Prince Harry - Spare

[Katy]

35 minutes ago, Farrar said:

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?

One of the examples is that Aunt Sarah brought Harry a present she said she found among his mothers belongings long after her death. Harry said it was an x-box, but x-box hadn’t been released yet when Diana died. So maybe Sarah was being kind and bought it for him and said it was from Diana. Or maybe Harry mixed up which game console he was given when. Either way it is inconsequential to the point that the person who loved him left him a gift that was a way to escape the grief for a while. 

Another was whether he was at school or on the annual ski trip when he found out about his great grandmother’s death. This is the kind of thing that is easy to mix up, specially because where it took place wasn’t the point. It was more about the family connection, another person who he loved & wished he’d been closer to dying. And the weird ceremonies that occurred as a result of her position in the family. 
 

Other “contradictions” I’ve seen quoted are older women not mentioned in the book who claim to have had an affair with him and other completely inconsequential events that in no way negate the book, but do give people who hate Harry something to complain about. 

[fraidycat]

2 hours ago, fraidycat said:

@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?

Quoting myself here, because I googled.  Several thousand links that discuss H&M's Oprah interview, or So&So "reacts" to the interview, etc.

So I ask again, are H & M really "putting themselves" out there so much, or did they do 1 interview after years of 'turning the other cheek' which turned into 10s of thousands of "react" stories, videos, memes, blogs, etc.

Somebody who pays more attention, please enlighten me. Thanks.

[Tanaqui]

Human memory is notoriously fallible. You will never get two people who went through the same event to remember that event in the same way. If you have somebody run through a crowded lecture hall and then ask them what that person was wearing, how tall they were, if they had a beard, if they had a hat - nobody will agree on all the details. You can even warn them that this is coming, tell them that you're setting this up to prove that eyewitness counts are never going to be 100% unless somebody is lying - and they'll still be unable to agree on whether or not it was a tall man with a green hat and a red shirt, or a short woman with cat ears and a yellow dress.

And it just gets worse when you add trauma onto things, because trauma affects memory. There was actually a study done just after 9/11 - some researcher on memory corralled a bunch of people the week after and asked them to write down what they remembered of that day. A year or two later they had those people write down their memories again. People who had said they first heard about 9/11 in a crowded bar would now say they were alone in their room. If they said they heard it from their mother over the phone now they said a friend told them in person. And even showing them what they'd written earlier didn't help - they would say "Well, I don't know why I said that, but I know that what I wrote today is correct".

[Ausmumof3]

I’m not much into this stuff and probably wouldn’t seek out the book. These discussions are always interesting to me here because they really strongly underline cultural differences between US perspectives and Australian/UK perspectives (which seem more closely aligned). 

[Farrar]

Just now, Ausmumof3 said:

I’m not much into this stuff and probably wouldn’t seek out the book. These discussions are always interesting to me here because they really strongly underline cultural differences between US perspectives and Australian/UK perspectives (which seem more closely aligned). 

Oh, I'm sure. Americans think of the British royals as purely silly celebrities to watch. 

[itsheresomewhere]

Attempting to read it but I just can’t get into it.  Maybe because it reminds me of someone close who is like H.  I am not a fan of M for many reasons.  I knew someone who worked with her and didn’t speak  highly of her and the way she treated people.  This was before H.  I think she has influenced him a bit not in a good way.  And he is still so stuck in his grief he can’t see it.  It makes all the memories blend and get fuzzy. Grief is such a powerful emotion. I feel for him and want him to get the help he needs to find the peace in his life.  His relationship with W and K before he got married was strong.  They even made a joke about how when H got married, how they would have food in their fridge as he was over for dinner and snacks often.   If this book helps him start to get help in a way, then I get it.  I just hope he doesn’t regret it 10 years down the road about what he wrote about his W and K ( Camilla and Charles are a whole a different ball game). 

[Storygirl]

1 hour ago, fraidycat said:

Quoting myself here, because I googled.  Several thousand links that discuss H&M's Oprah interview, or So&So "reacts" to the interview, etc.

So I ask again, are H & M really "putting themselves" out there so much, or did they do 1 interview after years of 'turning the other cheek' which turned into 10s of thousands of "react" stories, videos, memes, blogs, etc.

Somebody who pays more attention, please enlighten me. Thanks.

They have a six part Netflix documentary that recently released. That's a lot of "putting themselves out there." Also, People Magazine featured them this week or last week. And he's been doing television interviews to promote his book, where he talks about some of the things in it. So LOTS of media exposure this week alone.

[Mrs Tiggywinkle Again]

I am in the middle of part 2.  I didn’t realize Harry’s best friend also died in a car accident when they were young men. He also was clearly in love with Chelsy Davy, found solace in her attached, happy and presumably emotionally health family, but understood that she had no desire to face the constant paparazzi.

i could have lived without the several pages of details on his frostbitten p^nis and resolved to never take myself to the North Pole.

He is someone who clearly needed a lot more physical love than he got.  He needed a lot of hugs and his family isn’t like that.  He sees that as a complete failing on their part, but I also can’t remember my paternal grandmother ever hugging or kissing me, and I was 16 when she died.  She was from a hard living Eastern European immigrant family, and none of any of them I met were demonstrable like that. Yet I knew she loved me and never saw it as a failing—I just recognized that side of my family, including my dad, is not physically affectionate.

