Prince Harry - Spare

[Farrar]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

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?

I basically agree. I mean, you can look at what he's revealed and what's been leaked or "contradicted" as the anti-H&M crowd here keeps saying and be more sympathetic to C&C or W&K, but surely they're also victims of this really cruddy system. It's just that they've decided it's worth it for whatever reason and H decided screw it. Apart from whether their individual actions were okay or healthy or anything else.

[Katy]

It was technically the third date, but they’d been exclusive for three months, living in separate continents, texting and face timing constantly. I do not think it was too soon to think about proposing by then. 

Multiple journalists who cover the royal family for tabloids have gone on tv and admitted sometimes their sources are the royal family or their closest aides. It’s on YouTube. Harry isn’t deceived about this. There’s a whole passage in the book where Harry confronted his dad about a leak he knew came from them and Charles kept saying that Granny has her spin person so he needs one too. 

[Katy]

3 minutes ago, Farrar said:

I basically agree. I mean, you can look at what he's revealed and what's been leaked or "contradicted" as the anti-H&M crowd here keeps saying and be more sympathetic to C&C or W&K, but surely they're also victims of this really cruddy system. It's just that they've decided it's worth it for whatever reason and H decided screw it. Apart from whether their individual actions were okay or healthy or anything else.

This is exactly what he described in the book. 

[Sneezyone]

28 minutes ago, Farrar said:

I basically agree. I mean, you can look at what he's revealed and what's been leaked or "contradicted" as the anti-H&M crowd here keeps saying and be more sympathetic to C&C or W&K, but surely they're also victims of this really cruddy system. It's just that they've decided it's worth it for whatever reason and H decided screw it. Apart from whether their individual actions were okay or healthy or anything else.

Yep. For a moment there, I wondered if I was missing something. I don't think either decision is 'bad' and each can be well-reasoned/logical. No one looks good to me. It does make me more grateful for what I have.

Edited January 14, 2023 by Sneezyone

[Scarlett]

21 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

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.

Dh and I married less than 3 months after we met.  But we were 43/45……

I think it is more difficult to know when you are 18/22 but obviously in your case it worked out.  
 

Harry and MM both were plenty old enough to know themselves and all that….but I do see the point about giving it time to see if MM could handle the Institution. It seems she thought that she could since she had handled being in the entertainment business….but as others have pointed out it is really a reality unto itself.

[Scarlett]

Also as far as Harry wanting to be married…..I think that is a reasonable thing to want at the age he was.  So that alone doesn’t make me question him choosing MM.  I mean isn’t that the way it works….when you decide you want to marry you look around and see who is available that you like at that time in your life. 

[Katy]

William kept Kate waiting for a decade, cheated on her and dumped her and only took her back and proposed when he figured out she would NOT speak to the press but she would be photographed out with men that were both more attractive and richer than him.  He was looking for someone closer to Camilla than his mother. Kate proved she’d put up with all kinds of abuse. 

Harry was looking for someone like his mother, who would stand up for what she thought was right, no matter her own faults. They both got what they wanted. 
 

ETA: my opinion about William & Kate’s history is from my own memory, not Harry’s book. 

Edited January 14, 2023 by Katy

[Sneezyone]

8 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Dh and I married less than 3 months after we met.  But we were 43/45……

I think it is more difficult to know when you are 18/22 but obviously in your case it worked out.  
 

Harry and MM both were plenty old enough to know themselves and all that….but I do see the point about giving it time to see if MM could handle the Institution. It seems she thought that she could since she had handled being in the entertainment business….but as others have pointed out it is really a reality unto itself.

That implicates the institutional policies, practices, and biases tho...more so than the people/figureheads. It seems like the 'Royal Family (tm)' goes wrong mostly when it prioritizes institutional values over personal ones. I say that in the sense that loyalty and duty are as much personal values as organizational ones so they needn't be sacrificed on the altar of personal autonomy or vice versa. If you instill a sense of duty as a family, which they seem to have done over generations (and H's military service is commendable), that doesn't mean subsuming every aspect of personhood/personal autonomy/self-respect. I dunno. Maybe having navigated these waters for so many years (recognizing civic 'duty' while also balancing family/personal needs makes me a bit more sympathetic to the changing times. When DH started his career, people with significantly more rigid thoughts/behaviors were in charge.

