Last week would not have been a good week for the government and people of the United Kingdom—undoubtedly one of the greater democracies in the world—with which Guyana and the rest of the Caribbean Community have very long and generally good relations, warts and all.
But the worrying factors that have developed include the government in London–over the very important issue of “inviolability” of sovereignty of  diplomatic missions— and, separately for Buckingham Palace, as well as the government, the unmistakable shocking embarrassment caused by Prince Harry.
Queen Elizabeth’s grandson was secretly photographed in the nude, cavorting in his hotel suite during a party  in Las Vegas and it all soon came splashing across the world..
The major political issue of “inviolability” relates to Britain’s declaration of likely use of police power to enter Ecuador’s embassy in London to take custody of the highly controversial ‘Wikileaks’ founder, Julian Assange.
He has been holed up since June in the embassy awaiting requested political asylum, which has since been granted by Ecuador. But Prime Minister David Cameron’s administration received no comfort from a special meeting on Friday of Foreign Ministers of the Organisation of American States (OAS).
Once disagreement over language in the  text had been resolved, the substantive position adopted in support of inviolability of diplomatic missions was reinforced in the OAS Foreign Ministers’ decision that was a primary contention of the Ecuadorean government.
As indicated in our editorial on this issue last Sunday, the hope is that mutual respect and mature political initiatives would trump arrogance and intemperate language, to make it possible for the governments of both nations to now strive to speedily resolve the row involving Assange .
Differently, and quite unrelated, we can appreciate the deep concerns of both the United Kingdom Government and  Buckingham Palace about the spreading infectious international curiosity over Prince Harry’s moment of indiscretion in romping in the nude in his hotel suite.
He was to quickly discover the shock and grief caused  by the big publicity prize unwisely provided for some of his “guests”, who quietly resorted to the latest in cellphone technologies for easy transfer to print and electronic media, in addition, of course, websites across the world, including that of the Hollywood-based TMZ, focused on celebrities.
Buckingham Palace came forward with a stern warning to the UK media against violating the privacy of the 27-year-old crowd-pleasing popular Prince. But Rupert Murdoch’s “The Sun” lost no time in breaking ranks and rolled off millions of copies under the jeering headline: “Heir it is”—-a souvenir printed edition”.
“Heir’, is in witty reference to succession to the British Throne, and as substitute for “here”—the nude photos the newspaper chose to publish in defiance of the warning from Buckingham Palace and the growing hundreds of complaints lodged with Britain’s Press Complaint against the printed photos..
Some may laugh and enjoy, others may rightly express their disappointment over the indiscretion shown by the effervescent ‘Prince charming’. But it’s difficult to ignore the contention of calculated violations of the Prince’s privacy. After all, he undressed himself , along with others, in the privacy  of his hotel suite and was not on a public parade for publicity.