I think some of the criticism has come from things they’ve said that really make no sense. On one hand, Meghan discussed the racial biases in not making their children prince/princesses, yet Harry had to know that per the protocol they didn’t get those titles at the time, and even not all of the Queen’s male line grandchildren did(Edward and Sophie’s children do not use prince/princesses even though they are entitled to them).  And Charles made absolutely no secret for years of his desire to slim down the monarchy. 

I also question Meghan’s story that they refused to get her any help when she was having a mental health crisis when Harry writes of having his own therapist on speed dial, and recounts calling and talking to that person immediately.  If she was too depressed or overwhelmed to find her own help, which is certainly possible, I don’t understand why Harry wasn’t able to when clearly he had a therapist he was frequently in contact with. It’s those little inconsistencies that make people question things.  Not so much his admittedly fuzzy memory in his book(which is unsurprising, given the amount of trauma he has gone through along with the heavy drinking and marijuana use he documents).

I get the feeling that this book is his way of saying all the things he wanted to say, refuting all the bad press, but wasn’t able to before.

Edited January 12, 2023 by Mrs Tiggywinkle Again

[Harriet Vane]

The thing is, there is absolutely no way to sell a book without publicizing it. I have years of work in publishing. Any decent publisher will tell their aspiring authors to maintain a blog or internet presence, to do interviews, and to publish articles. That is the way it works. People who publish a book and keep quiet don't make sales. 

This short article contains a statement that clarifies what Harry wants re privacy and boundaries and his purpose in the book:

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle respond to claims they wanted ‘privacy’ amid release of Netflix docuseries (yahoo.com)

 

[Faith-manor]

1 minute ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle Again said:

I am in the middle of part 2.  I didn’t realize Harry’s best friend also died in a car accident when they were young men. He also was clearly in love with Chelsy Davy, found solace in her attached, happy and presumably emotionally health family, but understood that she had no desire to face the constant paparazzi.

i could have lived without the several pages of details on his frostbitten p^nis and resolved to never take myself to the North Pole.

He is someone who clearly needed a lot more physical love than he got.  He needed a lot of hugs and his family isn’t like that.  He sees that as a complete failing on their part, but I also can’t remember my paternal grandmother ever hugging or kissing me, and I was 16 when she died.  She was from a hard living Eastern European immigrant family, and none of any of them I met were demonstrable like that. Yet I knew she loved me and never saw it as a failing—I just recognized that side of my family, including my dad, is not physically affectionate.

I think some of the criticism has come from things they’ve said that really make no sense. On one hand, Meghan discussed the racial biases in not making their children prince/princesses, yet Harry had to know that per the protocol they didn’t get those titles at the time, and even not all of the Queen’s male line grandchildren did(Edward and Sophie’s children do not use prince/princesses even though they are entitled to them).  And Charles made absolutely no secret for years of his desire to slim down the monarchy. 

I also question Meghan’s story that they refused to get her any help when she was having a mental health crisis when Harry writes of having his own therapist on speed dial, and recounts calling and talking to that person immediately.  If she was too depressed or overwhelmed to find her own help, which is certainly possible, I don’t understand why Harry wasn’t able to when clearly he had a therapist he was frequently in contact with. It’s those little inconsistencies that make people question things.  Not so much his admittedly fuzzy memory in his book.

I understand about the therapist. Most Americans do not realize that the queen holds ALL the rights to determine these things for her offspring and their offspring. Did you know that by British law, the monarch is the legal guardian of their grandchildren? Now normally, I would imagine Queen Elizabeth ad no interest in micromanaging all the day to day minutiae of raising children, and certainly not mundane things. But, they actually have to have permission from the institution, meaning someone told mummy and mummy said okay, for something like accessing mental health care and that provider has to be fully vetted and approved by the establishment. Megan, by virtue of marrying into this royal disaster, had no right to a therapist until the institution gained permission, and figured out whom they were going to allow to be the therapist. This is a sticky issue of "image" for the crown. Megan's birth plan had to be approved by the crown, all of that. So the fact that Harry had a therapist on speed dial means that his request for assistance went through all the proper channels, and then approval, vetting, and set up. Who knows how long it took.

British law allows Charles to demand Archie and Lilibet be returned to his custody. The sticky wicket that won't fly is that Archie and Lilibet are also U.S. citizens and our courts won't play that game. He would be utterly stupid to try because this would be soooo messy between two NATO allies. Howevere, there it is. I think it is entirely possible one reason they settled here and not Canada was that it was important if a family fight was as going to go down, that they were outside the jurisdiction of a commonwealth country. 

Queen Victoria overrode her children's wishes for their children all the time. She micro managed her grandchildren, their nannies, you name it, and when Kaiser Wilhelm, her grandson, was born in Germany, she micro managed the labor and delivery plan from England, insisted on an English physician of her choosing attend the birth, and then arranged for what we would describe today as the torture of a baby/child to try to make his paralyzed arm work, birth injury from being born breech. It was grotesque what she ordered done to that child, and though Alice had married into a different royal house in another country, the British Monarch still retained the rights to dictate what happened to that child. Depraved.

[Harriet Vane]

7 minutes ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle Again said:

 

I think some of the criticism has come from things they’ve said that really make no sense. On one hand, Meghan discussed the racial biases in not making their children prince/princesses, yet Harry had to know that per the protocol they didn’t get those titles at the time, and even not all of the Queen’s male line grandchildren did(Edward and Sophie’s children do not use prince/princesses even though they are entitled to them).  And Charles made absolutely no secret for years of his desire to slim down the monarchy. 

