Prince Harry - Spare

[Katy]

3 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

Which begs the question, "Who paid for this?" 

My guess? The same man who ate with Camilla and published a call for Meghan to be paraded through the streets naked. Pure speculation but he’s got motive and money.

[Grace Hopper]

2 hours ago, Roadrunner said:

I should have been more specific. British tabloid press is their enemy. You don’t see them giving interviews to them. I don’t think they have anything against the likes of BBC, CNN, or CBS or what we call normal, non tabloid press. 

Also fascinating is there was a targeted social media campaign against her. Makes you wonder who/why.

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2021/oct/27/meghan-target-of-co-ordinated-twitter-hate-campaign-report-finds

 

“This campaign comes from people who know how to manipulate the algorithms, manipulate Twitter, stay under the wire to avoid detection and suspension. This level of complexity comes from people who know how to do this stuff, who are paid to do this stuff.”

I heard a theory that it’s Markel’s sister (the negative Twitter campaign, anyway). Not sure if she’d have the funds for any kind of sophisticated operation, though. 

[katilac]

11 hours ago, Mom_to3 said:

Could it be that Charles had to consider the impact of funding H&M abroad out of his own pocket on the goodwill of the UK people towards the monarchy (with the need to explain and justify the sources of funding)?

I don't understand - if it's his money, what is he explaining and justifying? The money is already his to spend, and everyone already knows the sources. 

11 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

It's a shame, imo, that they didn't go down the some path as Beatrice and Eugenie.

You keep saying that, but you also acknowledge the cult surrounding his mother, and the fact that it has extended to him. It's batshit, but there's not much he can do about it. 

I don't think going down the same path was ever a choice for him, and I don't think attempting to live a quiet life in Des Moines is going to magically erase the interest in them. 

[Katy]

34 minutes ago, katilac said:

I don't think attempting to live a quiet life in Des Moines is going to magically erase the interest in them. 

Harry talked about this in one of the interviews… maybe Stephen Colbert? They were in isolation for more than a year of the pandemic and the media attention seemed to increase the longer they were gone.

[fraidycat]

24 minutes ago, Katy said:

Harry talked about this in one of the interviews… maybe Stephen Colbert? They were in isolation for more than a year of the pandemic and the media attention seemed to increase the longer they were gone.

This. The "option" of obscurity is truly not available to them unless they did go to a completely private island somewhere and never left it. But, that's not fair to them or their children. Humans are hardwired for connection and interaction. Even if they did step out of the public eye forever, they would not disappear from our eyes. The media speculation about their lives and what they are up to would not go away - at least, not in our generation. There would be "Harry spotted at corner grocery store looking haggard and worn down" type of stories because he wore his sweatpants and hoodie to go get food. It would inspire feelings of glee in a certain segment of the population that they were finally receiving their come-uppance for being born or married into privilege. The "it's about time" water cooler convos would be dripping in smugness.

[katilac]

I'm also troubled by the idea that agreeing to any specific publicity negates your right to decline other, and different types of, publicity. And that if lies and hatred are printed, well, that's what happens, and you deserve it if you've ever willingly done anything in the public eye. 

We've made so much progress on consent issues, but apparently people have a lot of trouble extrapolating to other situations. We've let go of the idea that if a woman willingly has sex with a man once, she shouldn't be too surprised when he pushes/forces sex again when she is unwilling. We've embraced the idea that saying 'yes' to one thing doesn't mean you can't say 'no' to the next thing. 

Why is it so strange to think that a person can agree to publicity at one time, and refuse it at another time? That they can agree to 'have publicity' with one organization and not another? That leading a high-profile life does not negate all rights to privacy? That you can want to be part of the royal family at one time, but decide at another time that you want out? 

I know someone is just about to type 'but they know that's the way it is, they knew what they were getting into' so let's remember that used to be the prevailing attitude around sexual consent as well. It may be the way it is, but it's not the way it ought to be and not the way it has to be. 

Edited January 15, 2023 by katilac

[Melissa Louise]

4 hours ago, katilac said:

I don't understand - if it's his money, what is he explaining and justifying? The money is already his to spend, and everyone already knows the sources. 

You keep saying that, but you also acknowledge the cult surrounding his mother, and the fact that it has extended to him. It's batshit, but there's not much he can do about it. 

I don't think going down the same path was ever a choice for him, and I don't think attempting to live a quiet life in Des Moines is going to magically erase the interest in them. 

I don't think there is a cult around Harry. It's nothing like the craziness that happened around Diana's death, which, no joke, conferred on her a kind of sainthood.