Edited January 14, 2023 by Sneezyone

[Mom_to3]

I have not read the book...But 3 dates or 3 months seems like an awfully short time to talk marriage when that marriage means marrying into an institution that you know very little about. To then be upset that your sibling caution you to slow down appears odd. Also, a lot of the other major disagreements I have heard about, like the wedding dress, baby brain etc. seem like such small trivialities to keep a grudge for years. Sure it was a very public and expensive wedding and I am sure was stressful at the time, but come on ... to keep rehashing the issue years later is ridiculous. I

Also, if I were a member of the RF, I would never speak to Harry and Meghan about anything personal ever again, for fear of being written about or talked about on TV shows.. I have said some not so nice things to family members, and they have done the same to me. I would hate for everybody (employers, friends) to know all of this, all the more if I were not able to provide my perspective.

The other thing I don't understand - if they had simply wanted out, if they had left, moved to California or elsewhere even less glamorous, and stayed out of the public limelight, by now there would be much less need for expensive security - as people just wouldn't care. And they'd just be able to live close to normal upper class lives living off of their savings or taking some regular jobs. Am I wrong in that?

[Scarlett]

18 minutes ago, Mom_to3 said:

I have not read the book...But 3 dates or 3 months seems like an awfully short time to talk marriage when that marriage means marrying into an institution that you know very little about. To then be upset that your sibling caution you to slow down appears odd. Also, a lot of the other major disagreements I have heard about, like the wedding dress, baby brain etc. seem like such small trivialities to keep a grudge for years. Sure it was a very public and expensive wedding and I am sure was stressful at the time, but come on ... to keep rehashing the issue years later is ridiculous. I

Also, if I were a member of the RF, I would never speak to Harry and Meghan about anything personal ever again, for fear of being written about or talked about on TV shows.. I have said some not so nice things to family members, and they have done the same to me. I would hate for everybody (employers, friends) to know all of this, all the more if I were not able to provide my perspective.

The other thing I don't understand - if they had simply wanted out, if they had left, moved to California or elsewhere even less glamorous, and stayed out of the public limelight, by now there would be much less need for expensive security - as people just wouldn't care. And they'd just be able to live close to normal upper class lives living off of their savings or taking some regular jobs. Am I wrong in that?

I think there will always be security issues. Their children are at risk of kidnapping for ransom if nothing else. I do think it was pretty petty of the Crown to stop paying for security. 
Big money brings big money problems. They have so much money I can’t wrap my mind around what is reasonable. But they are both young and retiring to live off of savings might be a unfulfilled existence.

[Sneezyone]

24 minutes ago, Mom_to3 said:

I have not read the book...But 3 dates or 3 months seems like an awfully short time to talk marriage when that marriage means marrying into an institution that you know very little about. To then be upset that your sibling caution you to slow down appears odd. Also, a lot of the other major disagreements I have heard about, like the wedding dress, baby brain etc. seem like such small trivialities to keep a grudge for years. Sure it was a very public and expensive wedding and I am sure was stressful at the time, but come on ... to keep rehashing the issue years later is ridiculous. I

Also, if I were a member of the RF, I would never speak to Harry and Meghan about anything personal ever again, for fear of being written about or talked about on TV shows.. I have said some not so nice things to family members, and they have done the same to me. I would hate for everybody (employers, friends) to know all of this, all the more if I were not able to provide my perspective.

The other thing I don't understand - if they had simply wanted out, if they had left, moved to California or elsewhere even less glamorous, and stayed out of the public limelight, by now there would be much less need for expensive security - as people just wouldn't care. And they'd just be able to live close to normal upper class lives living off of their savings or taking some regular jobs. Am I wrong in that?

Isn't every marriage some form of 'marrying into an institution'? I may be biased b/c that's how my family of origin functioned (thou shalt not speak ill of the family and protect it at all costs b/c negative publicity on any scale is verboten) but every family is a system unto itself and figuring out how to work with/within/outside it is hard. I think it's hard to fully understand (I DON'T) the security needs of such a high-profile family but I wouldn't expect them (threats) to go away/diminish simply because they eschew publicity for a decade or two. Patty Hearst comes to mind. 

