is so ill-judged. Even Harry’s uncle, Air Miles Andy, who’s been vilified for his love of jets and helicopters, has the sense never to tell us how to behave.
By doing so, Harry risks comparison with eco-warriors such as Bono and Leonardo DiCaprio, who cross the world in private jets as they lecture us about climate change.
Harry should not be embracing the New Age nonsense of California. He’d do better to seek inspiration from the people of the Cotswolds, or Coventry, Cumbria, or Cornwall.
Harry should model himself not on the likes of George Clooney, but someone like George VI, his great-grandfather, a reluctant monarch who overcame a crippling speech impediment out of a sense of duty to his people.
Harry has already done wonderful things — championing the HIV Aids charity Sentebale, crusading against landmines, putting together the Invictus Games for injured servicemen and women.
But his decision to lecture us about the world without practising what he preaches is a grave error. We want the old Harry back — we loved him the way he was.
I suspect that Harry has been very badly advised in taking up his father’s obsession with climate change. I very much doubt it would have been something he thought up himself.
Either way, he risks making himself and his family a laughing stock.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
I think “badly advised” is probably right, just as a lot of other people have allowed themselves to be badly advised on the subject of climate and environmentalism in general. And the worst aspect of that bad advice is that they have fallen for the vested interests of what is very close to a cult and beliefs which the majority of people do not follow anyway.
It’s not hypocrisy; to be a hypocrite you must know the laws and apply them to other people while refusing to apply them to yourself. This is simply a lack of self awareness and a lack of understanding. I’m not going to criticise Harry for using a helicopter rather than taking a £34 ticket to Birmingham (though his grandmother is reputed to have once sent her eldest out to find a lost dog lead!). Contrary to popular belief it is not my money he is spending.
And he almost certainly does not identify the good he does (and he does good, as Platell says) as having any connection with his support for action on climate. Because — I suspect — like many of the high profile supporters, which includes his father and probably most politicians, he simply assumes a) that all climate modellers are scientists; b) that all scientists are honest; and c) that since caring for the environment is a Good Thing, Greenpeace and WWF and FoE are to be trusted to tell the truth. And his relatively piffling emissions — if he considers them at all — are more than offset by the actions that people take because of his encouragement.
(And I’d bet my pension that the above-mentioned NGOs are more than happy to have him believe that. It’s our emissions they want to control, not his. At least for as long as he is one of their “useful idiots”!)
Sorry, cannot accept a part of your argument. He goes ahead and lectures young people on climate change issues, then goes straight against that with his helicopter flight. Yes, he was badly advised but he must accept responsibility for his actions which most green people, such as his father do not do. What example is he setting for all those people he lectured? It makes him as bad as Al Gore etc.
I did had a lot of time for him, but not now, unless he fires his advisor on this, which I doubt will happen. He will just continue like his father, acting in a hypocritical way.
Interesting article on ‘Notrickszone’ today about how German research has identified that while millennials are concerned about climate change, they are not prepared to do anything personally about it and cut their own CO2 footprint. We are surrounded by in all directions by green hypocrites.
Well said, Mike. You said pretty much what I wanted to say – and very much better. The sad thing is that Charles was indoctrinated by the likes of (early on) Van der Post, and later, Porritt. And then he must have allowed these people (along with Attenborough) to influence his children.
I would have far more respect for William and Harry if they had decided to test their father’s beliefs rather than take them as gospel. Then again, if Harry is not a ‘believer’ he can’t be a hypocrite. 🙂
And to an extent Porritt, I believe, recanted in later life as did Moore and Lovelock.
I’m afraid I can’t agree with you, keith, though I may not have expressed myself very well. I don’t think you can be fully held responsible for your actions when you don’t recognise what the consequences of those actions are. And as I said, if FoE and others fly off to climate conferences then it must be OK for me to fly as well if, on balance, I’m doing my bit “for the planet”.
Somebody with more clout than we have needs to sit him down an spell it out in detail — not taking any side in the climate debate, just on the “if you believe this then these are the reasons for not doing that” basis, THEN he becomes a hypocrite!!
“By doing so, Harry risks comparison with eco-warriors such as Bono and Leonardo DiCaprio, who cross the world in private jets as they lecture us about climate change.”
There are legions of hypocrites on climate, with homes, cars, lifestyles, with or without jets: Al Gore, John Kerry, Bernie Sanders, Bill McKibben, Mr. Obama and all those who attend the seemingly endless Climate Change conferences. And now we have new climate “experts”…Ms. AOC with Ed Markey and school children? But, what’s the point of repeating what is obvious if the media doesn’t step forward to do it? Amanda is risking some derisive attacks from the green alarmists.
“he risks making himself and his family a laughing stock.”
The family already are when it comes to the environment & common sense.
