The Heir, The Spare and the “Baby Brain” -The Prince Harry and Meghan show rumbles on…

[Husky]

My impression is that the Queen totally enjoyed her role as the matriarch and got everything, including marrying the love of her life, while other people around her brought sacrifices due to HER catastrophic decisions. I know that the official version is that she was not responsible for her sister's plight - as if we could trust this version which was published after the Queen was critisised for being cold. I think this was damage control. My father read different reports at the time when the split happened (it was before my time).

I wouldn't be surprised if one day we will hear that she picked even Fergie for Andrew. These two looked never convincing as a couple.

The Queen was very backwards and followed traditions that were outlived. But the people in UK loved her for being so "old school". I guess for nostalgic reasons or because she gave them a feeling of stability?

 

[Andora]

Come on. I have not heard anything that does not happen in an ordinary family. Spare? Lord, many women give birth to children so that their husband does not leave them. Do you think it's nice to know you were born to save a marriage? Family favorites? And in ordinary families everyone is loved equally, of course. Media attention and tabloids? In any small town, everyone will know about your every sneeze in 5 minutes.
Harry's problem is not that he has a ROYAL family, but that he has a royal FAMILY.

Agree to disagree.

I think in best case scenario, with a perfectly supportive, well-adjusted and non-traumatized family, it would always been a head-**** to be told "in our family, you're equal, but in the business that fully dictates our lives, livelihood and every decision... you're decidedly much less important. In fact, you may be required to operate in ways you don't like to serve this business. BUT DON'T WORRY, we love you just as much as your brother."

In a perfect world, that would be hugely difficult to navigate. Now add that the royal family is decidedly NOT well-adjusted, supportive, nor generally normal. They're all products of a hugely traumatizing lineage machine, one that's got a very ugly history itself.

I remember sitting in a poli sci class and being told that Elizabeth's job is to maintain the face of the UK, as it wants represented to the world. That having the monarchy allows the identity of the UK to be separate from its politics, unlike the situation in the US. I'd be interested to know if that is what people in the UK think as well.

I'm especially interested in seeing what the young people in the UK think. Is the monarchy a good representation of the state? Or would an elected head of state be better?

I agree, it'll be interesting to see what young people in the UK.

Bolding mine - personally I think that's a ridiculous reason for the Crown to remain, and one thing we don't discuss enough is that I sincerely don't see how the royal family really is as apolitical as they infer. You can't tell me an institution that hosts state dinners/politicians keeps their nose clean in that vein. Especially in situations we're seeing now with KCIII. He was openly championing climate causes until Liz Truss tells him to stay home from COP27 last year. Impressive that he can just give up something important to him, but I can't think there wasn't blowback?

Also, just my commonwealther opinion, but I find the monarchy a ridiculous thing to base identity on. (But that's just me)

 

[Winnipeg]

It will be difficult for members of his family to forgive IF he has included discussions in the book that took place in private and were never intended to be made public. IMHO, that would represent betrayal (only IF it was included in the book).

 

[airgelaal]

In a perfect world, that would be hugely difficult to navigate. Now add that the royal family is decidedly NOT well-adjusted, supportive, nor generally normal. They're all products of a hugely traumatizing lineage machine, one that's got a very ugly history itself.

It's not just the royal family. There is nothing unique about her that other families do not have. I am not saying that this is the correct example of a family, but in many examples I recognized my family.

 

[MsZem]

I think it's obvious that Harry has been very privileged, but that his childhood and adolescence were far from ideal - the feuding parents, their very public separation, his mother's death and then having to walk behind her casket while the world gawked at him... it's a lot. I have nothing but empathy for him (and for William) on that account.

What I have considerably less empathy for is Harry's never-ending list of grievances and complaints in the past few years. It reminds me of the part in Pride and Prejudice when Elizabeth brings up Mr. Wickham's misfortunes, to which Mr. Darcy replies that "they have been great indeed ". Like Harry, Mr. Wickham was raised alongside someone who was more privileged than him due to an accident of birth, and he seems resentful. But that's life, and Harry has many advantages that he can build on. He was well on his way with the Invictus Games; why on earth would he swap that meaningful work for writing about how everyone has wronged him as well as the state of his penis?