Edited January 14, 2023 by Sneezyone

[Lecka]

I think if it costs $6 million a year and they are cut off by the Royal family, if they did lay low for 5 years, how do they come up with $30 million for those 5 years, to lay low for those 5 years?

 

I don’t know if they really could have done it, and had the money to be able to do that.  
 

I have an impression like — the Royal family is not making it easy on them to leave, it will make it less likely for others to leave, if they are given a smooth exit plan.  
 

But I don’t actually know that.  
 

I think even if they have a lot of money, if there is a need for security and that is how much it costs, they would be burning through more money than they could reasonably earn by doing regular-people careers.  

[SKL]

4 hours 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/

Hmm, looks like somewhere between "his truth" and "rumors."  How the dress story was supposed to improve Camilla's image I don't know.

I read about the bridesmaid dress thing for the first time today.  It seems so petty.  The sort of thing many people get worked up about in the stress of a wedding, but to keep bringing it up years later?  Seems pretty immature.

I'm sure it's not easy to navigate royal family life.  But in the grand scheme of things, I keep going back to "cry me a river" in between worrying for people living in severe poverty, active battlefields, and so many other situations.

I remember that when William and Harry were babies, Diana said she didn't plan to raise them the traditional Royal Family way, but in a way more like how ordinary kids are raised.  Maybe that backfired with Harry, because he was a rebel against tradition long before he met Meghan.  Or maybe he's just wired to bust out.  But regardless, he's had the softest of soft landings.

As for MM, the fact that even her dad can't stand her makes me doubt that none of the stress comes from her side.

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

Isn't every marriage some form of 'marrying into an institution'? I may be biased b/c that's how my family of origin functioned (thou shalt not speak ill of the family and protect it at all costs b/c negative publicity on any scale is verboten) but every family is a system unto itself and figuring out how to work with/within/outside it is hard. I think it's hard to fully understand (I DON'T) the security needs of such a high-profile family but I wouldn't expect them to go away/diminish simply because they eschew publicity for a decade or two. Patty Hearst comes to mind. 

Yes to the bolded.  
 

Dh and I met and basically had a checklist on a clipboard (figuratively) where we just went down checking the boxes.

Physical  attraction? Check

Same faith? Check?

Are you are a clean person with clean living space? Check

Can you be a good step parent to my child?/children? Check.

There was more but you get the idea.  And we did not get all of our info from each other….there was a lot of talking to mutual friends etc.

Even after all of that there was family to deal with….ex husbands and ex wives etc.  Blended family etc.  

 

[SKL]

1 hour ago, Farrar said:

I basically agree. I mean, you can look at what he's revealed and what's been leaked or "contradicted" as the anti-H&M crowd here keeps saying and be more sympathetic to C&C or W&K, but surely they're also victims of this really cruddy system. It's just that they've decided it's worth it for whatever reason and H decided screw it. Apart from whether their individual actions were okay or healthy or anything else.

FTR, just because I don't have much sympathy for H&M, that doesn't mean I like C&C (I don't) nor that I have any opinion at all about W&K (I don't) nor that I am in support of the traditional runnings of the Royal Family or certainly the paparazzi.  I think most of us aren't taking sides.  In fact, I recently had a houseguest who's been living in the UK for years.  I asked him if he had any thoughts about the Royal Family stuff, and he was rather adamant about having no "side" and not wanting to talk about it.

[Melissa Louise]

7 hours ago, stephanier.1765 said:

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.

Yes, stuck.

Which is why I think he either got a really rubbish therapist, or he is ignoring his therapy.

In good therapy, you can have your full range of emotions, including blinding anger, AND you also get to work through your trauma in a way that is self-protective ie not all - any! -of it has to be worked out publicly, or with the players in your trauma.

You can definitely explore the desire for revenge, you can be as grandiose as you like, you can rail again and again and again over those who harmed you - and gradually, by keeping it in the frame of the therapy and with the help of a skilled therapist, you can come to a less stuck place, where your psychological options are so much greater.

I can envisage a different sort of book, co-written with a good journalist, that explores the ecology of the UK media, that would achieve what Harry claims to wish to achieve, without the way he has exposed so much of himself, and of others. From a viewpoint that  can now understand that other people also have their own emotional realities, and that far from being the main character with others performing the role of bit players in your story, we are all bit players circling each other, and the only power we have is over our own small part of the script.

