Maybe This Post Is Such A Downer Because I Had To Walk Home In The Rain Without A Jacket. Or Maybe People Just Need To Take A Fistfull Of Chill Pills.

So, I went to the Robin Hood Beer Festival once again, and once again I was met with the sour, feculent taste of disappointment. That being said, thank goodness it's a long festival. The first day I went (last Thursday) was, in the words of everyone's favorite Kazakh reporter, 

GREAT SUCCESS.

Lots of good beer and ale to be had. The food was decent, if not English enough for me. (I just wanted a pasty-serving tent. That's all! Is it too much to ask?) I had a good time and ran into many friends. I even made a few temporary ones. It reminded me of the good ol' times at Capital Ale House (except more festive and less expensive.) It was so good I was raring to go the next day. Unfortunately, when I showed up on Friday for a mate's birthday, I queued for almost two hours only to find out that they were at capacity. I was roughly 20 feet away from the entrance when they gave me this news. This is even worse than last year when I showed up on a Saturday only to find out they had RUN OUT OF BEER by 5 PM. (The festival goes until 11 PM.) And that's the Robin Hood Beer Festival for me. Ups and Downs. Strike and Gutters. Star Trek Movie marathons and reality television.

Oddly enough, my upheaval over the (to me) mis-management of what's otherwise a crackerjack beer festival is nothing compared to reaction to the faux-documentary that is to be aired this week on BBC 4. Some of you may have heard of this, others unsurprisingly will have not. The Taking of Prince Harry is a documentary-like film that imagines what would happen if Harry were to be captured by the Taliban while serving in Afghanistan. Apparently at some point he gets mock-executed, or so the Daily Mail tells me. The film has become so controversial that UK Forces Chief (I'm giggling whilst I type this name) Jock Stirrup has asked for a banning of the film. Wowsers! Sounds like a doozy! Am I gonna watch this movie? Oh, you betcha. (Sarah Palin does NOT have a monopoly on this quaint American expression. Somebody watch Fargo and tell me she does) It could be tasteless as all hell, but then again, it might do the job well. 

But why are Brits getting their knickers in a twist? To use the most over-used and cliche phrase in academia, let's unpack this.

The British royal family, including Harry, is rather unhappy with this development. That's somewhat understandable to me. Harry's a human being and the thought of his abduction is probably a really uncomfortable and unwanted thought for his loved ones. Also, there is some speculation that al Queda, or any other fanatical anti-imperialist proverbial boogieman you wish to name, will... act on this? What? Wait. Maybe. There was a Die Hard movie about destroying America by causing technological breakdown on a massive scale, but the only uproar there was over it's lack of an R rating. Nobody cared that it might give terrorists ideas. (They likely already thought of that one, anyway.) I don't think you can say that terrorists are going to suddenly be inspired to abduct someone because they saw a movie on the BBC. Especially since Harry isn't even IN Afghanistan any more. Is it disrespectful? Probably not any more so than the many war films that have come out in the last 10 years.

So why would people, other than Harry's family, LEGITIMATELY get upset about his hypothetical capture and execution. Surely it isn't because he's a real person. Replace Prince Harry with Tony Blair and ask "who cares?" The reality in and of itself is not the problem. It boils down to a matter of nationalism, or so I believe. I think it's fair to say that nationalism is on the rise in England. The recently climbing popularity of the British National Party (thankfully still at a marginal level) demonstrates this. And what is Harry if not one of the Ultimate symbols for the United Kingdom. Although the film is merely hypothetical it is seen as an attack on one of the foremost icons of Britishness. 

Personally, think it's asking an important question. Although not the main impetus for the War of 1914, the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand played no small part in spurring Europeans, Canadians, Turks and Arabs (and for a very brief time Americans) into a bloody, alliance-bound free-for-all. The meat grinder as an old professor of mine used to call it. Surely with France neck deep in riotous anarchy and ongoing war in an old British colonial haunt, it's conceivable that even the capture (to say nothing of execution) of Harry would send enough Brits into a frothing, and ultimately for Europe, destabilizing rage. Or it might not. Who knows? But just because some panties are getting twisted over it doesn't mean it's not an important question. In fact, these days I assume that the more underoos rendered into a bunch by a question, the more likely that question needs asking. 

And for all that speculation and the outrage of some Britons, I peer over the channel and thank my lucky stars and garters that I'm not over in the French quagmire of rioting, gas(petrol) shortages and violence. Bon chance Nick and Chiew-Fong.

Sometimes the madness is too much for me to ignore.

- Jonathan "At Least I'M Doing Well" Trenary