 

[becca]

One could say the monarchy is unfair but birth order is literally how it works and Harry benefits immensely that his father is the heir even if he is not.

For example he gets far more privilege than Eugenie due to an accident of birth. She even had to move her wedding date to accommodate Meghan and Harry. And Meghan and Harry still decided her wedding would be a great time to announce the pregnancy.


Do we See Harry’s cousins doing tell all interviews screaming about how unfair it is that William and Harry are more privileged than they are. Disclosing intimate details. No. While collecting hundreds of millions of dollars to complain.

Let’s point out Harry is making millions selling out his family.

 

[Jimena]

It's interesting. I just saw an interview with Anderson Cooper on CNN, where he said that there are some revelations in the book related to the BRF and that's what's making news, but that the book is mostly a memoir about grief and childhood trauma. ?‍

Still not planning to read it.

 

[Simone411]

Didn’t Prince Charles talk about how unloving Prince Philip and the Queen were as parents in the 90s? What Harry’s doing is nothing new. The Royal family has always been a ridiculous soap opera and this really is all just keeping with tradition.

Well, you have a good point there, and it does seem like an ongoing tradition. What you stated reminded me of something I wrote once regarding soap operas.

A Soap Opera

Every day As the World Turns, All MY Children Search for Tomorrow without
thinking about The Guiding Light to lead them. It seems that The Young and the
Restless wish to be The Bold and The Beautiful not realizing their Secret Storms
leave Dark Shadows.

Is that really Where the Heart Is of the matter?
Maybe The Doctors at General Hospital can heal the wounds and look forward to
Brighter Days, and The Love of Life will still linger as The Edge of Night
approaches.

They wish they could escape to Another World knowing that Love is a
Many Splendored Thing, and The Days of Our Lives isn't just another Peyton Place
located in Somerset just off of Route 66.

I always loved a little humour to break the monotony of being so serious at times. Even Carol Burnette did a skit based on As the World Turns. I believe most of you will remember "As the Stomach Turns" which in this case (especially about Spare) does make my stomach turn!

 

[sap5]

Also, just my commonwealther opinion, but I find the monarchy a ridiculous thing to base identity on. (But that's just me)

I find the Commonwealth itself to be a strange concept. Why would an independent country want to join a group of which the British monarch is the head?

 

[sap5]

He was well on his way with the Invictus Games; why on earth would he swap that meaningful work for writing about how everyone has wronged him as well as the state of his penis?

Probably because the state of his penis has a lot to do with why he created the Invictus Games in the first place.

 

[mattiecat13]

Serious question: If Harry loved being in the Army and felt it was good for him maturity-wise, why did he have to leave? As the second son, couldn't he have made the military his career?

 

[antmanb]

A friend just texted that Spare sounds like "an unsolicited dick pic to the world"

 

[MsZem]

A friend just texted that Spare sounds like "an unsolicited dick pic to the world"

Would that the book were more... spare

 

[becca]

Serious question: If Harry loved being in the Army and felt it was good for him maturity-wise, why did he have to leave? As the second son, couldn't he have made the military his career?

Because he couldn’t pass the tests to get promoted. There are reports he never passed anything real at his military school but go literally because he was a Prince but you can only go so far on that

 

[mattiecat13]

Because he couldn’t pass the tests to get promoted. There are reports he never passed anything real at his military school but go literally because he was a Prince but you can only go so far on that

But why couldn't he have stayed in the military as a Captain? I would think there are many people in the military who, once they reach a certain level, either can't or don't want to rise above that rank. It's not like Harry never rose above Private.

Not trying to be argumentative, I'm genuinely curious. Harry has said he was sorry to leave the Army so I've always wondered why he had to leave.

 

[Andora]

It's not just the royal family. There is nothing unique about her that other families do not have. I am not saying that this is the correct example of a family, but in many examples I recognized my family.

I'm sorry, but no, I don't agree. I can say I recognize my family as well, trauma and all, but I would still choose my parents over being part of the royal family.

Nothing in that family is normal. Not one day in that family is comparable to those of us outside of it. That doesn't excuse Harry's actions, but it does mean the RF's actions aren't clean either.