His communications  are not the behaviour of a psychologically mature person. That's not a slam on him - it is hard to be consistently psychologically mature given trauma and the way trauma was handled. In general, I feel that someone - his therapist, friends, his wife - should have helped protect him from himself. Though perhaps they tried, and the adolescent part of Harry simply didn't listen.

I feel that the adolescent part is feeling frustrated at the lack of royal response, and see some statement over the past few days re W & K's children as trying to goad W into contact. Even angry contact probably feels better than being frozen out.

Mostly I hope he stops now. Takes a breath, goes back to (good) therapy, focuses on the good in his life. He has a wife, children, home, and financial security. These are not small things.

 

 

[Mrs Tiggywinkle Again]

The snarky part of me does kind of wonder how Courtney Cox feels about Harry telling the entire world about how he found and helped himself to the psychedelic shrooms in her fridge though….

[Melissa Louise]

24 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I think there will always be security issues. Their children are at risk of kidnapping for ransom if nothing else. I do think it was pretty petty of the Crown to stop paying for security. 
Big money brings big money problems. They have so much money I can’t wrap my mind around what is reasonable. But they are both young and retiring to live off of savings might be a unfulfilled existence.

Tax payers aren't keen.

It was a problem for Canadians, polls here were against it, and there are issues in sending UK protection officers overseas on permanent postings.

Most Royals don't have security 24/7 - it is provided based on engagement and level of threat (which varies, and will vary for H & M also). His cousins, who are the best comparator, and who also have children, do not have permanent security. The cousins keep relatively low profiles, however.

I was unhappy to hear that Harry doesn't want to use his vast savings, because he wants to keep it for Archie. Yes, we all want to do that for our children. But ordinary people don't get that choice - if they become unemployed here (not sure about the UK but I think it's similar), you are expected to spend down all your savings before being supported by the taxpayer. If it's good enough for the plebs, it's good enough for Royals.

[Melissa Louise]

4 minutes ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle Again said:

The snarky part of me does kind of wonder how Courtney Cox feels about Harry telling the entire world about how he found and helped himself to the psychedelic shrooms in her fridge though….

I'm not too worried about CC, or about the inclusion of any of the players in Harry's life who are likewise celebrities.

The disabled matron he talks about laughing at - I'm not sure how she feels. There were enough details given in the book for her full name to be on Twitter within a day of the excerpt being leaked. I really hope Harry has apologized to her or her family, if he did not run this part of the book by her first.

[Harriet Vane]

35 minutes ago, SKL said:

 

As for MM, the fact that even her dad can't stand her makes me doubt that none of the stress comes from her side.

This statement is unworthy and harsh. She comes from a broken family, as do many on this board and many people that you know. Family estrangement is complicated and deeply painful, and I'm 100% sure you cannot possibly know all that stands between them.

[pinball]

2 minutes ago, Harriet Vane said:

This statement is unworthy and harsh. She comes from a broken family, as do many on this board and many people that you know. Family estrangement is complicated and deeply painful, and I'm 100% sure you cannot possibly know all that stands between them.

You might want to rethink this phrase

[Harriet Vane]

Just now, pinball said:

You might want to rethink this phrase

Confused. Estrangement does indicate deep pain and brokenness. Speaking as someone who definitely also comes from a broken family. Would you care to suggest an alternative? 

[Scarlett]

6 minutes ago, Harriet Vane said:

Confused. Estrangement does indicate deep pain and brokenness. Speaking as someone who definitely also comes from a broken family. Would you care to suggest an alternative? 

Color me confused too. My FOO was/is broken and my son’s FOO is broken. 

[Sneezyone]

42 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Tax payers aren't keen.

It was a problem for Canadians, polls here were against it, and there are issues in sending UK protection officers overseas on permanent postings.

Most Royals don't have security 24/7 - it is provided based on engagement and level of threat (which varies, and will vary for H & M also). His cousins, who are the best comparator, and who also have children, do not have permanent security. The cousins keep relatively low profiles, however.