My observations (which mostly just come from The Guardian, which weirdly has had a whole stack of royal coverage but also includes a lifetime of Women's Weekly's in the drs waiting room) is that interest in Harry ebbs and flows.  It peaked at Diana's death, then there was some interest in him as a young adult, but not much. It peaked again at his marriage.  His leaving attracted a lot of interest. Then there was a longish period of not much...ignited with Oprah....period of not much....ignited with Netflix.....ignited with book...ignited with interviews about book...ignited with interviews about what's in the next book.

So honestly, from the perspective of this colonial outpost?

He could have been exactly like his cousins over time. Roughly the same amount of coverage of Harry as there was Beatrice and Eugenie as young adults. The difference is that post-marriage, Beatrice and Eugenie have stopped being working royals, They live pretty quiet lives, sans security, and attend a few events per year.

It's sort of annoying having a sense of how royal interest more generally rises and falls. But it does. And there's actually no reason why Harry would be the sole member attracting endless, lifelong attention.

I understand he didn't want to live the same life as his cousins, which is fair enough, but yes, it was open to him, especially as he dropped down the list of succession.

Royalists are pretty focused at this time on the young Cambridges, and there is a much more controlled relationship there with the media. The kids aren't papped at all, and their mum releases her own photography of them at Christmas or birthdays. They have been seen in public slightly more recently, due to a confluence of events, but generally you don't see much about them.

I can't answer for the media restraint lasting through their young adulthood, though, especially if they are engaged in clickable activities ie taking drugs, hitting bodyguards etc

 

[Melissa Louise]

2 hours ago, katilac said:

I'm also troubled by the idea that agreeing to any specific publicity negates your right to decline other, and different types of, publicity. And that if lies and hatred are printed, well, that's what happens, and you deserve it if you've ever willingly done anything in the public eye. 

We've made so much progress on consent issues, but apparently people have a lot of trouble extrapolating to other situations. We've let go of the idea that if a woman willingly has sex with a man once, she shouldn't be too surprised when he pushes/forces sex again when she is unwilling. We've embraced the idea that saying 'yes' to one thing doesn't mean you can't say 'no' to the next thing. 

Why is it so strange to think that a person can agree to publicity at one time, and refuse it at another time? That they can agree to 'have publicity' with one organization and not another? That leading a high-profile life does not negate all rights to privacy? That you can want to be part of the royal family at one time, but decide at another time that you want out? 

I know someone is just about to type 'but they know that's the way it is, they knew what they were getting into' so let's remember that used to be the prevailing attitude around sexual consent as well. It may be the way it is, but it's not the way it ought to be and not the way it has to be. 

It's not that it's right, it's just that it's pragmatic.

If you want to get less attention, be less visible.

It's more doable than reforming the entire media ecosystem and the monarchy.

If you want to compare it to rape, which I think is kinda gross, especially given the lack of media attention given to the way rape is so poorly dealt with at all levels of justice, but if you do, it's the same as covering your drinks so you hopefully don't get spiked. You shouldn't have to do it, but you're gonna do it anyway, because it's what you can do.

 

[Melissa Louise]

3 hours ago, Katy said:

Harry talked about this in one of the interviews… maybe Stephen Colbert? They were in isolation for more than a year of the pandemic and the media attention seemed to increase the longer they were gone.

I remember seeing nothing about them in The Guardian and associated papers during the early pandemic.

There were more important issues to cover.

I remember when coverage restarted - Oprah.

Edited January 15, 2023 by Melissa Louise

[Melissa Louise]

8 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

100% agree. It is truly weird, and not helpful for this family at all. The woman had some pretty big issues.

It is an epic cluster eff of dysfunction for sure, so it really should not be shocking to anyone that it is finally being played out in a pretty public and bizarre way. Eventually, volcanos erupt, and this crap had been boiling under the surface for so long, it was bound to make its way out with force.

Oh, not shocking at all.

Just...unedifying.

Really did not need to know that as Harry put Elizabeth Arden cream on his frozen todger, he felt mummy  was in the room with him.

I say, let's do away with the whole show.

No Kings, Queens, Princes, Dukes or Duchesses.

Unfortunately, a referendum here is some time away, just because of other political priorities. And the last referendum was derailed by the model of republicanism. There's a pretty strong division between those who think electing a President is fun, and those who would run a million miles from an elected President.

 

 

[gardenmom5]

On 1/12/2023 at 6:41 AM, Katy said:

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

I'm not going to go into the very long list.  I lost respect for him before he got involved with MM.  KP did a great job of covering up his indiscretions.  I had hoped she'd be good for him and he'd get his act together.

His military career.  It's clear he only got into Sandhurst because of who is his daddy.
his marks didn't even meet the absolute most basic requirements for admission to Sandhurst.  (both are online.)

