Prince Harry - Spare

[Katy]

Does anyone want to discuss this book?  I know he had the help of a ghostwriter, but I was amazed. It’s the best book I’ve read in a long time. 

[Kassia]

I'd like to discuss it but waited too long to put it on hold at our library and now I'm almost #400 on the waiting list!  😂

[Faith-manor]

I have not read it. I am in the middle of doing a lot of sewing so haven't had any time to consider if I want to buy it or not. I have read some of the released excerpts and Harry quotes from interviews.

My opinion of the royal family, as a whole, and particularly as parents is in the sewer. I consider Charles and Camilla to be basically, sewer rats! 

Historically, spare, male heirs have just always been treated like total crap in ruling families so nothing he would say about his experiences would shock me. What I wish for him is to recognize that his family is toxic and thoroughly dysfunctional. They are never going to upend the Institution, they are never going to truly change, and they will continue to be toxic. Accept it. Grieve. Stop pandering for acceptance and love that they will never give. These stunted people don't have the emotional capacity nor desire to give it. He can't really have a relationship with them. Get therapy, cut them off, and build a new life. He has the opportunity to do an amazing thing for Archie and Lillibet. He can give them a life outside of the Institution which is a great gift. 

My sister said that part and parcel of all the wars and crusades in Europe during the Middle Ages was a need for the Lords of the land to have something to do with their extra sons since they would not be inheriting. Those sons could win land and reputation by waging war or have it gifted to them by the church for going on a crusade, and all that jazz. If they were killed off, at least they weren't back home jealous and fighting with their oldest brother and plotting against the heir. I have no idea if this is true. She lives in France and reads a lot of French history books! However, with the abject stupidity and inhumanity of the system, I could also see that really being the reason behind a lot of the warring. 

I will be checking in from time to time to see where the discussion goes.

[SKL]

I'm glad it is well-written, but I don't plan to read it.

I'm thinking the sequel should be called "cry me a river."  Or maybe "et tu, media ... totally didn't see that coming."

[Katy]

I expected from the few interviews and excerpts that I saw for it to be a vastly different book than it is. It’s breathtakingly honest. 

[Indigo Blue]

8 minutes ago, Katy said:

I expected from the few interviews and excerpts that I saw for it to be a vastly different book than it is. It’s breathtakingly honest. 

I put it on my Kindle app. The reviews and excerpts are good. 

[Scarlett]

I have been focused on the Idaho murders but I have seen a few videos where it all seems to sound whiny and trivial.  
 

I mean……I get that they wanted out…..but they are out now.  How much more can they tell?  And to what end?  

[Harriet Vane]

I think it's a terrible thing when a family is also a public institution. Decisions are made based on the institution, not on the needs of the individuals of the family. There's a whole huge host of people wielding influence over family dynamics and decisions. I see this dynamic in foster care, quite frankly. Often the needs of the individual are subsumed under the needs and desires of the team managing the family. It's really an awful, unhealthy thing. So I'm not surprised that there is pain in growing up in a royal family or in any family that is focused on being a public institution of any sort.

I haven't read the book and I keep waffling. I have a foolish fascination with the British royals because of I adore British literature and culture (always have). British literature was the main focus of my major in college. So I want to read the book and yet I don't want to jump on the hype. I'll probably read it, though...

[Katy]

1 minute ago, Scarlett said:

I have been focused on the Idaho murders but I have seen a few videos where it all seems to sound whiny and trivial.  
 

I mean……I get that they wanted out…..but they are out now.  How much more can they tell?  And to what end?  

Oh so much. The bits I saw made it seem like they were whiny too. But the book is not whiny. In fact, Meghan’s not in it as much as you might think. It’s much more about death and grief and isolation and numbing himself to avoid feeling about it, and the many ways his family (even his grandmother) betrayed him over & over to get negative attention off of themselves and onto anyone else. It wasn’t tolerable before, but then it escalated.

I suspect that even if Harry had never married he wouldn’t have stayed. The dynamic was too toxic and he is too much his mother’s child. He was always going to push back. And frankly Charles made it clear he wouldn’t support Harry’s family BEFORE they got engaged but after Harry was committed and facing larger security threats than anyone else. Charles (and Camilla’s press secretary) wanted to plant negative stories about Harry to get negative attention off of themselves but not protect any of them. 