I was unhappy to hear that Harry doesn't want to use his vast savings, because he wants to keep it for Archie. Yes, we all want to do that for our children. But ordinary people don't get that choice - if they become unemployed here (not sure about the UK but I think it's similar), you are expected to spend down all your savings before being supported by the taxpayer. If it's good enough for the plebs, it's good enough for Royals.

To be fair, the cousins are FAR, far down the list WRT media interest and 'celebrity' but I agree that if they have the funds, they should use them.

Edited January 15, 2023 by Sneezyone

[Scarlett]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

To be fair, the cousins are FAR, far down the list WRT media interest and 'celebrity.

Agree. 

[SKL]

26 minutes ago, Harriet Vane said:

Family estrangement is complicated and deeply painful, and I'm 100% sure you cannot possibly know all that stands between them.

I don't claim to know them, but I am not disposed to assume she is blameless.

Since you mentioned family estrangement, perhaps it is not a complete coincidence that both H and M are estranged from family.

[Katy]

48 minutes ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle Again said:

The snarky part of me does kind of wonder how Courtney Cox feels about Harry telling the entire world about how he found and helped himself to the psychedelic shrooms in her fridge though….

He included the brand. It’s a chocolate that includes some psychoactive compound that isn’t psilocybin so it’s not regulated. Legal in the USA. I think she’s good. 

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

To be fair, the cousins are FAR, far down the list WRT media interest and 'celebrity.

True, but that's partly due to living relatively boring upper class lives, and not deliberately courting the media.

Daily Proust delivered an apposite comment. The poor bloke needs quiet and privacy to deal with his very complicated grief. I think he is very poorly advised. Reportedly he is close to his cousins, and I wonder if he could look to them for a third way to live.

 

[Sneezyone]

4 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

True, but that's partly due to living relatively boring upper class lives, and not deliberately courting the media.

Daily Proust delivered an apposite comment. The poor bloke needs quiet and privacy to deal with his very complicated grief. I think he is very poorly advised. Reportedly he is close to his cousins, and I wonder if he could look to them for a third way to live. 

Is that the fault/responsibility of Harry/William or their parents? They are who they are as a result of their parents' choices/the obligations of hereditary monarchy. The cousins were never, truly directly in line to inherit. IJS. The cousins aren't the best exemplar of how to do this 'quietly'. They had very different lives despite their parents' scandals. I do hope H&M can find connection/support among their cousins. Mine are mostly tied to their parents, ideologically, at the hip.

Edited January 15, 2023 by Sneezyone

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

Is that the fault/responsibility of Harry/William or their parents? They are who they are as a result of their parents' choices/the obligations of hereditary monarchy.

I don't think it's anyone's 'fault'.

Splitting, as Harry does,  into the bad people and the good people - I think that's revealing of psychological difficulty.

The truth is all people in that family are just dealing with the hand they have been given. It's a very odd hand - all privilege in a gilded cage. This is what I meant about getting to a point where you understand that just as you have an emotional life shaped by your experience, so do your siblings, or you parents or grandparents.

Doesn't mean you need to stay close to those people, if they are bad for you - it just means you get out of the splitting. Dad failed me at an important time AND Dad also had an emotional life and struggles he dealt with as he could. etc.

It's a goal, to get to that point. Anyone who has dealt with significant family trauma knows that they will often bounce about between splitting/blame and acceptance.

[SKL]

I think H&M knew from the start that they were gonna make waves, and they just figured they'd get away with it, have their cake and eat it too.  Perhaps because Harry was always protected / forgiven before, they thought there was no limit to that.

They chose what they chose for their family, and now they are acting like it was chosen for them.  I guess they are hoping the world has amnesia.

Well now they will have more money thanks to the books.  If they really want a private life, they can let things die down after this.  We'll see I guess.

[Sneezyone]

19 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

I don't think it's anyone's 'fault'.

Splitting, as Harry does,  into the bad people and the good people - I think that's revealing of psychological difficulty.

The truth is all people in that family are just dealing with the hand they have been given. It's a very odd hand - all privilege in a gilded cage. This is what I meant about getting to a point where you understand that just as you have an emotional life shaped by your experience, so do your siblings, or you parents or grandparents.

Doesn't mean you need to stay close to those people, if they are bad for you - it just means you get out of the splitting. Dad failed me at an important time AND Dad also had an emotional life and struggles he dealt with as he could. etc.