I'm old enough to be his mother, so, been paying attention a long time.
I vividly remember when he was "chosen" to train as a gunner (NOT a pilot) on an Apache in the US. (That's why he was in Nevada when he had those full frontal photographs at his party in Vegas for however many.)  At the time, I wondered how the heck he got that opportunity as he certainly wasn't qualified! It disgusted me because I knew he wasn't qualified, and he took that slot from someone who was. btw: he was thrown out of the program before it ended.  The US  He's not a qualified pilot for any type of helicopter let alone an Apache.
All those photos of him in helicopters - were photo ops, they were staged.  His nickname was bunker harry for a reason. 
he did two six month tours - he spent a TOTAL of 10 weeks in theater.  that's it.  He was treated like a VIP and had perks Generals don't have, but he likes to talk about how he was just "one of the guys".   There's a reason his nickname was bunker harry.

Then there's his animal cruelty.  Anyone else would have been charged, but not the Queen's grandson. . . Look up Drizzel and harry.  She was a pregnant mare, he was told to NOT ride her.   She "died" shortly after being taken off the pitch and back to the barns . . .how convenient.
Don't know the name of the other pony - but the second case was overuse of spurs.  There are Photographs of him sitting on the bloody pony with his spurs right where the pony is actively bleeding online.  He was investigated for excessive use of spurs - but again, tptb, aren't going to publicly hold the queen's grandson accountable if they can help it.

I think he's descended into paranoia brought on by constant drug use.  (he freely admits using multiple types of drugs, and admits he was using recently as two years ago.)   Dilated pupils, and blank stare don't speak "sober" to me.  - my brother dealt drugs out of our house; I saw a lot of druggies.

[Melissa Louise]

I agree that the drugs have had an impact on the paranoia.

This is the only thing about the book that's shocked me - the extent of his drug use, and that it's ongoing.

In the meantime, for perspective, mine as much as anyone:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/15/the-observer-view-on-how-the-uk-has-become-a-hostile-place-to-have-children?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

1 in 3 children in poverty in the UK.

[Happy2BaMom]

On 1/14/2023 at 3:16 PM, 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. 

My issue is all of the factors (detailed in my post) which, when added together, meant that 22 months for this couple was (far) too short/fast. Any one of those factors, let alone all of them together, vastly increase the pressure on the individuals and families involved, and greatly raise the chance of relationship fractures.

If anyone else has a situation that mirrors all of the factors I described, yes, I would say 22 months is far too short of a time period for marriage.

If not, I don't really know that anything other than common sense (hopefully) should prevail.

Edited January 16, 2023 by Happy2BaMom

[Faith-manor]

35 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

I agree that the drugs have had an impact on the paranoia.

This is the only thing about the book that's shocked me - the extent of his drug use, and that it's ongoing.

In the meantime, for perspective, mine as much as anyone:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/15/the-observer-view-on-how-the-uk-has-become-a-hostile-place-to-have-children?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

1 in 3 children in poverty in the UK.

Absolutely heartbreaking!

Child poverty rates are hard to nail down here because there is a lot of tampering with the models that predict it depending on who is asking and what outcome they seek. But a good estimate appears to be 18%.

I did Google how much the White House and all its support costs the tax payers. 1.4 billion. 1.4bn. Annually. Trying to wrap my head around it. My initial, knee jerk reaction is, "Beans and rice for you! Take some Zoom meetings for heaven's sake. And for crying out loud, stay home and stop jet setting all over the world." This is why we have a Secretary of State. They fly with extremely limited staff, and not a lot of fanfare. Let them go do the things.

 

[Melissa Louise]

18 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

Absolutely heartbreaking!

Child poverty rates are hard to nail down here because there is a lot of tampering with the models that predict it depending on who is asking and what outcome they seek. But a good estimate appears to be 18%.

I did Google how much the White House and all its support costs the tax payers. 1.4 billion. 1.4bn. Annually. Trying to wrap my head around it. My initial, knee jerk reaction is, "Beans and rice for you! Take some Zoom meetings for heaven's sake. And for crying out loud, stay home and stop jet setting all over the world." This is why we have a Secretary of State. They fly with extremely limited staff, and not a lot of fanfare. Let them go do the things.

 

Agreed.

Beans and rice, Zoom, and stay home! This can be our motto at the barricades 🙂

[SKL]

2 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

I remember seeing nothing about them in The Guardian and associated papers during the early pandemic.

There were more important issues to cover.

I remember when coverage restarted - Oprah.

True.  Lots of famous and important people have gradually faded into relative obscurity in the US.  How often do you hear about the daily life of, say, GWB?  Ex-presidential kids periodically show up in the media re misdeeds or marriages, but it is maybe once a decade.  An ex-Royal and an actress can hardly expect less exposure.