William comes off as if he was always a petulant child who is just as entitled and awful as his father. 

[happi duck]

28 minutes ago, Katy said:

I expected from the few interviews and excerpts that I saw for it to be a vastly different book than it is. It’s breathtakingly honest. 

I look forward to reading it!  Everyone I know who's read or reading it says the same thing you've said here.

[Katy]

Just now, Harriet Vane said:

I think it's a terrible thing when a family is also a public institution. Decisions are made based on the institution, not on the needs of the individuals of the family. There's a whole huge host of people wielding influence over family dynamics and decisions. I see this dynamic in foster care, quite frankly. Often the needs of the individual are subsumed under the needs and desires of the team managing the family. It's really an awful, unhealthy thing. So I'm not surprised that there is pain in growing up in a royal family or in any family that is focused on being a public institution of any sort.

I haven't read the book and I keep waffling. I have a foolish fascination with the British royals because of I adore British literature and culture (always have). British literature was the main focus of my major in college. So I want to read the book and yet I don't want to jump on the hype. I'll probably read it, though...

I totally agree. I highly recommend the audiobook. Harry reads it himself 

[gardenmom5]

As long as you realize there are documented facts which contradict the book, as well as he has contradicted himself.

 

I think the book should have been named Spite.

[Katy]

8 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

As long as you realize there are documented facts which contradict the book, as well as he has contradicted himself.

 

I think the book should have been named Spite.

Every documented fact I saw reported as wrong wasn’t in the book that way at all. Quite the opposite. Do you have something specific? 

[Faith-manor]

13 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

As long as you realize there are documented facts which contradict the book, as well as he has contradicted himself.

 

I think the book should have been named Spite.

I think anyone raised by that sewer rat, Charles, and subjected to the insidious control of the institution, can write a book and call it whatever they want. He may contradict himself, we humans often do when we are in pain and grieving, but that disgusting excuse of a family, deserves what they get. I would be fine with someone outing the queen for continually protecting her rapist son, Randy Andy, and any other of the gross things she did. She was not some nice, sweet old lady. The list of atrocities committed against her offspring is truly gross.

The royal institution, by design, is inherently narcissistic and depraved.

Edited January 12, 2023 by Faith-manor

[Grace Hopper]

17 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

William comes off as if he was always a petulant child who is just as entitled and awful as his father. 

Wasn’t William also a child affected profoundly by grief?

[Katy]

Just now, Grace Hopper said:

Wasn’t William also a child affected profoundly by grief?

Yes. 

[Faith-manor]

4 minutes ago, Grace Hopper said:

Wasn’t William also a child affected profoundly by grief?

Yes, and due to that and his own admission to the problems associated, he had been active in highlighting the need for better and more accessible mental health treatment, particularly for children. That had been one of his charitable endeavors.

These boys were absolutely traumatized by the way the old lady and their pervert father handled Diana's death. It would be awful for any kid. Those morons made it a million times worse with their stupid "image protection" and simply not giving a sh#t because well, narcissism. 

[MercyA]

Ha. I'm  #1,465 on the hold list. 32 copies available.

[Mrs Tiggywinkle Again]

I bought it, haven’t read it yet. It’s on my kindle to start today.  I admit to a fascination with the BRF as a historical legacy so I follow the news fairly closely though it can be hard to find unbiased pieces.

My problem with Harry and Meghan is that they have enormous privilege and aren’t using it for any truly worthwhile purposes.  And they’ve contradicted themselves far too much in public interviews.  

For private citizens who want to remain private, they spend a lot of time trying to stay in the public arena.

And overall I think QEII and Charles handled the entire situation much better than Queen Margrethe of Denmark did when stripping her son and his family of titles last year.

[Farrar]

I also haven't read it, but you've intrigued me more than I thought I would be, Katy. Grief over the loss of his parent is a way more interesting topic than what the media has made the book out to be like. But then that makes me feel like maybe some of the leaked tawdry bits would have been better left out.