It's a goal, to get to that point. Anyone who has dealt with significant family trauma knows that they will often bounce about between splitting/blame and acceptance.

I feel like this level of nuance is beyond most young adults. I don't see it as individual difficulty/dysfunction so much as a natural reaction/response to trauma/systemic dysfunction. I'm not there in terms of acceptance (nor are my cousins) with my own family and I'm middle-aged. We rarely see each other just our respective parents, and in many cases, not even that. So, yeah, I'm not prepared to cosign forgive and move on.

Edited January 15, 2023 by Sneezyone

[Katy]

4 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I feel like this level of nuance is beyond most young adults. I don't see it as individual difficulty/dysfunction so much as a natural reaction/response to trauma/systemic dysfunction. I'm not there in terms of acceptance (nor are my cousins) with my own family and I'm middle-aged. We rarely see each other just our respective parents, and in many cases, not even that. So, yeah, I'm not prepared to cosign forgive and move on.

I get the impression he does accept it, he just thinks it’s wrong to privately but publicly throw family under the bus with racist BS leaks that threaten his wife & children. So after having the private fight many times since childhood & seeing the behavior and danger escalate along with security being withdrawn after marriage… he decided to go nuclear instead of continuing to put up with it. Making it public happened only after therapy and security being withdrawn. Charles thought he was more like him than like his mother. He was wrong. 

Sometimes I suspect William’s tendency to model his father is not just what’s best for him due to birth order, but also being 15 instead of 12 when Diana died… He was well past the age of idolizing one parent. He was probably just as angry at his mom for being public as he was at his dad. And clearly still is. 

[Melissa Louise]

15 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I feel like this level of nuance is beyond most young adults. I don't see it as individual difficulty/dysfunction so much as a natural reaction/response to trauma/systemic dysfunction. I'm not there in terms of acceptance (nor are my cousins) with my own family and I'm middle-aged. We rarely see each other just our respective parents, and in many cases, not even that. So, yeah, I'm not prepared to cosign forgive and move on.

He's not a young adult at this point. He's also had the benefit of being able to access as much mental health care, as an adult, as he cares for. This is not the case for most people in the UK or Commonwealth.

It's not really about forgiving.

It's about freeing oneself from the narrative where one is done to by the bad other.

I know it's hard; I find it hard. It's still worth working towards freedom from that narrative, imo.

[Scarlett]

2 minutes ago, Katy said:

I get the impression he does accept it, he just thinks it’s wrong to privately but publicly throw family under the bus with racist BS leaks that threaten his wife & children. So after having the private fight many times since childhood & seeing the behavior and danger escalate along with security being withdrawn after marriage… he decided to go nuclear instead of continuing to put up with it. Making it public happened only after therapy and security being withdrawn. Charles thought he was more like him than like his mother. He was wrong. 

Sometimes I suspect William’s tendency to model his father is not just what’s best for him due to birth order, but also being 15 instead of 12 when Diana died… He was well past the age of idolizing one parent. He was probably just as angry at his mom for being public as he was at his dad. And clearly still is. 

I have seen this played out in my husband’s FOO. There are 7 of them.  When Dh was 12 his dad died in a motorcycle accident. He was the next to the oldest……older sister was 15.  The baby was not yet born.  Dh took on the role of protector and replacement father….older sister who was always a handful just stopped progressing emotionally and remains a screwed up adult acting like she is 15.  The baby is now 43 and never found a man to measure up to her brothers or the father she never met. It is fascinating and heartbreaking to watch.  

[stephanier.1765]

19 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I feel like this level of nuance is beyond most young adults. I don't see it as individual difficulty/dysfunction so much as a natural reaction/response to trauma/systemic dysfunction. I'm not there in terms of acceptance (nor are my cousins) with my own family and I'm middle-aged. We rarely see each other just our respective parents, and in many cases, not even that. So, yeah, I'm not prepared to cosign forgive and move on.

H&M are middle age. Harry is 38, so not a young adult any more.

[Sneezyone]

2 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

He's not a young adult at this point. He's also had the benefit of being able to access as much mental health care, as an adult, as he cares for. This is not the case for most people in the UK or Commonwealth.

