Last week a video emerged showing Prince Harry referring to one of his fellow soldiers, an Asian man, as a ‘Paki’, whilst he was training with the British Army. This was subsequently followed by an official statement, telling of an apology from the Prince himself who seemingly felt great remorse for his comments. Indeed, viewed subjectively, it seems clear that the Prince himself is not a racist. His remarks were more than likely meant in jest, with the Prince himself stating that the video was intended for his fellow cadets, and that the victim was a close friend.

However, this is besides the point. If one takes the use of the word ‘Paki’ objectively, then there is a clear difficulty in accepting the Prince’s apology and following Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s approach of ‘…giving him the benefit of the doubt’. Whilst Prince Harry has indeed done many wonderful things for charity, in addition to demonstrating his bravery in the Afghanistan last year, it is difficult to forgive the Prince quite so easily.

This emanates from two factors. The first is the Prince’s position as a member of the Royal Family. Whilst one cannot underestimate the difficulties of growing up in such a bright spotlight, there are certain considerations which must be deliberated by a 19 year old man in such a position. One such consideration is the choice of language. The prince has absolutely no right to use racist terminology. In fact, by using such the Royal Family is cast in a patronising, somewhat Draconian light: several years of disassociating themselves with the upper echelons of society, and moving to portray themselves a family of ‘the people’ have become undone. Harry’s use of language begs the question, just how uneducated and socially inept are the Royal Family to think it acceptable, albeit aged 19, to use such language. If you were to ask any 19 year old university student if they would contemplate using the word ‘Paki’, even in a so -called ‘friendly’ sense, then the response would be overwhelmingly negative. In fact, before the prince’s video was published, such a question itself would be branded racist.

The second factor is the negative effects this could have on recruitment in the armed forces. In recent years there has been a strong drive to void the army of racism, with persons of various ethnic backgrounds being encouraged to sign up. In many ways, this drive has been successful, and the results have been very welcome, reflecting a strong desire in the 21st century to eradicate racism across the whole of the governmental spectrum. Yet, in an official statement proceeding the release of the video, we learned that Prince Harry’s terminology was “…without any malice and as a nickname about a highly popular member of his platoon.” If such nicknames are acceptable in Army life, and the video is a reflection of the British services, then it begs the question: why would any member of an ethnic minority wish to subscribe to an accepted form of racism?

Prince Harry is not a racist, that I do believe, but his comments to the world at large were. As the victim’s father said, Harry is a ‘coward’ for hiding behind an official statement from Clarence house. Instead, what is needed is a full video apology, with the Prince detailing his remorse, and further still, rebuilding his image as a role model by stating the need to eradicate racism, no matter how casual, from all aspects of life.