I'm generally inclined to be sympathetic to the Sussexes in the broadest sense. They're also not that interesting or amazing that I have a celebrity crush, but... whatever. I have no trouble believing that they got mistreated by the system and the British press and it seems especially appalling that they seem to have had their security taken away without being given much time to make a plan of their own. But the way they keep trading on their experience with the public feels pathetic to me. It's like, sure, "they" don't want you to move on, but as long as you keep rehashing everything, you also aren't letting yourselves move on. You say you want to go off and do good in the world, then okay, go do that.

[footballmom]

I don’t plan on reading it, I can only imagine the depths of grief, trauma and betrayal. I’m sure it’s heartbreaking. However, in my very humble opinion, pleading for privacy and doing media interviews and writing a book exposing your family which you know the family will not refute anything you decide to say, is not a book I’d like to invest time in reading. 

[Katy]

The thing is the book makes it pretty clear he never really wanted privacy or to be out of the public eye. He likes using his influence to support causes he loves. What he really wanted was for the press to at least try to be fair. Or to be held accountable through legal means if necessary. It wasn’t until he was married that he realized he could hire an attorney on his own rather than going through the palace. 

[Katy]

Ok I googled. The inaccuracies include which video game system his mother left him and where he was when his great grandmother died. Neither are of consequence and both are in line with the way human memory works. He also specifically & repeatedly mentions his memory about many things are fuzzy after his mother died. 

[fraidycat]

I am rather astounded at the number of people here who are unable to distinguish between privacy to go about their daily lives without being photographed and followed in their own homes/yards and making a CHOICE to give a public interview or appearance.

Where has the critical thinking gone?

I haven't read the book yet, but would like to soon. Long wait at the library, so I might buy it.

[Farrar]

3 minutes ago, Katy said:

The thing is the book makes it pretty clear he never really wanted privacy or to be out of the public eye. He likes using his influence to support causes he loves. What he really wanted was for the press to at least try to be fair. Or to be held accountable through legal means if necessary. It wasn’t until he was married that he realized he could hire an attorney on his own rather than going through the palace. 

That makes me think of a conversation I had with a co-worker when Diana died. Not at all a new idea now, but at the time no one had expressed this to me. He said, some of these big celebrities want to use the media attention when it benefits them, but then cry foul when it backfires.

This just strikes me as incredibly naive as a sentiment. And also so privileged and a bit gross. Like, he wants to use the media as one of his tools to do good, but then he doesn't want his own life to be scrutinized by them. The documentary series makes it clear that they get (or at least, whoever assembled it on their behalf gets) that this is the dirty bargain for good press, especially in UK. They cover you as long as you can make it juicy and fun. I'm not saying it's right, but it's always been deal with the devil. Why does he think the devil is going to do anything else?

I think what they really want is to be Jimmy Carter. Or something along those lines. But Jimmy Carter worked for decades with relatively small press for Habitat or his various efforts in Africa. It took a long time before he became this figure associated with the type of "good works" that they say they'd like to be associated with. They have the resources and connections to potentially do something on that level, but they might be too impatient and too in love with their own attention to ever do so.

[Farrar]

2 minutes ago, fraidycat said:

I am rather astounded at the number of people here who are unable to distinguish between privacy to go about their daily lives without being photographed and followed in their own homes/yards and making a CHOICE to give a public interview or appearance.

Where has the critical thinking gone?

I haven't read the book yet, but would like to soon. Long wait at the library, so I might buy it.

But they're two things that are both wrong in my mind. One, some elements of the media are horrible and have treated them in ways that are truly horrific. Two, they are making a choice to rehash the same things multiple times in big, splashy ways that seem to egg the media on that don't seem good for them as individuals, except their pocketbooks.

[Katy]

1 minute ago, Farrar said:

That makes me think of a conversation I had with a co-worker when Diana died. Not at all a new idea now, but at the time no one had expressed this to me. He said, some of these big celebrities want to use the media attention when it benefits them, but then cry foul when it backfires.

This just strikes me as incredibly naive as a sentiment. And also so privileged and a bit gross. Like, he wants to use the media as one of his tools to do good, but then he doesn't want his own life to be scrutinized by them. The documentary series makes it clear that they get (or at least, whoever assembled it on their behalf gets) that this is the dirty bargain for good press, especially in UK. They cover you as long as you can make it juicy and fun. I'm not saying it's right, but it's always been deal with the devil. Why does he think the devil is going to do anything else?