I also question Meghan’s story that they refused to get her any help when she was having a mental health crisis when Harry writes of having his own therapist on speed dial, and recounts calling and talking to that person immediately.  If she was too depressed or overwhelmed to find her own help, which is certainly possible, I don’t understand why Harry wasn’t able to when clearly he had a therapist he was frequently in contact with. It’s those little inconsistencies that make people question things.  Not so much his admittedly fuzzy memory in his book.

I have not read the book, but I do wonder about two things. One is that the protocols for royal stuff have always seemed hideously complicated. I wonder if Harry has a vague but unspecific understanding, knowing some things well but being fuzzy on other things. He's grown up in this system but he's not studied it as a lawyer. Honestly, he doesn't strike me as the type who would enjoy memorizing all the elaborate ins and outs of castle intrigue and privilege. Plus it seems like some things are not as set in stone as they appear to be--there have been times that a monarch or somebody big and important makes exceptions or adjusts the rules, and Harry may well understand that the viability of whether or not something will happen is subject to the preference of the people in power.

As far as Meghan--I wonder if there were multiple people telling her to suck it up, buttercup AND I wonder if she felt that there were no truly safe resources outside of the royal household and their connections. Those two factors may have legitimately made her feel as if there were no resources, period. No way to even try without doing damage to Harry or making more people angry and irritated.

[Katy]

14 minutes ago, Harriet Vane said:

I have not read the book, but I do wonder about two things. One is that the protocols for royal stuff have always seemed hideously complicated. I wonder if Harry has a vague but unspecific understanding, knowing some things well but being fuzzy on other things. He's grown up in this system but he's not studied it as a lawyer. Honestly, he doesn't strike me as the type who would enjoy memorizing all the elaborate ins and outs of castle intrigue and privilege. Plus it seems like some things are not as set in stone as they appear to be--there have been times that a monarch or somebody big and important makes exceptions or adjusts the rules, and Harry may well understand that the viability of whether or not something will happen is subject to the preference of the people in power.

As far as Meghan--I wonder if there were multiple people telling her to suck it up, buttercup AND I wonder if she felt that there were no truly safe resources outside of the royal household and their connections. Those two factors may have legitimately made her feel as if there were no resources, period. No way to even try without doing damage to Harry or making more people angry and irritated.

He definitely didn’t have the protocols memorized. It was mentioned that he’d have to get permission from the Queen to marry Meghan, so he planned to corner her on a hunting trip and did. He said he’d been told by his people and hers that he had to ask for her permission. She replied something to the effect of that in that case she supposed she had to say yes. She said it in a tone that he was really unsure of the meaning, but after an awkward moment thanked her.

Afterwards his father and brother were angry that he didn’t get their permission first. A similar thing happened with which uniform he got to wear & whether he could keep his beard for the wedding. There were reasons to ignore protocol. Granny gave permission. William was angry and ordered him to shave anyway, and threatened to hold him down and shave him the moment he got too drunk at the… I forget the British word for bachelor party… stag party maybe? 

And I agree about Meghan. What was odd to me is that he didn’t discuss her mental health or lack of resources for her really at all. He did act like his father was extraordinarily generous to grant him permission to go to therapy. And this was after years of panic attacks that were clearly impacting his everyday life. There’s definitely a culture difference there. Americans are generally entitled to at least a few therapy sessions if they have insurance. Especially if they’re in the military & have PTSD or whatever the new name for that is. Many jobs that habitually expose you to trauma (even secondary trauma, like therapists), require a certain amount of therapy here. 

[Laura Corin]

39 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

I understand about the therapist. Most Americans do not realize that the queen holds ALL the rights to determine these things for her offspring and their offspring. Did you know that by British law, the monarch is the legal guardian of their grandchildren? Now normally, I would imagine Queen Elizabeth ad no interest in micromanaging all the day to day minutiae of raising children, and certainly not mundane things. But, they actually have to have permission from the institution, meaning someone told mummy and mummy said okay, for something like accessing mental health care and that provider has to be fully vetted and approved by the establishment. Megan, by virtue of marrying into this royal disaster, had no right to a therapist until the institution gained permission, and figured out whom they were going to allow to be the therapist. This is a sticky issue of "image" for the crown. Megan's birth plan had to be approved by the crown, all of that. So the fact that Harry had a therapist on speed dial means that his request for assistance went through all the proper channels, and then approval, vetting, and set up. Who knows how long it took.

British law allows Charles to demand Archie and Lilibet be returned to his custody. The sticky wicket that won't fly is that Archie and Lilibet are also U.S. citizens and our courts won't play that game. He would be utterly stupid to try because this would be soooo messy between two NATO allies. Howevere, there it is. I think it is entirely possible one reason they settled here and not Canada was that it was important if a family fight was as going to go down, that they were outside the jurisdiction of a commonwealth country. 

Queen Victoria overrode her children's wishes for their children all the time. She micro managed her grandchildren, their nannies, you name it, and when Kaiser Wilhelm, her grandson, was born in Germany, she micro managed the labor and delivery plan from England, insisted on an English physician of her choosing attend the birth, and then arranged for what we would describe today as the torture of a baby/child to try to make his paralyzed arm work, birth injury from being born breech. It was grotesque what she ordered done to that child, and though Alice had married into a different royal house in another country, the British Monarch still retained the rights to dictate what happened to that child. Depraved.

As I understand it, the sovereign's prerogative concerning his grandchildren no longer applies

http://www.alternativefamilylaw.co.uk/blog/will-harry-and-meghan-have-custody-of-their-own-children/

[Melissa Louise]

I won't be reading it, because I don't read autobiographies.