Their decision to go on Oprah was a turning point in my mind.  Like forget any benefit of the doubt.  Oprah?

Even that would have died down, but no ... now we gotta write a book ... let's make that two books (or who knows how many more).

I guess when you're raised to expect everyone to always be interested in your every move, it might be hard to believe that other outcomes are possible.  But they really are.

[Happy2BaMom]

23 hours ago, Katy said:

 

I have trouble believing anyone knows people who've been active duty who don't speak about it exactly like Harry does.  Nothing about it was shocking to military families except that he obviously actually served instead of being kept protected.

My dh was career military, 26 years served, including Operation Desert Storm and the Iraq & Afghanistan wars.

In our experience, no service members ever spoke about their # of kills. Not privately, certainly not publicly, and never, ever officers.

I can't speak to how the enlisted (& perhaps some officers) serving constantly on the front lines might talk to each other, but there is a LOT of pressure/expectation in all ranks of the military to be discreet, about everything, all the time. For obvious reasons.

Edited January 16, 2023 by Happy2BaMom

[Teaching3bears]

Where will all the money from the book sales go? After the publisher etc. is paid will all the money that goes to the author go to him or is any going to charity?  I am finding it hard to think that someone who was raised with the highest degree of privilege it writing a book complaining and whining, though it seems to review well.  I hope he finds some important causes to support and puts his efforts into that.

[Roadrunner]

His main cause is his mortgage and bills now that his father isn’t paying them.

 

I know so much about these two because daily I open an internet, and daily there are stories about them. And no, I don’t think it ever died down before the Oprah interview. I think it’s been relentless. Difference is I see more sympathetic pieces now. Before it was all rehash of terrible tabloid stuff. 

[Melissa Louise]

It might be different in the US.

It all definitely died down here in AU.

 

[katilac]

5 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

I don't think there is a cult around Harry. It's nothing like the craziness that happened around Diana's death, which, no joke, conferred on her a kind of sainthood.

But you did say there was a "mania" about Diana that was being transferred to Harry. And I agree that the interest in him, and even William, is driven to a large extent not by them being royals per se, but by them being the sons of Princess Diana. 

You for sure don't have to convince me of the craziness that surrounded Diana's death!

4 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

It's not that it's right, it's just that it's pragmatic.

If you want to get less attention, be less visible.

It's more doable than reforming the entire media ecosystem and the monarchy.

If you want to compare it to rape, which I think is kinda gross, especially given the lack of media attention given to the way rape is so poorly dealt with at all levels of justice, but if you do, it's the same as covering your drinks so you hopefully don't get spiked. You shouldn't have to do it, but you're gonna do it anyway, because it's what you can do.

 

It's not that it's right, it's just that it's pragmatic. 

If you don't want to be sexually harassed, you shouldn't have dressed that way, you should have been less visible. 

If you didn't want to get fired, you shouldn't have complained about having to stay late and do unpaid work, you should have gone with the crowd and been less visible. 

I don't think it's gross to compare sexual consent to other kinds of consent. I think it's an interesting and important conversation that society should continue to have. What rights do individuals have over their own life? How do you shift the emphasis from Person X always having to be pragmatic, to Person Y being responsible for controlling their actions?

Societal attitudes would not have changed without women and their allies insisting that they change (and they're hardly perfect, but they're better). The first women to say, yes, I look sexy, and no, that does not mean you can slap my butt, caught a lot of shit. And many still do, but there's a general consensus that they are in the right. 

How does that extend to other aspects of life? 

4 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

There were more important issues to cover.

There are always more important issues to cover. 

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, katilac said:

But you did say there was a "mania" about Diana that was being transferred to Harry. And I agree that the interest in him, and even William, is driven to a large extent not by them being royals per se, but by them being the sons of Princess Diana. 

You for sure don't have to convince me of the craziness that surrounded Diana's death!

It's not that it's right, it's just that it's pragmatic. 

If you don't want to be sexually harassed, you shouldn't have dressed that way, you should have been less visible. 

If you didn't want to get fired, you shouldn't have complained about having to stay late and do unpaid work, you should have gone with the crowd and been less visible. 

I don't think it's gross to compare sexual consent to other kinds of consent. I think it's an interesting and important conversation that society should continue to have. What rights do individuals have over their own life? How do you shift the emphasis from Person X always having to be pragmatic, to Person Y being responsible for controlling their actions?

Societal attitudes would not have changed without women and their allies insisting that they change (and they're hardly perfect, but they're better). The first women to say, yes, I look sexy, and no, that does not mean you can slap my butt, caught a lot of shit. And many still do, but there's a general consensus that they are in the right. 