I find the Commonwealth itself to be a strange concept. Why would an independent country want to join a group of which the British monarch is the head?

Er... Basically the commonwealth is basically the UK's rebrand of the empire, isn't it? So I think it's less who voluntarily joins, vs. who hasn't left. Canada didn't join by choice, but we're told we did. I there are a handful of nations that would like to join in terms of trade/other perks, but that is rare. As we found during Will & Kate's Caribbean tour, there were a few more members looking to leave than initially understood.

Now, a good question would be why are so many nations STILL members? In the case of Canada, I figure it's cowardice and not wanting to renegotiate treaties with Indigenous groups, or deal with anything that currently pertains to the "Crown" here, like crown lands, as it is not politically expedient to do so. I'm sure there's other positive reasons to stay with an international association.

Serious question: If Harry loved being in the Army and felt it was good for him maturity-wise, why did he have to leave? As the second son, couldn't he have made the military his career?

I don't think that was his choice. I don't remember at the time how it was spun, but I am pretty sure he didn't want to leave, anymore than William wanted to stop flying helicopter rescue missions. It becomes a dangerous thing for members of the royal family. In Harry's case, I vaguely recall it was dangerous to his battalion if he stayed in the military, as it drew too much attention to them, but I don't think that would make it to the official press release...

 

[becca]

So your opinion is that royals don't deserve a life? That their mental health doesn't matter & that being hounded every time they step outside their door is just one of those things? You sound like the people who make celebrities lives a living hell. And you think even children deserve this because of So your opinion is that royals don't deserve a life? That their mental health doesn't matter & that being hounded every time they step
So your opinion is that royals don't deserve a life? That their mental health doesn't matter & that being hounded every time they step outside their door is just one of those things? You sound like the people who make celebrities lives a living hell. And you think even children deserve this because of their parent(s) fame or royal bloodline

Harry and Meghan cannot complain privacy and then violate others privacy.

There is nothing mentally sound about treating the entire world as your family therapy couch and without the consent of other members of your family.

 

[sap5]

Now, a good question would be why are so many nations STILL members? In the case of Canada, I figure it's cowardice and not wanting to renegotiate treaties with Indigenous groups, or deal with anything that currently pertains to the "Crown" here, like crown lands, as it is not politically expedient to do so. I'm sure there's other positive reasons to stay with an international association.



I don't think that was his choice. I don't remember at the time how it was spun, but I am pretty sure he didn't want to leave, anymore than William wanted to stop flying helicopter rescue missions. It becomes a dangerous thing for members of the royal family. In Harry's case, I vaguely recall it was dangerous to his battalion if he stayed in the military, as it drew too much attention to them, but I don't think that would make it to the official press release...

Yes, and this is where the real problem is. One would hope that someday very soon, people within Canada itself would want those treaties negotiated, because they don't want to continue what the Crown originally perpetrated. These are the people I'd expect would want the monarchy dismantled and something new put in place. I wonder how many of these people are around, both in the UK and the Commonwealth?

ETA: And my understanding is that some former colonies/protectorates did not choose to join the Commonwealth upon independence, so it wasn't something that was forced onto every member of the former empire.

 

[mattiecat13]

I don't think that was his choice. I don't remember at the time how it was spun, but I am pretty sure he didn't want to leave, anymore than William wanted to stop flying helicopter rescue missions. It becomes a dangerous thing for members of the royal family. In Harry's case, I vaguely recall it was dangerous to his battalion if he stayed in the military, as it drew too much attention to them, but I don't think that would make it to the official press release...

I remember when a media outlet (and a pox on them) spilled the beans that Harry was in Afghanistan and he had to be airlifted out posthaste. However, I would think there would be other jobs available besides serving on the front lines. He could have worked on the Invictus Games while still in the military, for example, and also participate in occasional Royal events as well.

 

[sap5]

Harry and Meghan cannot complain privacy and then violate others privacy.

There is nothing mentally sound about treating the entire world as your family therapy couch and without the consent of other members of your family.