I'm actually really sad that this is 'the' bestselling book - a ghost-written bio of a celebrity.

There are so many amazing books of non-fiction out there that buyers could be devouring instead.

I also don't think that Penguin has behaved entirely ethically here - yes, it's a big money maker for them. They failed in their editorial duties, imo, allowing, among other thing, a kill number into the book. So Penguin won't get my $ directly or indirectly (through the library). I've lost a bit of respect for Penguin, actually (and have been published, in a minor way - anthology - by Penguin, so feel like I have a stake).

~

I do have questions and comments.

Does he mention Andrew at all as part of his reason for leaving?

Is there context that makes the bit about Notts Cottage sound less whiny than it does in the leaked extracts?

The disabled matron he didn't like and spoke nastily about - greasy hair, laughing when she fell down - is that followed by reflection and/or sorrow for behaving that way in the book?

~

It's flipping weird that Harry still says he believes in the monarchy. If it's that @#$%ed (and I've got no trouble believing it is), why on earth is he saying he believes in it?

I am extremely biased, otherwise, because I can't handle public whinging from people who are extremely privileged. I accept very privileged people (Royal!) suffer grief and experience mental health problems. To lose one's mother in those circumstances is very sad, and if it's true that for a long time Harry thought his mother was in hiding, that's heartbreaking.

My bias is I am glad Harry has been able to access therapy, and I would prefer not to hear about it all.  And my understanding of psychotherapy and what the aims are - how you heal - let's just say, differ, from what seems to be understood by Harry.

~

Finally, to unwind the monarchy is a constitutional question. It's not a matter of yay, Harry, bring it down. An end to the monarchy in the UK is some time away. People in the UK are using this as a form of light relief, as the NHS crumbles and their utilities payments become unaffordable (well, not everyone - plenty of wealthy numpties in the UK, as everywhere).

Here, in a colonial outpost, we've got other priorities. Among them a Premier who has just been exposed as having dressed up as a Nazi for his 21st (cann't even), and a referendum for an Aboriginal voice to Parliament. And a housing crisis. And floods. There is little interest in following Harry (not?) to the barricades right now.

 

 

[Faith-manor]

22 minutes ago, Laura Corin said:

As I understand it, the sovereign's prerogative concerning his grandchildren no longer applies

http://www.alternativefamilylaw.co.uk/blog/will-harry-and-meghan-have-custody-of-their-own-children/

I hope so. 

[Melissa Louise]

I do feel a lot more sympathy for Meghan now, though, I will say.

As a mother with two small children, I hope for her sake that Harry has given up the weed, and that he now focuses in his therapy on his existing relationships. Angry men are angry men, even if they have a right to be angry. My feeling is that Meghan has to carry a lot in that family, and that's rough for her. I am glad that she is in her home country, and has her mother's support.

[Lady Florida.]

5 hours ago, dsmith said:

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 used an Audible credit for it too. I keep meaning to cancel my paid membership then it gets close to my credit time so I keep it. I too didn't know what to do with my credit so I used it on this book. I haven't started it yet because I'm in the middle of another audio book. I should add that I'm not a follower of the current BRF but am pretty sympathetic towards the Sussexes. I do have a fascination with the royal family of past years -from the early medieval years up to Queen Victoria. 

Edited January 12, 2023 by Lady Florida.

[Melissa Louise]

7 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

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. 

Just a question - why do you refer to his pervert father?

Is it that he had an affair?

I am not fond of affair-having spouses, having been the cheated-upon, but it's not a perversion, it's something that many men and women engage in.

 

[stephanier.1765]

2 hours ago, Farrar said:

Oh, I'm sure. Americans think of the British royals as purely silly celebrities to watch. 

I really don't. I can't explain how I think of them but definitely not as celebrities or even people to watch. I guess the term "institution" that is often used to describe them is probably closer to their image for me.

[Ausmumof3]

18 minutes ago, stephanier.1765 said:

I really don't. I can't explain how I think of them but definitely not as celebrities or even people to watch. I guess the term "institution" that is often used to describe them is probably closer to their image for me.

Yes I agree. If anything, I feel the kind of republic breaking away from a monarchy vibes through everything. Also, I feel like many from the US have a lot more tolerance for celebrity, and fame where maybe Brit/Aus viewers might see that as more tacky? I don’t feel like either view is necessarily more right than the other it’s just fascinating how much history and values impact on stuff like this. It often feels like they generate more interest in a US audience than elsewhere. 

[Resilient]

8 hours 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.

It's been documented now that Diana -did- tell the press where she was going to be, and when, and then she complained about being followed everywhere.  I have to say I didn't understand this at the time that she was living and when she died, but it has all been documented now.

Jimmy Carter did the same thing--not faulting him in particular, but his name came up.  

Everyone remotely famous has an agent, a PR advisor, to help the famous one shape their image.  Every book has a set of pre-approved reviews that they spread to all the news outlets, pre-release.  These will of course be favorable, and will use a lot of the same phrases to get those phrases into people's minds.  You can see this in the reviews that were released on the day of publication.  

Another thing about the industry: booksellers order books based on how well they think they will sell.  So the initial order can be waaaaaay off, one way or the other with respect to how many are sold into the hands of actual readers or libraries.  It's about a year later when an author actually finds out how many books have been remaindered/returned, or deeply discounted in the bargain bin...and how much money will come their way in the form of royalties.  "Five million copies sold!" can turn out to be "Four million in the land fill!"  