How does that extend to other aspects of life? 

There are always more important issues to cover. 

I agree. This framing is also applicable in the arguments re: consent and compensation (they asked for it, it's part of the job, they're privileged students/paid with tuition) that were made by the NCAA and its advocates over the name, image, likeness deals now available to college athletes in the US. There are HUGE swaths of people who find it unseemly, unfair, and gross that students have a (limited) form of free agency and are profiting from their labors this way.

Edited January 16, 2023 by Sneezyone

[SKL]

4 hours ago, Roadrunner said:

I know so much about these two because daily I open an internet, and daily there are stories about them. And no, I don’t think it ever died down before the Oprah interview. I think it’s been relentless. Difference is I see more sympathetic pieces now. Before it was all rehash of terrible tabloid stuff. 

Depending on which internet sites you are going to, they may be populating with H&M stories because you have a history of clicking on H&M stories.  Such stories pretty rarely show up on my internet, because I generally find them uninteresting ... and I think most other Americans do as well.

Edited January 16, 2023 by SKL

[Lecka]

@Happy2BaMom

 

I do not condone talking about a “kill number” and I do not think people sit around talking about “kill numbers,” either.  
 

However, I don’t think the “shut up and pretend everything is fine” culture is doing even officers any favors.

 

I also think….. maybe your husband had a different job area and didn’t talk about things that other people talk about, and that doesn’t mean that nobody talks about it or that it is wrong for people to be able to talk about their experiences in a public forum.  

[Lecka]

@Happy2BaMom

 

While again saying I think talking about a “kill number” is not okay and not an accepted thing….

 

I do think that people who have killed someone remember it.  Do you expect them to not remember it?  Do you expect people to not know how many people they killed, or might have killed, or might have contributed to killing them.

Do you think people don’t know that?

 

Do you think your husband or a close friend have had this experience?  I’m guessing no.

 

For my husband, he has had close friends from other MOSs and one of his best friends is a quartermaster (logistics) who has been on many deployments too, but my husband does not talk about some things with this friend, because some things he only talks about with other people who have had the same experiences.

 

But it just comes across like your husband hasn’t had these experiences and so people don’t talk to him about it.

 

In fact I thought you oozed condescension with your “not knowing what the enlisted talk about” and thought some unkind things about pogues and fobbits.  
 

Maybe you don’t know — but it sounds like your husband was a pogue or a fobbit, which is just a different thing to be doing on a deployment.  
 

It is very important and they still face danger, but they are not doing the same things.  
 

But that’s okay if people who say things people don’t like are just bad officers or enlisted.  They should just shut up.  Message received.  
 

How dare people be so uncivil as to talk about the realities of war.

 

It may not seem like it comes across this way, but I think it does come across this way, and maybe it shouldn’t, but I think it does.  Or it can come across that way to some people.

 

 

[Sneezyone]

Indeed. DH has known two officers who took their own lives and seen several casualties both as an enlisted person and officer over the last 24 years and he’s not directly engaged in close encounters at all. He talked about them, with me, b/c he found the experiences upsetting.🤷🏽‍♀️

Edited January 16, 2023 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

The pressure to never talk about/process feelings is something every branch at all levels is working to address as part of suicide prevention efforts. Discretion with respect to sensitive information, OPSEC/PERSEC, obvs exists but even that is far from what it used to be given how information about jobs/bases is openly shared online.

[Katy]

6 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

The pressure to never talk about/process feelings is something every branch at all levels is working to address as part of suicide prevention efforts. Discretion with respect to sensitive information, OPSEC/PERSEC, obvs exists but even that is far from what it used to be given how information about jobs/bases is openly shared online.

I agree. I think maybe it’s a generational thing. People 45 or under talk about this more, or maybe it’s specific units. My ex’s unit had Dave Grossman (author of On Killing) come in and speak to them. And in general the younger, the more they talk about it in terms of my family members. But even the Vietnam vets would talk about things when it was mostly them in a room or sitting around a camp fire when I was a kid. 

[Sneezyone]

13 minutes ago, Katy said:

I agree. I think maybe it’s a generational thing. People 45 or under talk about this more, or maybe it’s specific units. My ex’s unit had Dave Grossman (author of On Killing) come in and speak to them. And in general the younger, the more they talk about it in terms of my family members. But even the Vietnam vets would talk about things when it was mostly them in a room or sitting around a camp fire when I was a kid. 

We were chatting with some neighbors a few years back when I first learned that women weren’t allowed on carriers until 1996, I think? ETA: it was 1994 so four years before DH joined. We’ve never known a navy without women in combat roles but for them it was a huge, big deal. IJS. The experiences and feelings they shared bore little resemblance to my own. It was eye opening. https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/browse-by-topic/diversity/women-in-the-navy/women-in-combat.html

Edited January 16, 2023 by Sneezyone

[SKL]

Nobody's saying Harry isn't allowed to talk about his military experience in detail with his therapist or close, trusted people.