Except that Harry and Meghan claim that they never complained about privacy: https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/royals/prince-harry-meghan-markle-never-asked-for-privacy/

 

[Deleted member 221]

[...] if you do believe monarchies have a place in society. And if you think they do, I'd like to hear why.

My attitude has changed, from no to maybe, since living in the UK for the reasons sap5 mentions.

One example: The divisions of Brexit have healed a lot more quickly than the divisions of Trumpism. I thought that was a good thing for a number of years, but I'm starting to think it's a bad thing. We're sleepwalking through disaster under an illusion that we're healed when we're actually bleeding out.

Another example: As horribly wrong as the government got it, the Queen was spot on with her covid messaging. We haven't had the crazy anti-vaxx movement here, I believe in part because we have a figure (the Queen, now the King) who people will listen to without politicizing everything.

I remember sitting in a poli sci class and being told that Elizabeth's job is to maintain the face of the UK, as it wants represented to the world. That having the monarchy allows the identity of the UK to be separate from its politics, unlike the situation in the US. I'd be interested to know if that is what people in the UK think as well.

I understand this point of view a lot better than I did before I lived here. I think I'm still a republican, but my attitude has changed from "why the f*ck does anyone still have a monarchy?" to "I get it, even if I can't totally come around to agreeing with it."

Is the monarchy a good representation of the state? Or would an elected head of state be better?

Not sure on the former. God no, on the latter. If the monarchy ever goes, I would prefer a neutral head of state.

Bolding mine - personally I think that's a ridiculous reason for the Crown to remain, and one thing we don't discuss enough is that I sincerely don't see how the royal family really is as apolitical as they infer.

I agree, and I'll add to your examples the Queen's subtle interference (at Cameron's request) in the Scottish referendum, which is probably the most egregious example. I hope Scotland gets a second, fair referendum - whatever the outcome. Between the monarch's interference and the irony of the threat of being removed from the EU, the people of Scotland were woefully mistreated.

If we're talking conspiracy theories, I wouldn't be surprised if the Queen wanted to die in Scotland - both to bring together / strengthen the union, and because the plans for her funeral celebration were always the most elaborate were she to die in Scotland (even more elaborate than if she had died overseas).

 

[sap5]

Not sure on the former. God no, on the latter. If the monarchy ever goes, I would prefer a neutral head of state.

How would a neutral head of state be chosen?

 

[puglover]

As a Canadian and member of the commonwealth, i can see the writing on the wall, I just hope it happens after i die. I certainly do not claim to understand the implications of this on a large scale but we grew concerned from what we saw first hand in Samoa. Samoa, including what is now American Samoa, were under British rule, then German and finally New Zealand. They fought a courageous fight for independence, saw many of their Matai imprisoned, and finally were granted their independence. Interestingly, Robert Louis Stevenson, who lived there, is a hero on the islands for the part he played. We lived there for 19 months and have been home 5 years. We actually were invited guests of the prime minister and sat with his family for the independence celebrations.

It was very obvious that China was moving in fast. They had built a hospital and were in the process of building another one as well as a new state-of-the-art airport during our time there, not providing work for the locals but all on the backs of chinese peasants. The prime minister chose to ignore the calls of concern and take the money. It all came to a head during covid when the Chinese began work on a new, greatly enlarged port in Apia. Now the questions were really asked - why does such a small island nation of 200,000 people need a huge port? There is a large port in American Samoa controlled by the Americans. It became apparent that this was being done for Chinese interests in the South Pacific. A tough election was held but the opposition who opposed the building of the port eventually won and they now have a new, female prime minister.

I understand this same scenario is being played out in some African nations. They are now so in debt to Bejing they are losing control. As the British commonwealth shrinks, if countries cannot stand alone, they seem to be ripe for the picking.

 

[MacMadame]

Yes. I wonder if people are more interested in Harry's family than they are in him.

I'd be very surprised if that were the case. This fight between H&M and the BRF is the most thing going on with them right now. It's overshadowing King Charles ascending to the throne in the US even. (Which, if I cared about the monarchy and/or King Charles with his homeopathy quackery, I'd be sad about. But I don't, so away.)

why on earth would he swap that meaningful work for writing about how everyone has wronged him as well as the state of his penis?