I think what they really want is to be Jimmy Carter. Or something along those lines. But Jimmy Carter worked for decades with relatively small press for Habitat or his various efforts in Africa. It took a long time before he became this figure associated with the type of "good works" that they say they'd like to be associated with. They have the resources and connections to potentially do something on that level, but they might be too impatient and too in love with their own attention to ever do so.

I agreed with you until I read the book. But having read it, there’s no way someone who couldn’t stand scrutiny would have been so honest. It isn’t about scrutiny. It’s about safety and compliance with the laws already in place. And while he didn’t call for it, regulating paparazzi. 

[Katy]

1 minute ago, Farrar said:

But they're two things that are both wrong in my mind. One, some elements of the media are horrible and have treated them in ways that are truly horrific. Two, they are making a choice to rehash the same things multiple times in big, splashy ways that seem to egg the media on that don't seem good for them as individuals, except their pocketbooks.

Yeah, but if the cost of security is six million dollars per year…. That’s less about enrichment than it is about doing what’s necessary to keep his family safe.

[Farrar]

1 minute ago, Katy said:

Yeah, but if the cost of security is six million dollars per year…. That’s less about enrichment than it is about doing what’s necessary to keep his family safe.

Totally agreed with you about the need to outlaw some of these paparazzi practices. And make them adhere to the law. I do recognize that Harry is in an impossible situation. It just feels like the Sussexes are feeding the fire. It's their right to talk about themselves and do whatever interviews, but this is a choice. If they stopped doing this stuff and instead kept a lower profile, then after a period, the costs would lower dramatically and they'd also be safer. I don't know. I'm honestly torn. And also... I'm interested in an icky, celebrities way, but I don't think it really matters to the world in the grand scheme of things.

[fraidycat]

3 minutes ago, Farrar said:

But they're two things that are both wrong in my mind. One, some elements of the media are horrible and have treated them in ways that are truly horrific. Two, they are making a choice to rehash the same things multiple times in big, splashy ways that seem to egg the media on that don't seem good for them as individuals, except their pocketbooks.

They are being constantly villainized.
 

They do have the right to a) respond to the claims with their side of the story, b) process their grief and trauma about the villainization in any way they want/need to, and c) make as much money as they can to pay for the staff required to keep their family safe. 
 

 

[Katy]

1 minute ago, Farrar said:

Totally agreed with you about the need to outlaw some of these paparazzi practices. And make them adhere to the law. I do recognize that Harry is in an impossible situation. It just feels like the Sussexes are feeding the fire. It's their right to talk about themselves and do whatever interviews, but this is a choice. If they stopped doing this stuff and instead kept a lower profile, then after a period, the costs would lower dramatically and they'd also be safer. I don't know. I'm honestly torn. And also... I'm interested in an icky, celebrities way, but I don't think it really matters to the world in the grand scheme of things.

Yeah, I agree. At the same time some of the stuff printed about them is so egregious that I hadn’t realized how biased I was against them. I refuse to support Netflix so I haven’t seen their series. He said they could tap into the money his mother left him but they both preferred to leave that money to their children. You need $150 million invested to safely withdraw 4%, or 6 million per year. 

Impossible situation is accurate. And frankly, abusive situations don’t improve until someone shines a light on them. If this improves things for Charlotte & Louis, good. 

[Farrar]

Just now, fraidycat said:

They are being constantly villainized.
 

They do have the right to a) respond to the claims with their side of the story, b) process their grief and trauma about the villainization in any way they want/need to, and c) make as much money as they can to pay for the staff required to keep their family safe. 
 

 

I'm genuinely not trying to villainize them. I'm pretty sympathetic to their "side" as it is. Way more so than the "other side" for sure. I agree that they have the right, though I'm not sure if this is the best way to keep their family safe in the long run. When I say it's wrong, I mostly mean for them. I think keeping what happened in the public eye and constantly talking about is sad for them. If you accept that they've been traumatized by their treatment, which I basically do, then continuing to process it in the public eye, even if they totally have the right, feels really unfortunate to me. 

Katy's depiction of the book as being much more of an exploration of grief is more interesting to me, though I don't know if I'll read it. I'll come to a little free library at some point, I'm sure.