I suppose I will be in the minority, but I found many of the statements Harry made disconcerting, primary among them that his own memories of the truth are as important as objective truth.  Present "your truth" as the way you saw it, but not as equal to the way it was.  Stop assigning motives to other people - say how you received something.  Give a little space for others to have "their truth" if that concept is so important to you.  

I've read multiple bios of Winston Churchill, Queen Elizabeth, of her father and her uncle and Wallis, of Charles, of Diana, and there's just an awful lot in this one that doesn't square up with history, and with the statements out of his own mouth.  

[Happy2BaMom]

I haven't gotten the book (& probably won't), but I've seen a lot of interviews, & the show, and they both now make me want to barf.

I don't automatically take everything Harry says (or writes) as being automatically & completely true. That's an awful lot of faith to put into an extremely one-sided story. He is one of the most privileged humans on the entire planet and claims now to be oh-so-conscious of that, while still living in a $15 million Montecito mansion and flying in private jets. He rages on about the toxic RF but refuses to give up his royal title and is continually cashing in by revealing very personal details about his own family (we all know Will is circumcised now!). He was just on an interview the other night claiming that he/MM have never accused the RF of racism...."never". WTF? It's all very carefully managed gaslighting.  And somehow he never mentions that Charles walked Meghan down the aisle at their wedding, or that William & Kate set up a joint foundation with the two of them right after the wedding.

He & Meghan are *very* intent as setting themselves up as royals, and living as royalty...just the right kind of royals (they're not afraid to tear down the actual British monarchy & all those in it!), with the right kind of values (racism & mental health...watch them now give multiple media interviews & walk the red carpet for awards!), living in a place & with a lifestyle where they don't actually have to interact with anyone outside of their carefully selected media & entertainment elite. IOW, the Royal Family, w/o being the Royal Family.

MM has been caught in several lies (available through google), including lying in court about the fact that she did provide information for the book, Finding Freedom. Her defense? She "forgot". Both are completely estranged from their families with the exception of Meghan's mother. Meghan cut her father off after he released info to the media....which is exactly what she & Harry now specialize in. But, really, they're different - they're the victims of all these people....always! Arrrggghhh....it's just all too much.

And, at some point, all the media attention will end, and Harry will have to face the fact that no one in his family will ever speak to him again. They'd be too afraid to, for one thing. It'd be all over Hollywood in the next tell-all interview/book.

 

Edited January 13, 2023 by Happy2BaMom

[SKL]

Not that I care about H & M, but does anyone wonder what good they expect this to do for their children?

[Carol in Cal.]

I just have no patience, in general, for people who are famous because they are related to someone with an actual achievement who then write tell alls about that family member in order to make money or gain notoriety themselves.  I don’t like the fact that Harry did this, and I don’t like the fact that Alice Walker’s daughter did it, and I don’t like the fact that Ronald Reagan’s daughter did it, and I don’t like the fact that …. Basically I just dislike it, on principle.

[Resilient]

Patti Reagan regretted her book later.  
 

[Grace Hopper]

Just got roasted by Jimmy Kimmel. Mostly over the TMI about frosty body parts. 

[Reefgazer]

I thought he was a whiny, privileged ingrate, but then I listened to a few interviews he gave and I don't blame him for heading for the United States.  He appears to have been treated horribly.  I know this is just "his side" of the story, but the royal family has told their side for years, so fair's fair.  Even so, I do believe in the future he will regret the fracture, probably irreparable, he caused between him and his family.

Edited January 13, 2023 by Reefgazer

[Laura Corin]

9 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

I hope so. 

To be clear, I don't believe that Queen Elizabeth had those powers in law either.  Once there was general legislation on the rights of the child/parent - the UK still has the EU legislation de facto in place at present, I believe - those would have applied to any royal children too.  I really can't see the EU writing a royal exception into legislation that covered all the countries in the European Union.

Edited January 13, 2023 by Laura Corin

[Happy2BaMom]

7 hours ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I just have no patience, in general, for people who are famous because they are related to someone with an actual achievement who then write tell alls about that family member in order to make money or gain notoriety themselves.  I don’t like the fact that Harry did this, and I don’t like the fact that Alice Walker’s daughter did it, and I don’t like the fact that Ronald Reagan’s daughter did it, and I don’t like the fact that …. Basically I just dislike it, on principle.

 

7 hours ago, Resilient said:

Patti Reagan regretted her book later.  
 

She also just wrote an Op-Ed, Prince Harry & the Value of Silence, (excerpts here and here), in which she described her regret & she also tried advising Harry on NOT doing tell-alls.

I thought the following excerpts (I'm including some of the article commentary) were really relevant (& wise):

{Davis, who is the oldest of Ronald Reagan's two children with Nancy, endured what she called the "huge shadow" of being part of the first family when she was in her 20s and early 30s}.

"You don't feel like you exist as an individual," she said. "You don't feel that you are taking up space. You don't feel that you matter, and it's human nature to want to feel that you matter so you think, 'Well, if I just sort of open the floodgates and tell everything, then I'll take up space, then I will matter, then they'll have to listen to me.'

"The problem with that is, the only thing that's taking up space is all the things that you're saying about other people."

"My justification in writing a book I now wish I hadn’t written… was very similar to what I understand to be Harry’s reasoning. I wanted to tell the truth, I wanted to set the record straight. Naïvely, I thought if I put my own feelings and my own truth out there for the world to read, my family might also come to understand me better".