The original comment that started this bunny trail was that publishing a kill number for the whole world to see risks pissing off people who might target the family.

Publishing the kill number in a book is not necessary to anybody's mental health.

I'm not even allowed to listen to my minor kids' conversations with their therapists.  Yet some of you are implying that ex-military must share their most painful memories to everyone worldwide in order to process their trauma.  BS.

[Grace Hopper]

5 hours ago, SKL said:

Nobody's saying Harry isn't allowed to talk about his military experience in detail with his therapist or close, trusted people.

The original comment that started this bunny trail was that publishing a kill number for the whole world to see risks pissing off people who might target the family.

Publishing the kill number in a book is not necessary to anybody's mental health.

I'm not even allowed to listen to my minor kids' conversations with their therapists.  Yet some of you are implying that ex-military must share their most painful memories to everyone worldwide in order to process their trauma.  BS.

His mental health being helped by publishing *any* of the content I’ve heard share from his book does not seem necessary to heal AB’s mental health issues. 
 

I guess whether or not he simply has the right to share them is a different issue entirely. 

Edited January 16, 2023 by Grace Hopper

[Sneezyone]

But no one is super pissed off about the number other than those already pissed off about H&M sharing anything about their lives. Sharing a number or discussing deaths is not a wholly unusual breach. We’ve had books by former seals and other military personnel that share too, with specific individuals identified as the shooters in very high profile deaths. This is not that.

Edited January 16, 2023 by Sneezyone

[Katy]

59 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

But no one is super pissed off about the number other than those already pissed off about H&M sharing anything about their lives. Sharing a number or discussing deaths is not a wholly unusual breach. We’ve had books by former seals and other military personnel that share too, with specific individuals identified as the shooters in very high profile deaths. This is not that.

Not to mention a whole movie starring Bradley Cooper about the American with the highest number.  The idea thar no one talks about this is either naive or completely dishonest. I don’t remember people protesting that movie. 

[Happy2BaMom]

12 hours ago, Lecka said:

@Happy2BaMom

 

While again saying I think talking about a “kill number” is not okay and not an accepted thing….

 

I do think that people who have killed someone remember it.  Do you expect them to not remember it?  Do you expect people to not know how many people they killed, or might have killed, or might have contributed to killing them.

Do you think people don’t know that?

 

Do you think your husband or a close friend have had this experience?  I’m guessing no.

 

For my husband, he has had close friends from other MOSs and one of his best friends is a quartermaster (logistics) who has been on many deployments too, but my husband does not talk about some things with this friend, because some things he only talks about with other people who have had the same experiences.

 

But it just comes across like your husband hasn’t had these experiences and so people don’t talk to him about it.

 

In fact I thought you oozed condescension with your “not knowing what the enlisted talk about” and thought some unkind things about pogues and fobbits.  
 

Maybe you don’t know — but it sounds like your husband was a pogue or a fobbit, which is just a different thing to be doing on a deployment.  
 

It is very important and they still face danger, but they are not doing the same things.  
 

But that’s okay if people who say things people don’t like are just bad officers or enlisted.  They should just shut up.  Message received.  
 

How dare people be so uncivil as to talk about the realities of war.

 

It may not seem like it comes across this way, but I think it does come across this way, and maybe it shouldn’t, but I think it does.  Or it can come across that way to some people.

 

 

What are you even talking about?

I never mentioned, or implied, 98% of what you seem to think I did, so your post is not worthy of a response.

But thanks for agreeing that talking about kill numbers is not OK and not an accepted thing.

 

 

 

Edited January 17, 2023 by Happy2BaMom

[Happy2BaMom]

12 hours ago, Lecka said:

@Happy2BaMom

 

I do not condone talking about a “kill number” and I do not think people sit around talking about “kill numbers,” either.  
 

However, I don’t think the “shut up and pretend everything is fine” culture is doing even officers any favors.

 

I also think….. maybe your husband had a different job area and didn’t talk about things that other people talk about, and that doesn’t mean that nobody talks about it or that it is wrong for people to be able to talk about their experiences in a public forum.  

If you don't condone talking about "kill numbers" and you don't think people sit around "talking about kill numbers", why are you even disagreeing with me, as those two things were exactly the point of my post?

I never said, or indicated, that officers (or enlisted) should "shut up and pretend everything is fine", nor did I indicate support for such a culture.

How much of your life is spent responding to points no one ever made?

