by The Laird o’Thistle
January 16 2005

Och! I just realized that I have probably become a middle-aged fogy! And it is all Prince Harry’s fault. In recent months I have been increasingly irritated and concerned by his partying and punch-outs with paparazzi, and even more concerned about his politically incorrect crush on that admittedly good-looking (and underdressed) lass from Zimbabwe, but this Nazi uniform incident is simply the final straw! Doesn’t the laddie “get it?” He is starting to come across as something of a privileged young thug. What are the kids of this generation coming to?!

But wait a minute… I am, after all, a slightly younger member of his dad’s generation…. Hmm.

Though they originated in the U.S., the broadly defined categories of Builder/Silent Generation, Baby Boom Generation, Generation X, and Millennium Generation have spread through much of the world. And I find them surprisingly apt in helping to understand the current generations of royals.

The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh are from the Builder/Silent generation, those born in the wake of WWI, who grew up through the Great Depression and fought (or – in the Queen’s case – all but fought) in WWII. They are patriotic, hard-working, and people of strong values. They emerged from the deepest darkest parts of the 20th-century abyss to rebuild and create the postwar world and carried us through and beyond the Cold War. In a very real sense, they have worked to hold it all together and pass it on.

The Queen’s elder children, Prince Charles and the Princess Royal, are classic elder baby-boomers. The Prince of Wales falls into roughly the same age range as Prime Minister Blair, and Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. Like the leading men of his generation, he can be idealistic, egotistical, and self-indulgent. But they can also work hard. Their generation grew up through the youth rebellion of the 60s, the anti-war movements, sex, drugs, and rock ‘n roll. Though not a self-identified “feminist”, the Princess Royal also shares some of the characteristics of the women of her generation in having fought her way to success beyond the traditional bounds of being a “proper” princess. She’s knocked hard on her own version of the glass ceiling, and broken through. For both the Prince and Princess, the world is less certain for them than for their parents, but it is also less restricted.

The Queen’s younger sons are either late “boomers” or early “X-ers”, and like their contemporaries, they seem sometimes somewhat adrift, and they can be rather self-centered and/or cynical. X-ers are said to be more dependent on their parents than boomers. Their growing-up world was more the mid to late-70s and early 80s. The Duke of York, of course, shared one of the most dramatic coming-of-age experiences of his era in the Falklands. And the Earl of Wessex made a classic X-move right out of the Royal Marines and into the theatre. Now both work for their mother and get accused — whether accurately or falsely, I don’t know — of not always pulling their weight.

William and Harry, in turn, are pretty clearly members of the Millennium Generation. The youth of this generation can either be extremely aware and together and care, or really pretty materialistic and self-centered. Some descriptions say that they try to grow up too fast, and lack good role models. They are also the kids of the most recent technological revolution. And they are the generation that stood at the cusp of adulthood on 9-11-01. Their world is linked by the internet, and it will be shaped by ongoing threats and fears of terror, and the increasing effects of global warming that sent the recent hurricane-force winter storms crashing into Scotland from the Atlantic. Some of the recent “good prince / bad prince” articles about the young princes seem tailor made to the contrasts in their generational profile.

And so, let me be clear that saying that the various royals are as much a product of their times and generations as of their other life circumstances does NOT explain away or excuse sheer youthful insensitivity and idiocy such as Prince Harry’s most recent escapade. But it does make me mindful that he was born in relation to World War II about like I was born in relation to World War I. Which is to say that it IS “ancient history” to his generation, and he really probably doesn’t “get it” at all. But he should. It also makes me mindful that when we look at the royals, the issues and problems we may choose to critique in them are often the issues of their whole generation “writ large,” and viewed from the perspective of our own generations to boot.

Once upon a time, in a very different world, it was not known that the children of George V shared some of the worst characteristics and vices of their generation, as well as some of the best and most heroic virtues. But they were very much the products of their era. Now we often seem to know far too much about the children and grandchildren of Elizabeth II. But under the microscope, we may forget that they still share the virtues and vices of the rest of us. When we point at them are we really pointing at ourselves in the mirror? (My Buddhist friends would say, “Yes!” And that if we don’t realize it, we’re in trouble.)

And as for Harry, if I were recommending the remedial program du jour, I’d say to send him over to his war veteran grandpa to have a good chat, and then trot him off with Philip to a British Legion meeting. The aspiring soldier would probably learn a lot, and that in very short order! And, if I were the Duke of Edinburgh, I would not fail to forcefully remind my grandson that his great-grandmother, Princess Alice, is one of the “Righteous Gentiles” memorialized in Israel’s most sacred shrine to the Holocaust, an honor she earned hiding Jews from the Nazis.

So — “for a’ that!” — as we begin 2005 I’d offer you a traditional Scots’ toast:

“Here’s tae us!
Wha’s like us?
Damn few… more’s the pity.”

– Ken Cuthbertson