Davis said she watched Harry's interview on "60 Minutes" on Jan. 8 and was struck by a particular moment.

"The phrase that jumped out at me was 'my truth'. "As I said in this op-ed, that's a really narrow way of looking at things, and I did it, too. 'This is my truth.' But the full story is other people's truths also."

"People generally don’t respond well to being embarrassed and exposed in public. And in the ensuing years, I’ve learned something about truth: It’s way more complicated than it seems when we’re young. There isn’t just one truth, our truth — the other people who inhabit our story have their truths as well."

Edited January 13, 2023 by Happy2BaMom

[Happy2BaMom]

6 hours ago, Reefgazer said:

..... I know this is just "his side" of the story, but the royal family has told their side for years, so fair's fair.  Even so, I do believe in the future he will regret the fracture, probably irreparable, he caused between him and his family.

My perspective is that it could only be considered fair if William or Charles were to release a tell-all book, detailing what it was like to deal with Harry on a day-to-day basis over the last 30 years, especially the last six.

That will never happen, of course, so we'll never know the perspective of father & brother, both trying (& individually struggling) to navigate the constrictions & limitations of the world's oldest monarchy, while also dealing with a son/brother who has a long history of being rash, hot-headed, and self-centered. My guess is that there is a *lot* left out of Harry's book that would be in Charles' or William's.

Edited January 13, 2023 by Happy2BaMom

[Clemsondana]

I think it's hard to get an understanding of 'What American's think about the monarchy' because large numbers of Americans don't think about it at all.  If I had to give an answer, I'd likely say that they, like many people, have to work to fill the role that they were born into.  It comes with lots of money, but also public-facing responsibility at a fairly young age.  Like any other 'family business' role that people are expected to fill, it's a good enough fit for some and a bad fit for others.  But, I don't get any joy from watching or reading about the struggles of others, so I don't follow any celebrity reporting about anybody.  I don't really understand the appeal.   

I understand how a person who accomplishes something - an athlete, inventor, performer, whatever - might write a book about their life and how it influenced and affected their ability to do whatever they are famous for doing.  It can be inspirational or give others an idea of the mindset required to achieve that level of success.  But, 'what it's like to grow up famous' just seems squicky to me, like reading a diary, and the fact that these books or interviews are often highly critical of others in the 'famous for being famous' person's circle makes it even less appealing.  It's like if a couple has a fight in a restaurant - I don't need to know about their issues.  I expect that most of us have been shocked to find that we have really different memories of certain situations than other friends or family who were there, and I'd be hesitant to publicly criticize a family member based on my memory of something that happened while I was upset 15 years ago.  And, feelings don't necessarily reflect reality.  If I tell my teen that they aren't going to have time to finish something they might respond 'you think I'm not good enough' when what I mean is 'nobody can do those 2 tasks in that amount of time' and the reality is that they feel bad about their less-than-ideal time management and are deflecting that onto me, as teens do.  But, in 10 years, they may remember me as trying to help them prioritize or they may remember me telling them that they aren't good enough, who knows.  

I also don't understand celebrities leading the charge on various social issues.  I have respect for anybody, celebrity or otherwise, who picks a cause or 2 and puts a lot of effort into learning about it and working on improving that situation through work.  But, a lot of celebrities seem to jump from one hot topic to another, their help involves a lot of talking, and their ideas often don't seem to be very connected to the everyday reality of people who don't have celebrity-level resources.  But, this  may just be me being grumpy.  Watching various 'great ideas' do nothing or wreak havoc, I'm becoming convinced that if you actually want to make many situations better, you have to dig in with a particular area.  Volunteer at a particular school (if you are normal people) or adopt a city block to provide services of some sort (like the Harlem Children's Zone) or work to improve mental health service access in one city.  Ifitworks,replicate elsewhere.  This level of involvement means that you work with people who actually do the work and you can learn what the barriers are.  Like, people might think that we need to improve funding to let people access mental health care, but the problem in many areas is lack of providers - all the money in the world won't help if there isn't a doctor or hospital bed to use it on.  Every now and then I hear of a person who has been working with a specific school or agency for years, usually quietly, and I'm more likely to trust whatever advice or policy they recommend.  

[pinball]

4 hours ago, Happy2BaMom said:

“. And in the ensuing years, I’ve learned something about truth: It’s way more complicated than it seems when we’re young. There isn’t just one truth, our truth — the other people who inhabit our story have their truths as well”

Applies as well to boundaries, no contact, estrangement…

[Mrs Tiggywinkle Again]

So I finished the book. I’m a fast reader lol.

I don’t think he really blasts his family that much other than Camilla. He worships Diana to the point he really needed a therapist to help him sort through that, and Camilla is clearly still The Other Woman.  And probably leaking stories to the press about him, at least according to Harry. He does admit that she makes his father very very happy and he’s glad for that, but she turned his old bedroom into a closet and he hasn’t gotten over that yet. 
But overall—his family doesn’t come off looking terrible; more like victims themselves.  There was a very brief mention of Uncle Andrew and it was just that he allegedly had maybe assaulted someone but that he’d kept his security. I was hoping for more strongly worded Uncle Andrew is a schmuck, but I maintain that none of the BRF including Harry really believe he did anything other than have bad friends.

The true enemy in the whole book is the British press and paparazzi, and I do think he’s right on that one.  He is convinced that every bad thing that has ever happened to him is due to the paparazzi, from killing his mom to screwing up his military career to ruining his romantic relationships. But he can’t quite come to terms with how his family uses the press and controls leaks.