It's not really about forgiving.

It's about freeing oneself from the narrative where one is done to by the bad other.

I know it's hard; I find it hard. It's still worth working towards freedom from that narrative, imo.

No, he's not, but his personal narratives were established long before today. Your version of 'freeing' is my 'ignorance' and lack of atonement. IJS.

Edited January 15, 2023 by Sneezyone

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, stephanier.1765 said:

H&M are middle age. Harry is 38, so not a young adult any more.

Calling them young adults bugs me.

I had two small children at 28, and I was definitely moving out of young adulthood at that stage. I tend to think of young adulthood as between 16-25.

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

No, he's not, but his personal narratives were established long before today. You're version of 'freeing' is my 'ignorance' and lack of atonement. IJS.

The thing is, most of the time we don't get atonement. There's a point at which we must adjust to reality. It doesn't mean we have to accept ill-treatment from others, but it does mean letting go of the (understandable) desire for acknowledgement from those who caused us pain.

I'm not really sure how that is ignorant.

 

 

 

[Sneezyone]

I had zero children at 28 and was barely ready, financially anyway, to handle the two we got after that. Extended adolescence/adulthood is a thing. I'd think that was even more at play for more sheltered young people.

[Sneezyone]

5 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

The thing is, most of the time we don't get atonement. There's a point at which we must adjust to reality. It doesn't mean we have to accept ill-treatment from others, but it does mean letting go of the (understandable) desire for acknowledgement from those who caused us pain.

I'm not really sure how that is ignorant.

 

 

 

I don't disagree, at all, but this is a place you've come to over time. I am highly unlikely to reconcile with my maternal family and am OK with that but I also have 10 years on this guy. If you asked me at his age I'd have raged too. We don't know what we don't know.

Edited January 15, 2023 by Sneezyone

[Faith-manor]

1 hour ago, Lecka said:

I think if it costs $6 million a year and they are cut off by the Royal family, if they did lay low for 5 years, how do they come up with $30 million for those 5 years, to lay low for those 5 years?

 

I don’t know if they really could have done it, and had the money to be able to do that.  
 

I have an impression like — the Royal family is not making it easy on them to leave, it will make it less likely for others to leave, if they are given a smooth exit plan.  
 

But I don’t actually know that.  
 

I think even if they have a lot of money, if there is a need for security and that is how much it costs, they would be burning through more money than they could reasonably earn by doing regular-people careers.  

I think that could easily be it. Leave their cheese out to the wind, and if something happens, let that be a warning to anyone else who rebels against the institution. I also think that these children are considered quite expendable, in the eyes of the family and the institution, in order to make a point. I hope nothing happens to them!

I think if this were say, a former president of the United States and family, and there were death threats and security issues for the children and Congress, Secret Service, and police ignored it, and said, "Screw you! You are on your own!" we the people would be up in arms. I would be livid if Barron Trump found himself without security right now. We also do not expect our presidents and their spouses and minor children to pay for their own security, even after daddy leaves office. Amy Carter, Chelsea Clinton, Malia and Sasha Obama, John and Caroline Kennedy, they were all provided security as children after their fathers left office because the depraved out there, and we know we have a lot of them, might do unthinkable things because they didn't like their parents' decisions or policies. In 1994, lifetime protection for presidents and their immediate families was amended to security for only 10 years after leaving office, and only up to age 16 for children. In 2013, Congress need on secret service recommendation went back to lifetime for the president and spouse, and extended security upon request to get adult children through high school and college, even beyond if there are credible threats. Prior to that, the Clintons and Bushes requested extension for their adult children in college which was granted. It is not remotely unreasonable, and these are not people as rich as or as widely known in the public eye as members of the royal family. Malia and Sasha still have security though their father has been out of office 6 years. I do not think this is inappropriate, nor do I resent this as a tax payer. I would be heart broken if something happened to them because they had the misfortune of being born to someone who served this country as president. It boggles my mind that this is not the case for Lilibet and Archie. They really are targets especially when in the UK which is why I do not blame their parents for not wanting to take them to the UK under the current security situation.