Whilst I admire our Queen for her adaptation to a country far removed from the one she ‘inherited’ I have no time whatsoever for her family.
It’s now time for them to return their lands and titles to the country and retire the concept of a monarchy in the UK.
No, they are for some a tourist attraction, so all the time they bring money in to the coutry I would leave them be.
Yes. However we must think back to The Commonwealth period when we had a dictator.
Cromwell tried a sort of Republican government. He became sadly disillusioned.
I expect WordPress will put this answer to A C Osborn in another place. I’m commenting from another time zone .perhaps that is what goes wrong. I’m off WordPress again after years of tussling with it.
I’ll just read the blog.
They already are a joke. Charles has been jabbering to plants for years. He was blathering on about plastic the other day and how he doesn’t use any. What about your spent shot gun cartridges Charlie?
What about all the times during the past 20 years you’ve said we only have 18 months left to save the world and yet we are still here. Their freebie lifestyles have made them lose touch with reality.
Don’t forget his belief in homeopathy: it’s a fundamental indicator of someone’s lack of intellect and critical faculties.
We all laugh at the Royal Family’s belief in homeopathy, yet Queen Mum lived to over 100, the current Queen and her consort are both in their 90s and still carrying on visits and official duties at an age when the rest of us will either be dead or drooling and bedridden.
There is nothing wrong with homeopathy and it does have its place alongside conventional medicine. Cancer doctors in the states use some good old fashion homeopathy to alleviate some of the symptoms of chemo and radiation.
They live so long because they get private healthcare immediately when they need it. They don’t have the stress most people have. They never have to worry about money and they have their backsides wiped from cradle to grave. That’s why they live longer. It’s no homeopathic mystery!
Harry’s advisers. Maybe included in that coterie could be a certain Californian ex-actor of Canadian descent?
Given that the vast majority of our politicians are so feeble and lacking in ability and common sense, it is a potential hidden strength of a monarchy to provide an alternative leadership, most particularly when the politicians are exposed as the charlatans they are. It is for this reason that it is disappointing when the royals allow themselves to be captured by the same narrow lines of thinking as the politicians.
Historically we have had ways of limiting the impact of our less suitable monarchs by finding ways to get rid of them or otherwise neutralise them. Harry is of course very unlikely to succeed to the monarchy, for all that he remains a prominent royal. When we over-neutralise the monarchy, we also create no reason for them to be responsible. When we treat them as mere celebrities they will echo other celebrities who have typically gained their position in ways that are not remotely linked to being leaders in society in a true sense. Historically, they were taught statecraft from an early age: they were brought up to the job. Harry needs to look to his aunt for an example.
The trouble is that the Royal Family is not allowed to reply to your attacks on their intelligence.
This can be deduced from the extremely odd headlines in Women’s Magazines like NO IDEA…( not the right name).
These are not contradicted though they are often extremely damaging and libellous
Attacking those who cannot reply is not an honourable way to argue.
No I’m not a fan. I see the headlines in the supermarket magazine shelves along with those which predict Global Catastrophe NOW… I don’t purchase them either.
If they don’t want to be attacked, they could try shutting up about controversial topics.
Then you are in favour of attacking the views of other people and making them shut up. You could soon join all the other totalitarians. This is how they start. They all seem reasonable at first.
What have you been smoking?
We started with Harry lecturing us about global warming, and then repeatedly doing the opposite.
When we point out the hypocrsiy, we are criticised of totalitarianism!
I would remind you that the Queen has steered clear of anything controversial during her reign, for very good reasons.
Harry and William in my view have been very badly advised to embrace ” politically correct causes”. It will be very damaging in the end to the Royal Family
Sorry to annoy you. .
I was born at a time when freedom of speech even for extreme views was valued. I remember going many times to hear speakers in Hyde Park who recommended extreme views.
Obviously Britain is going down another road, now, where nutty ideas on global warming cannot be spoken or written without calumny.
I don’t like those views myself
and I’m definitely not a follower of Royal Family news.
My concern is freedom of speech for every one even them. Potty or not.
However I was pleased to note this.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1097845/prevent-strategy-terror-extremist-speakers-university-hate-speech-court-of-appeal
Dear Paul Homewood. I realise that you thought I was commenting on your article about Prince Harry. I was replying to
-if they don’t want to be attacked, they could try shutting up about controversial topics.- Old Brew.
So I think WordPress has struck again 🙂 I don’t trust it!
Prince Harry married a left coast liberal which did not help his cred. Those t.v. and movie people are constantly a contradiction in terms. They are the biggest hypocrites in the world. Self righteous hot air bags. When you point out their hypocrisy they become indignant. I wonder if Dutchess Megan has completed her remake of Prince Harry and convinced him to totally become a vegan?
Prince Charles has been desperately seeking for relevance his whole life. No wonder the Queen hangs on.