I originally wrote here about my husband's career (he retired as a highly decorated officer), but, you know, the specifics are really none of your business, so I edited it out. So, no, he was never a 'pogue' or a 'fobbit' (nice terms you're using there, lol, for someone making accusations about me being condescending).

SMDH. This day just cannot get any weirder.

 

 

Edited January 17, 2023 by Happy2BaMom

[Sneezyone]

57 minutes ago, Happy2BaMom said:

What are you even talking about?

I never mentioned, or implied, 98% of what you seem to think I did, so your post is not worthy of a response.

But thanks for agreeing that talking about kill numbers is not OK and not an accepted thing.

One can not encourage something, or find it unhelpful, without reaching the *GASP* *SCANDAL* level of incredulity that some really, really want to apply to this disclosure. Elevating the risk profile of H&M isn't an issue because it was/is already sky high. It doesn't get much higher outside a sitting, G7, head of state. Still, even largely private people have revealed similar information to great fanfare and celebration and profit. It's not a big deal. I am confuzzled by this 'highly decorated' business tho. Do you suppose no one else here is married to someone (or has themselves) received military honors? The initial post came off as incredibly judg-y toward ostensibly low-brow enlistees (total B.S.) and officers who talk about these things and engage in conduct that's beneath your highly decorated spouse. Just odd. Maybe that's not what you meant but that's how it came across.

Edited January 17, 2023 by Sneezyone

[Happy2BaMom]

On 1/16/2023 at 9:48 PM, Sneezyone said:

One can not encourage something, or find it unhelpful without reaching the *GASP* scandal level of incredulity that some really, really want to apply. Elevating the risk profile of H&M isn't an issue because it was/is already sky high. Still, even largely private people have revealed similar information to great fanfare and celebration. It's not a big deal. I am confuzzled by this 'highly decorated' business tho. Do you suppose no one else here is married to someone (or has themselves) received military honors?

My response was to Lecka, who made a long post going off on things she apparently thought I said that I didn't. Why are you quoting my response to her?

I'm not even sure what the point of your first sentence is.

I never said anything about the risk profile of H&M.

I am unaware of any private people who have revealed specific kill numbers to great fanfare & celebration, but that wasn't the point of my post anyway.

I never claimed that no one else here is married to someone (or had themselves) received military honors and am confused as to why you even think me posting about my husband (which was to prove that he wasn't some desk-riding non-soldier, as Lecka was suggesting) would imply that? That's just....weird.

Did I miss the announcement that today is the "put words in other people's mouths" day?

 

ETA: And, BTW, my first post never mentioned my husband's rank, or that he was an officer, or that he was decorated, so your hang-up with my "highly decorated spouse" didn't come from that post....once again, you are deflecting responsibility for your own emotional reactions by reading things that aren't there. And, once again, the only reason I posted about his rank LATER is because Lecka directly stated that he must be a "pogue" or a "fobbit" - those are condescending terms, BTW, but apparently completely acceptable to those oh-so-concerned about anyone being "unnecessarily antagonistic". LOL.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Happy2BaMom
clarity

[Sneezyone]

6 minutes ago, Happy2BaMom said:

My response was to Lecka, who made a long post going off on things she apparently thought I said that I didn't. Why are you quoting my response to her?

I'm not even sure what your points are.

I never said anything about the risk profile of H&M.

I am unaware of any private people who have revealed similar information to great fanfare & celebration, but that wasn't the point of my post anyway.

I never claimed that no one else here is married to someone (or had themselves) received military honors and am confused as to why you even think me posting about my husband (which was to prove that he wasn't some desk-riding grub) would imply that? That's just....weird.

Did I miss the announcement that today is the "put words in other people's mouths" day?

I quoted your response because I found it incredibly snippy, unnecessarily so, and wanted to make absolutely sure that folks understood my response was directed to your comments and no one else's. If you're unaware of anyone else whose made such disclosures for profit, you might want to consult your highly decorated spouse or any military-affiliated chat group. Off the top of my head, 12 Strong (2018) The Kill Team (2019), Mark Nutsch...

Edited January 17, 2023 by Sneezyone

[Happy2BaMom]

5 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I quoted your response because I found it incredibly snippy, unnecessarily so, and wanted to make absolutely sure that folks understood my response was directed to your comments and no one else. If you're unaware of anyone else whose made such disclosures for profit, you might want to consult your highly decorated spouse or any military-affiliated chat group. Off the top of my head, 12 Strong (2018) The Kill Team (2019), Mark Nutsch...

Sooooo....you're policing for Lecka now? Since when were you appointed judge & jury of what is necessary and what is not?

And it's apparently ok for Lecka to misquote me to the end of the earth & back, but I'm not supposed to be direct in my response?