I did come away from the book thinking that William was 100% correct when he strongly advised Harry to slow down in his relationship with Meghan.  Harry talks about his desire to marry young, because he feels his Dad was too old at Harry’s birth, and it truly comes off as someone who desperately wanted to be married and convinced himself to fall hard for the first woman who could deal with the paparazzi. 

Just my own opinions.

Edited January 14, 2023 by Mrs Tiggywinkle Again

[Happy2BaMom]

12 hours ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle Again said:

......I did come away from the book thinking that William was 100% correct when he strongly advised Harry to slow down in his relationship with Meghan.  Harry talks about his desire to marry young, because he feels his Dad was too old at Harry’s birth, and it truly comes off as someone who desperately wanted to be married and convinced himself to fall hard for the first woman who could deal with the paparazzi. 

 

IMO, this is the crux of the whole family breakdown. Harry married a non-British woman who (according to her) "didn't know much about him" (or, obviously then, the RF) upon meeting, and then the couple progressed (according to Harry), "from 0 to 60 like in the first two months". Supposedly, the first big rift appeared between the two brothers because William did advise Harry to slow down (to which Harry reacted furiously, automatically assuming that the advice was a sign of Will being personally or racially biased rather than perhaps a brother offering prudent caution & hard-earned wisdom). H & M then proceeded to have a $21 million royal wedding less than two years after their first date with M immediately becoming a **highly** visible member of the RF in a country where she doesn't know the culture or the monarchy. They got pregnant almost immediately, had the baby, and then soon after broke from the monarchy, barely 20 months after their wedding. I can understand getting lost in the romance of being "in love", but this isn't the timeline of mature and thoughtful decisions.

And, a full three years later now, neither of them talks of anything else. Any neither accepts *any* responsibility for creating the train wreck detailed above. The break-up is all because (insert name) did/didn't do (insert item).

And, now apparently Meghan is writing her own book of memoirs, publication of which will  be assured given the success of Harry's book, so stay tuned for the next airing of grievances and much talk-show discussion about the fact that no one in Harry's family will take or respond to calls anymore.

Edited January 14, 2023 by Happy2BaMom

[Kanin]

On 1/12/2023 at 11:30 AM, Mrs Tiggywinkle Again said:

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).

I hadn't thought of that. How horrible. 

[stephanier.1765]

He really is fixated on Diana. I get it. Losing a mother at any age is traumatic but he was still at a very vulnerable age and, I think, he is still stuck at that age. From his many older women, to immature behavior, to his fixation on discussing it. I feel so bad for that little boy, royal or not, but I wish he would grow to his 38 years and learn some wisdom from his experiences.

[SKL]

I'm curious, what specifically did Camilla leak to hurt Harry in order to protect herself?  I keep hearing reference to this, but I don't know what they're talking about.  If there was such a story, how do they know Camilla leaked it?  And is this "THE truth," "his truth," or just rumors?

[Mrs Tiggywinkle Again]

9 minutes ago, SKL said:

I'm curious, what specifically did Camilla leak to hurt Harry in order to protect herself?  I keep hearing reference to this, but I don't know what they're talking about.  If there was such a story, how do they know Camilla leaked it?  And is this "THE truth," "his truth," or just rumors?

Harry maintains that, among other things, Camilla leaked the story about Meghan/Kate/Charlotte’s wedding dress because only Meghan and Kate knew about it, as it was private conversation, then Kate and William mentioned it to Charles and Camilla over dinner and suddenly a half story was in the press.  Also that Camilla and William met when Charles and Camilla were going to go public and true details of that meeting got into the press.

I can’t think of the other leaks off hand. He never mentions, though, that one of Camilla’s aides/friends admitted to talking to the press about confidential things and then resigned because of it.

 https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a42427714/prince-harry-camilla-planted-press-stories-interview/

[Scarlett]

7 hours ago, Happy2BaMom said:

IMO, this is the crux of the whole family breakdown. Harry married a non-British woman who (according to her) "didn't know much about him" (or, obviously then, the RF) upon meeting, and then the couple progressed (according to Harry), "from 0 to 60 like in the first two months". Supposedly, the first big rift appeared between the two brothers because William did advise Harry to slow down (to which Harry reacted furiously, automatically assuming that the advice was a sign of Will being personally or racially biased rather than perhaps a brother offering prudent caution & hard-earned wisdom). H & M then proceeded to have a $21 million royal wedding less than two years after their first date with M immediately becoming a **highly** visible member of the RF in a country where she doesn't know the culture or the monarchy. They got pregnant almost immediately, had the baby, and then soon after broke from the monarchy, barely 20 months after their wedding. I can understand getting lost in the romance of being "in love", but this isn't the timeline of mature and thoughtful decisions.

And, a full three years later now, neither of them talks of anything else. Any neither accepts *any* responsibility for creating the train wreck detailed above. The break-up is all because (insert name) did/didn't do (insert item).

And, now apparently Meghan is writing her own book of memoirs, publication of which will  be assured given the success of Harry's book, so stay tuned for the next airing of grievances and much talk-show discussion about the fact that no one in Harry's family will take or respond to calls anymore.

I agree in large part with your post. I am curious why a 2 year dating/engagement period is seen as too fast. 

[Lady Florida.]

5 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

 I am curious why a 2 year dating/engagement period is seen as too fast. 