[stephanier.1765]

40 minutes ago, footballmom said:

I don’t plan on reading it, I can only imagine the depths of grief, trauma and betrayal. I’m sure it’s heartbreaking. However, in my very humble opinion, pleading for privacy and doing media interviews and writing a book exposing your family which you know the family will not refute anything you decide to say, is not a book I’d like to invest time in reading. 

This is exactly why I won't be buying a copy. If I do read it, it will be a library book. I don't want one red cent of ours to feed this machine of constant pleas, interviews, and book where no one else in these pleas, interviews and book can refute what has been said.

Edited January 12, 2023 by stephanier.1765

[Katy]

Just now, Farrar said:

I'm genuinely not trying to villainize them. I'm pretty sympathetic to their "side" as it is. Way more so than the "other side" for sure. I agree that they have the right, though I'm not sure if this is the best way to keep their family safe in the long run. When I say it's wrong, I mostly mean for them. I think keeping what happened in the public eye and constantly talking about is sad for them. If you accept that they've been traumatized by their treatment, which I basically do, then continuing to process it in the public eye, even if they totally have the right, feels really unfortunate to me. 

Katy's depiction of the book as being much more of an exploration of grief is more interesting to me, though I don't know if I'll read it. I'll come to a little free library at some point, I'm sure.

But if protesting the way they are treated in public shifts public opinion and results in change, it will be worth it. Think about how much other ugly situations have been exposed and things have changed because everyone recognizes how wrong they were. Even in the last 20 years. 

[Farrar]

4 minutes ago, Katy said:

But if protesting the way they are treated in public shifts public opinion and results in change, it will be worth it. Think about how much other ugly situations have been exposed and things have changed because everyone recognizes how wrong they were. Even in the last 20 years. 

I like that as a concept. But I don't feel like that's what the public takeaway has been. Some people are like, yeah, rah rah Sussexes and other people are like, boo, greedy jerks. And it's become a continuation of the they said, they said narrative. Which, again, is being shaped by this nasty media. 

I don't know how many times we can look at these situations and not learn it, but it's apparently a lot. Diana, Brittany Spears, Lindsay Lohan... I don't even like all of these folks, but somehow the reckoning only happens after. And then nothing really changes for the next folks. 

And any changes within the monarchy and how the various secretaries run things... I think any idea that the way that the Sussexes have talked about things will make any change is absolutely not on. They're seen as the demons by the "institution" at this point. Why would they make any changes based on any of this?

[fraidycat]

@Farrar, I don't see you villainizing them. The media/gossip rags/paparrazzi/and seemingly the BRF press liaisons are the real culprits.

I admittedly do not follow the BRF, do not watch "regular" t.v., and am generally in my own world more than knowing what is happening 'out there', so I may have missed a lot. Aside from the Oprah interview and now book marketing publicity interviews (same as every author/actor/creative worker does) where else have they been "constantly talking about it in the public eye"?
 

Is it really them? Or does the non-stop media coverage make it seem like they are doing more than they really are?

[Home'scool]

I downloaded it on Audible and was very excited to listen to it. I love biographies and gossip!

I stopped listening after about 3 hours. I found it boring! He seems to do a lot of just blah blahhing ... so many times he will recollect something and then say "Or maybe I imagined that ... I'm not sure". I found it very annoying. 

The whole audio is 16 hours long and I just cannot imagine listening to it for that long.

 

[Kidlit]

I'm planning to listen to the audiobook.  It's on my shortlist. 

[Home'scool]

I forgot one thing .... in the beginning of the book he talks about a meeting between him, Prince Charles and Prince William. He says something like "I really looked at my brother Wills for the first time. ... really looked at who he was. His blue eyes, his height, his glaring baldness ...."

It just seemed such a rude and unnecessary swipe. I mean, Prince William does have a big dome, but his brother didn't have to say that! 

[Faith-manor]

24 minutes ago, Farrar said:

I like that as a concept. But I don't feel like that's what the public takeaway has been. Some people are like, yeah, rah rah Sussexes and other people are like, boo, greedy jerks. And it's become a continuation of the they said, they said narrative. Which, again, is being shaped by this nasty media. 

I don't know how many times we can look at these situations and not learn it, but it's apparently a lot. Diana, Brittany Spears, Lindsay Lohan... I don't even like all of these folks, but somehow the reckoning only happens after. And then nothing really changes for the next folks. 