Some people find writing a memoir very cathartic.

It's not like Harry never rose above Private.

I thought he came in as an officer. (That's how it would work in the US military. If you graduate from certain institutions, you are automatically a Lieutenant.) I seem to remember that when he joined.

Except that Harry and Meghan claim that they never complained about privacy: https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/royals/prince-harry-meghan-markle-never-asked-for-privacy/

The haters will never admit to this. It's been pointed out in this thread and the Royals thread forever and it still comes up as a dig at them.

 

[Karen-W]

I thought he came in as an officer. (That's how it would work in the US military. If you graduate from certain institutions, you are automatically a Lieutenant.) I seem to remember that when he joined.

The question at the time was how was he admitted to Sandhurst (the Royal Military Academy - similar to West Point or the USNA but not a university) when he did not have the academic credentials to warrant admission - and reportedly didn't do well on the Sandhurst admissions tests.

 

[Winnipeg]

I always had the impression that Harry was not a great academic so not passing military school tests is not surprising IMHO.

On another topic, this whole book revelation could be an example of how to burn bridges without really trying and making a lot of money. Good luck to them when the money dries up. What then?

 

[airgelaal]

I'm sorry, but no, I don't agree. I can say I recognize my family as well, trauma and all, but I would still choose my parents over being part of the royal family.

Nothing in that family is normal. Not one day in that family is comparable to those of us outside of it. That doesn't excuse Harry's actions, but it does mean the RF's actions aren't clean either.

Okay, this family is not normal, so what now? Should everyone run away to the US and start writing memoirs?
And sorry, I don't think it's a normal person who writes in his memoirs about his frostbitten penis, lip gloss, seals and mediums. Hopefully, in 30 years, his children will not write their memoirs.

 

[Vash01]

I have read only a few posts in this thread and none in the last 24 hours.

I watched Harry's interview on Sixty minutes. There is so much pain in his voice and face! I feel sorry for him. I don't understand the negativity toward him. I don't want to get into family issues because majority of families have their own problems. Harry's family is very visible and there is temptation to guess a lot. I don't want to guess. I just see a man who has suffered a lot in his life and wants to talk about it. He gets my sympathy.

 

[MLIS]

Nothing to do with Harry and Meghan, but regarding why a country would choose to join the Commonwealth, I recently spent some time in Rwanda, which joined the Commonwealth in 2009 (one of the few countries to choose to join without being part of the former British Empire, the country's colonial links are to France and Belgium). I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that it was an attempt to integrate trade with their closest neighbours (Uganda, Kenya, etc), countries that were colonized by Britain and that had English as an official language. It also had to do with breaking ties with and distancing themselves from France and Belgium, a Rwandan colleague told me that French as a language (in school, in the government) was imposed on them, but they chose English as a way of communicating with the rest of the world. Belgium was the major colonizing power, but France is heavily implicated in the 1994 Rwandan genocide and has denied its involvement/influence. I think as a small, relatively powerless country Rwanda wanted the protection/connections/bargaining power of a larger entity. By joining the Commonwealth it becomes something they chose/negotiated, rather than something that was imposed on them or a legacy from their colonial past.

 

[airgelaal]

I have read only a few posts in this thread and none in the last 24 hours.

I watched Harry's interview on Sixty minutes. There is so much pain in his voice and face! I feel sorry for him. I don't understand the negativity toward him. I don't want to get into family issues because majority of families have their own problems. Harry's family is very visible and there is temptation to guess a lot. I don't want to guess. I just see a man who has suffered a lot in his life and wants to talk about it. He gets my sympathy.

Most Ukrainians have relatives in russia. And often these are very close relatives - parents, children, brothers and sisters. And all these close relatives believe that fascists and Nazis live here, that we are to blame for everything. We are to blame for the fact that they began to live worse, it is we who are to blame for the fact that their sons are taken to the army. We made them suffer. Most Ukrainians simply cut ties and do not respond to these tantrums. But they don't stop. After all, they have so much pain accumulated. If I had looked at this relationship from the side, then, probably, I would have doubted it too.
But the one who shouts the loudest is not always right.