And your response isn't snippy at all. LOL.

Why are you so worked up about this?

Edited January 17, 2023 by Happy2BaMom

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Happy2BaMom said:

Sooooo....you're policing for Lecka now? Since when were you appointed judge & jury of what is necessary and what is not?

And it's apparently ok for Lecka to misquote me to the end of the earth & back, but I'm supposed to be direct in my response?

And your response isn't snippy at all. LOL.

Why are you so worked up about this?

She can speak for herself. I just found your whole series of posts an unnecessarily antagonistic foray into the conversation. Like attracts like. I've made my point and will leave the field to you.

Edited January 17, 2023 by Sneezyone

[Happy2BaMom]

2 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

She can speak for herself. I just found your whole series of posts an unnecessarily antagonistic foray into the conversation. Like attracts like.

If she can speak for herself then why are you inserting yourself into the conversation?

I would say taking digs at my spouse counts as unnecessarily antagonistic, including your sarcastic referral above.

Again, you regard yourself as the proper judge for what is considered necessary and unnecessary with other people's posts. I'm guessing 'necessary' are only those that don't contradict your strong opinions?

I have just as much right to post here as anyone else, including the right to defend myself against those who attempt to repeatedly strawman me.

****************************

ETA: My original post on this particular topic included the words, "In our experience" which meant (shockingly)....in our experience. Also implying that there might be other experiences, which I then followed with the sentence, "I can't speak to....".

 

 

Edited January 17, 2023 by Happy2BaMom

[SKL]

1 hour ago, Happy2BaMom said:

Did I miss the announcement that today is the "put words in other people's mouths" day?

Every day is "put words in other people's mouths" day.  😛

[fraidycat]

On 1/12/2023 at 8:25 AM, Harriet Vane said:

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

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

I bought it, read it last night and today. I suggest "jumping on the hype". It is a raw, often emotional, journey through his life and the family's relationship with the media and the incredible toll it has taken on him, personally. It really is worth the read. 

But, TW: the book contains suicide, descriptions of the aftermath of animal cruelty (poachers in Africa), and depictions of war.

[Indigo Blue]

I’m reading it now. I don’t know much about the BRF. I am completely neutral on them. I am just simply interested in what he has to say. 

[Rebel]

I have been listening to it via Audible in my free time so only just now getting to part 3 where Markle enters the scene. My take so far is that yes, he does sometimes come off a bit whiney, but on the whole, the book is an honest account of Harry's perceptions of events and his emotional state at the time. Does he occasionally sound like a 14 year old boy retelling a story or complaining about his older brother? Yes, he sometimes does, but that however, is not the majority of the book (as far as I have read). My suggestion for those who are cherry-picking snippets to complain about it is to read the damn book. All the griping about the kill number would lessen if people actually read how that subject is treated. He even makes a point to explain why he includes it.

[pinball]

1 hour ago, Rebel said:

I have been listening to it via Audible in my free time so only just now getting to part 3 where Markle enters the scene. My take so far is that yes, he does sometimes come off a bit whiney, but on the whole, the book is an honest account of Harry's perceptions of events and his emotional state at the time. Does he occasionally sound like a 14 year old boy retelling a story or complaining about his older brother? Yes, he sometimes does, but that however, is not the majority of the book (as far as I have read). My suggestion for those who are cherry-picking snippets to complain about it is to read the damn book. All the griping about the kill number would lessen if people actually read how that subject is treated. He even makes a point to explain why he includes it.

Which is why?

[Negin]

“Prince Harry’s memoir is the UK’s fastest-selling nonfiction book ever. Too busy to read it? All the love, rancour, drugs and petty fights are here” – this article is hilarious and worth reading. 

[TexasProud]

I have no skin in the game  as I don't keep up with them at all. I had no idea who she was before she married Harry. However, I find it interesting that this board is mostly pro Harry with those against him being looked down upon.  Another message board I am on is exactly the opposite, they criticize people that try to defend him.

Don't have a clue what that means. Just an interesting observation. 

[Katy]

36 minutes ago, Negin said:

“Prince Harry’s memoir is the UK’s fastest-selling nonfiction book ever. Too busy to read it? All the love, rancour, drugs and petty fights are here” – this article is hilarious and worth reading. 

I don’t think this person read the book, they just read a summary and included a lot of anti-Harry spin. 

[fraidycat]

44 minutes ago, Negin said:

“Prince Harry’s memoir is the UK’s fastest-selling nonfiction book ever. Too busy to read it? All the love, rancour, drugs and petty fights are here” – this article is hilarious and worth reading. 

I don't find it even remotely funny, nevermind hilarious, but to each their own.

Edited January 20, 2023 by fraidycat