And any changes within the monarchy and how the various secretaries run things... I think any idea that the way that the Sussexes have talked about things will make any change is absolutely not on. They're seen as the demons by the "institution" at this point. Why would they make any changes based on any of this?

They won't. The institution is well invested in never changing. The change that could come would be what is impressed upon them by force, such as the court of public opinion deciding it is time to do away with the monarchy or at least seriously trim it, and then choosing not to pay it much attention to the place that it occupies such a minor role in British life, that it becomes unimportant. If the institution itself is trimmed to a skeleton staff, and is not a job that is revered, just one more administrative job in the sea of administrative positions, then there could be meaningful change.

And I agree on the other topic of Harry's swipe at his brother's looks. Not every thought we think needs to be put on paper in a memoir. I get it because pain is pain, and after the paparazzi and the tabloids, the gross cartoons, etc. going after Megan for the color of her skin, the speculation of the color of Archie (It is truly heart breaking how depraved people are), he was simply lashing out, and especially at William if William was either complicit in the racism or indifferent to his pain. However, it does not serve any legitimate purpose to put that out for public consumption.

[Faith-manor]

1 hour ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle Again said:

I bought it, haven’t read it yet. It’s on my kindle to start today.  I admit to a fascination with the BRF as a historical legacy so I follow the news fairly closely though it can be hard to find unbiased pieces.

My problem with Harry and Meghan is that they have enormous privilege and aren’t using it for any truly worthwhile purposes.  And they’ve contradicted themselves far too much in public interviews.  

For private citizens who want to remain private, they spend a lot of time trying to stay in the public arena.

 

I think this is valid. It seems like people who are raised in the public eye, have a hard time actually then figuring out how to be private. Even B listers have this issue. Jinger Vuolo made several public statements about having issues as child living the Duggar life on that stupid TLC show. She made statements after she was married about wanting a private life. Yet what does she do? Keeps trying to make money off her "celebrity" with all kinds of hair brained things like vlogs with product placement, writing a book about IBLP and then incessantly promoting it, making cooking videos (which are atrocious because she cannot cook so don't go looking for them, you will gain nothing), a Jinger coffee bean scheme, etc. She does do a good job, like Megan and Harry, of keeping her kids off social media, and not photographed. But literally, she has zero privacy by her own making. She could have faded into obscurity.

I have to wonder if there is something broken in adults whose parents exploited them for prestige and money. They don't seem to connect the dots as though they are totally lost just being a private joe.

[Mrs Tiggywinkle Again]

11 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

I think this is valid. It seems like people who are raised in the public eye, have a hard time actually then figuring out how to be private. Even B listers have this issue. Jinger Vuolo made several public statements about having issues as child living the Duggar life on that stupid TLC show. She made statements after she was married about wanting a private life. Yet what does she do? Keeps trying to make money off her "celebrity" with all kinds of hair brained things like vlogs with product placement, writing a book about IBLP and then incessantly promoting it, making cooking videos (which are atrocious because she cannot cook so don't go looking for them, you will gain nothing), a Jinger coffee bean scheme, etc. She does do a good job, like Megan and Harry, of keeping her kids off social media, and not photographed. But literally, she has zero privacy by her own making. She could have faded into obscurity.

I have to wonder if there is something broken in adults whose parents exploited them for prestige and money. They don't seem to connect the dots as though they are totally lost just being a private joe.

Jinger also has another book coming out in a few weeks but I feel the same way about her.   I wonder how much of it is just normalized in their lives and it’s just what they know how to do. I mean, neither Jinger Vuolo or Harry Wales was truly given marketable skills other than a name(Harry, at least, does have military training). 
I am road tripping home today and working through Spare.  I think the British media is awful and that many institutions are rife with racism; I just wish Harry and Meghan would pour their efforts into talking about those things, if they choose to keep public personas.

Harry is pretty content blasting his family. One thing I don’t understand is considering that he and Meghan have a feminist platform of sorts is why he hasn’t added Uncle Andrew to that.  They have been completely silent on that whole issue—even the Duggar offspring with social media made clear that they believed Josh was completely guilty and deserving of prison.  
Unless the last vestige of family Harry has is Eugenie, and he doesn’t want to destroy that final relationship.  I think it’s fairly obvious that Sarah and his daughters don’t believe he’s guilty of much of anything, and likely neither does the rest of his family.