That said, I am going to call out Prince Henry here because he allowed his emotional needs to get the better of him when he published this book, but since it added fuel to the fire, it also means that his children are probably in even more danger should they travel to the UK. This is the kind of thing that will make the UK's version of the same kind of unstable, rage minds we have here, come unhinged. I can only imagine how much worse the threats will be going forward. He needs to consider that, shut up, and start building a very private life to protect his children. It can be done. Bill Gates, richer than Henry will ever be and so very famous here in the States, managed it for his kids. Same for many, many others.

I am sure any number of agents and publicists told him this was just a wonderful thing to do, blah blah blah. But in thinking about it for a while, I believe it was unwise under the circumstances.

 

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

I had zero children at 28 and was barely ready, financially anyway, to handle the two we got after that. Extended adolescence/adulthood is a thing. I'd think that was even more at play for more sheltered young people.

Fair, but he's now a married man heading into his 40's with two children.

That's a grown up.

He's not a young adult, and hasn't been for some time.

It's OK - even well into adulthood we can still be trying to work through things. It's only at the beginning of  my 50's that I've had the funds and opportunity to work through my sh*t. I'm not judging him for not working it out in his 20's or even his 30's. I just don't think he's been a young adult for the past decade.

[Melissa Louise]

3 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I don't disagree, at all, buy this is a place you've come to over time. I am highly unlikely to reconcile with my maternal family and am OK with that but I have 10 years on this guy. If you asked me at his age, I'd have raged too. We don't know what we don't know.

True.

Which is why I think he has a crap therapist!

 

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

True.

Which is why I think he has a crap therapist!

 

I would have advised differently, yes. Lol.

5 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Fair, but he's now a married man heading into his 40's with two children.

That's a grown up.

He's not a young adult, and hasn't been for some time.

It's OK - even well into adulthood we can still be trying to work through things. It's only at the beginning of  my 50's that I've had the funds and opportunity to work through my sh*t. I'm not judging him for not working it out in his 20's or even his 30's. I just don't think he's been a young adult for the past decade.

I agree. He's a grown up and could be making different choices. I'm just hesitant to condemn them because I don't know the financial pressures they're under.

[Rosie_0801]

I don't know how sheltered to consider him. He's been and seen a whole lot more than the average rich kid.

[stephanier.1765]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

I would have advised differently, yes. Lol.

I agree. He's a grown up and could be making different choices. I'm just hesitant to condemn them because I don't know the financial pressures they're under.

I've wondered why they don't downsize. Do they really need to live in a mansion that size in California. But if they want that size home, wouldn't another state be more affordable? 

[Sneezyone]

4 minutes ago, Rosie_0801 said:

I don't know how sheltered to consider him. He's been and seen a whole lot more than the average rich kid.

Scripted experiences aren't indicative of a lack of 'shelter'/bubble tho. You can pay to send your kids on missions and overseas volunteerism experiences and get great photos, none of which will familiarize you with the feelings of 'charity' recipients. It's all smoke and mirrors/appearances.

Edited January 15, 2023 by Sneezyone

[Melissa Louise]

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I would have advised differently, yes. Lol.

I agree. He's a grown up and could be making different choices. I'm just hesitant to condemn them because I don't know the financial pressures they're under.

This is where my bias kicks in and I can't maintain compassion.

So I'll leave it there!

(I am really sorry for him in his grief - one of my parents lost their mother at 10, and they are similarly 'frozen' at that age - it's hard to be around, and caused me physical and emotional harm all through my childhood, but I do feel for them. I really hope he can process and move on, because that's what's best for his kids. Changing generational patterns is so hard).

 

[Faith-manor]

Just now, Melissa Louise said:

True.

Which is why I think he has a crap therapist!

 

This! I really hope his therapist didn't say, "Sure, your kids already have targets on their backs, and you have a lot of things to work through, but by all means it is wise to do a tell all that will make the unstable royal obssessers back home extra out of their minds! Go for it." I would hope he was heavily advised against it. I mean, this isn't just about HIM. Lilibet and Archie have to survive this thing, and right now, they only have the security that he and Megan can afford and what is available at that price in L.A. dreaming land where every celebrity has to hire drivers and bodyguards for their kids. If it was just Meghan and him, okay then. Do it, take the consquences. But I keep coming back to those babies, and thinking, "Henry. Do the thing your father never did. Put your kids well being first. You did it once when you left the UK."