I wondered about that too. Dh and I got married almost 2 years to the day of our first date. Tomorrow is our 29 year anniversary.

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle Again said:

Harry maintains that, among other things, Camilla leaked the story about Meghan/Kate/Charlotte’s wedding dress because only Meghan and Kate knew about it, as it was private conversation, then Kate and William mentioned it to Charles and Camilla over dinner and suddenly a half story was in the press.  Also that Camilla and William met when Charles and Camilla were going to go public and true details of that meeting got into the press.

I can’t think of the other leaks off hand. He never mentions, though, that one of Camilla’s aides/friends admitted to talking to the press about confidential things and then resigned because of it.

 https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a42427714/prince-harry-camilla-planted-press-stories-interview/

This is also fascinating in a train wreck kind of way. If one of Camilla's associates was leaking, wouldn't that implicate/reveal whatever spin she put on the events when speaking to her friend?

[Mrs Tiggywinkle Again]

22 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I agree in large part with your post. I am curious why a 2 year dating/engagement period is seen as too fast. 

In the book, Harry makes it clear that they were talking marriage really by the third date.  William advised him to slow it down really early on.  Harry also mentioned that at least 3 years between publicly  dating and engagement was encouraged for all family members so that the marrying-in spouse would have a true understanding of what their life was going to be like and be able to make a fully informed decision about marriage.  I expect that really came about after Charles and Diana, and how few times they’d really seen each other before marriage, but Harry doesn’t explicitly say that.

I married my husband within six months of starting to date, though we’d known each other and worked together for a while before that.  But I’m not one to talk about slowing it down.  In their case though, it might have been wiser.  Throughout the book Harry talks about wanting desperately to be married, and then when Meghan appears, he’s ready to propose within days.  I suspect William knew his desperate desire to marry(it’s repeated throughout the book until Meghan appears) and would have cautioned him to slow down no matter who he was wanting to marry. 

Edited January 14, 2023 by Mrs Tiggywinkle Again

[Grace Hopper]

22 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I agree in large part with your post. I am curious why a 2 year dating/engagement period is seen as too fast. 

 

15 minutes ago, Lady Florida. said:

I wondered about that too. Dh and I got married almost 2 years to the day of our first date. Tomorrow is our 29 year anniversary.

For normal folks it’s probably fine. For people who need to really observe the kind of life they’d be expected to lead once married, and maybe to enjoy some less on the radar time first, I think it’s too quick. 

[Grace Hopper]

3 minutes ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle Again said:

In the book, Harry makes it clear that they were talking marriage really by the third date.  William advised him to slow it down really early on.  Harry also mentioned that at least 3 years between publicly  dating and engagement was encouraged for all family members so that the marrying-in spouse would have a true understanding of what their life was going to be like and be able to make a fully informed decision about marriage.  I expect that really came about after Charles and Diana, and how few times they’d really seen each other before marriage, but Harry doesn’t explicitly say that.

Third date? Holy cow!

Def too quick!

[Mrs Tiggywinkle Again]

Just now, Grace Hopper said:

Third date? Holy cow!

Def too quick!

I think the third date was when he took her to Botswana, introduced her to his surrogate mother, and started talking to other people about proposing. 

[Grace Hopper]

1 minute ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle Again said:

I think the third date was when he took her to Botswana, introduced her to his surrogate mother, and started talking to other people about proposing. 

Where’s the head exploding reaction emoji option???

 

[Farrar]

No matter whose side you're on, it seems like it's impossible to have a normal family relationship within the restrictions of this system. And not just the way that movie stars, pop stars, and other celebrities struggle to know who to trust, but on a much bigger level. All those other celebrities have "the people from before." Even second generation celebs have portions of their lives that were mostly pretty normal. Heck, even people who air everything on TV like the Kardashians aren't actually on all the time and have a lot of control and autonomy about how they're going to shape their stories. This set up where everyone has their own secretaries and press offices and they're all bickering... Good grief.

It's normal for families to spat. And then healthy families work out the stuff that's really bad and move on about the stuff that's not a big deal. Even for things that in the moment feel pretty grievous or maybe even are pretty horrible in the moment have to be forgiven sometimes. I think of my worst moments with family members - the time I screamed at my father that he was horrible when I was a teen, the time my mother screamed at me then hung up the phone after some very petty drama she had worked herself into a tizz about, the time my kid really pushed my buttons and I got in his face over it and he ended up shoving me... Like, these moments in isolation seem really bad. But the reality is that we're mostly pretty nice to each other. And we're all far, far over it. No one should lose their family members over that one time when they lost it. But if you're in this system and no one can process anything with anyone else without it turning into some sort of leak and any press story like this can become a way to shame someone else before they use it to shame you... I mean, there's no room to breathe. How could you have those normal mess ups? You can't.

[Scarlett]

40 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

This is also fascinating in a train wreck kind of way. If one of Camilla's associates was leaking, wouldn't that implicate/reveal whatever spin she put on the events when speaking to her friend?

I think so. 

[Sneezyone]

6 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I think so. 

IJS. I'm not in a position to criticize as I, the 'cougar', married DH when I was 22 and he was 18. When you know, you know. Almost 25 years later, no regrets.

Edited January 14, 2023 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

27 minutes ago, Farrar said:

I mean, there's no room to breathe. How could you have those normal mess ups? You can't.

Isn't that part of the problem he's describing?  Speed isn't necessarily a fatal mistake, nor are social faux pas. How we react to the inevitable challenges they create...THAT is the problem. Shouldn't that be the story?