Just ramblings.  The first few chapters of Spare simply make me feel bad for Charles, William And Harry.  They are all clearly deeply traumatized people; Charles’ descriptions of his childhood and time at Eton are the stuff of nightmares, and Harry does show Charles struggling to overcome his upbringing and be a good father, even when he isn’t doing well at it. Harry also is clear that the nearly psychotic public outpouring of grief over Diana’s death confused him and actually made his grieving worse.  He doesn’t blast his family on their handling of that at all, but he is scathing towards the press(rightfully so).

Edited January 12, 2023 by Mrs Tiggywinkle Again

[Scarlett]

28 minutes ago, Home'scool said:

I forgot one thing .... in the beginning of the book he talks about a meeting between him, Prince Charles and Prince William. He says something like "I really looked at my brother Wills for the first time. ... really looked at who he was. His blue eyes, his height, his glaring baldness ...."

It just seemed such a rude and unnecessary swipe. I mean, Prince William does have a big dome, but his brother didn't have to say that! 

I haven’t read the book, but the only thing I can think is that he idolized his older brother and then one day saw him as the flawed human he is. 

[Lecka]

I am interested in his soldier stuff.  
 

My take is he sounds like he said something honest and it’s gotten him in trouble.

 

So forget about others being honest about their experiences, who don’t have — the privilege to do so.  Maybe privilege isn’t the right word, but I think it is true he is able to say some truthful things and I appreciate that he has done so.  

[Katy]

18 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I haven’t read the book, but the only thing I can think is that he idolized his older brother and then one day saw him as the flawed human he is. 

It wasn’t just the flawed human. It was outright betrayal 

[Storygirl]

I have not read the book or seen the Netflix documentary and don't plan to. I did watch the Oprah interview. And I read Tina Brown's Palace Papers recently. I found her comments about Harry and the book to be interesting. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/prince-harry-is-doing-some-gaslighting-himself-says-author-tina-brown/ar-AA168ypL

 

[Katy]

25 minutes ago, Lecka said:

I am interested in his soldier stuff.  
 

My take is he sounds like he said something honest and it’s gotten him in trouble.

 

So forget about others being honest about their experiences, who don’t have — the privilege to do so.  Maybe privilege isn’t the right word, but I think it is true he is able to say some truthful things and I appreciate that he has done so.  

Yeah, the military stuff is probably what really made me love it and pushed it from 4 to 5 stars for me. He’s very honest about that too, and speaks in exactly the same way most people with combat experience speak. Many people find the reality of war repulsive so I shouldn’t be surprised at the criticism. But as someone with a lot of family members and an ex who fought… I was surprised and delighted at the honesty. And at the service of disabled vets afterwards. 

Edited January 12, 2023 by Katy

[Tanaqui]

Regarding them wanting to have some privacy and yet selling their story - listen, one way or another, people are going to sell this story about Harry. There is absolutely no getting around it. And one way or another, he and his family are always going to be somewhat in the public eye. There's no getting around that either.

So if somebody is going to make money off of selling information about them, why not them? Why not sell this themselves, and also get the story out the way they want it to be told, with, from his perspective, as much honesty as possible?

And if the upside of this media oversaturation is that it eventually becomes less profitable to harass and spy on his private family in their private life - especially when he and his wife have made it clear that they are willing to do interviews and all that to people who aren't stalking them - isn't that ultimately a benefit?

[dsmith]

It's not my usual type of book, but I have an Audible credit I haven't known what to do with. After reading reviews and the discussion here I think I'll give it a try - I can always return it if I don't like it. I do think Meghan was unfairly treated in the press, and that there have been a few missteps made on their part (like the Uvalde visit), but I don't follow the royal family much. I understand why they may want to get their side of the story out, given the absolute garbage treatment they seem to get. 

[Farrar]

Multiple people in this thread have said they're contradicting themselves... are they? Other than something like Katy pointed out where you misremember the name of a video game or what have you. I'm not saying they didn't, but I guess I'm not sure when they contradicted themselves?