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

[millyskate]

@once_upon I am so sorry to hear of the very difficult experience you had with your FIL.

I do not recognise myself in any of the motives you attributed me.

I will admit to feeling more frustrated than I should about this couple, because their particular sins happen to be my ultimate pet peeves, and their values and ideals are not ones that I share.
Unlike many on this thread, I do share some values with the more traditional brand of the BRF.
I believe in servant-heartedness, placing your task ahead of yourself, obedience and duty and in respect of protocols even if one may find them difficult. Very uncontemporary, I know. I have tremendous respect for anyone who achieves that for any length of time. Were QEII and Kate saints? Heck no, they are imperfect humans who have made sizeable mistakes as have we all. But do they stand for values I identify with? Yes.


I am irked and distrust people who constantly place themselves and their feelings at the center of their narratives. I find it a symptom of poor character.
Unlike many here, I believe it is wrong to level public accusations at others - within the limits of common sense. Above all I abhor double standards, and those who seem not capable of placing other people's sins against them in the perspective of what they do to others.
I think, rightly or wrongly, that humans who spend significantly more time dwelling on what has been done to them than they do on how to improve themselves - not in terms of becoming more successful, but more selfless and gracious, are concerning.

But above all I believe in redemption and second chances, and while I used to despise the behaviour of the younger Prince Charles, I see he has matured and changed for the best in recent years. And if Harry and Meghan also mature and change one day, my feelings towards them will too.

Conversly, if Kate suddenly decides to give inspirational talks where she constantly circles back to herself and the hardships she has endured, I will no longer have positive feelings towards her.

As for William, the person is by many accounts difficult but his public persona doesn't make things about him. And between someone who is difficult in private but professional enough in public, and Harry who is self-pitying in public, I find the former easier to put up with.
And between a Diana who did air grievances in public but regularly acknowledged her own shortcomings, and Meghan who airs grievances but who doesn't appear to ever question herself, I find Diana much easier to relate to.

You are right I too project, as I can't help but see in Meghan patterns of behaviour I have experienced as deeply toxic in persons at work or private life. As for Harry, I also see deeply toxic behaviours that are more of the slow-burn variety, but just as destructive and insidious.
Hence why I am sometimes found posting in here when it does not achieve anything good.

 

[MacMadame]

Sometime in 2020, after they left the UK for North America.

No, you misunderstood what I was asking. See below:

I always understood that the Queen was supportive of them in the beginning until government logistics got in the way.

The letter shows that the Queen supported what they wanted to do. But it didn't happen. So at some point between her writing that letter and the Susexes leaving, the plan was scrapped. I am wondering how they got from point A (the letter) to point B (them leaving instead of being part-time royals).

All of that happened well before H&M left for North America

Unlike you, I believe that the actual truth matters deeply. And that people are not entitled to their own truth.

The truth matters when it comes to things like "the earth is not flat" but when it comes to people and relationships, there is no one truth. There are just different stories which sometimes agree and sometimes do not.

In the case of Harry & Meghan, let's take the comment about the baby's skin color. They experienced it as a micro-aggression and racism. Charles probably did not (he's been silent but I assume William's comment speaks for him on this particular matter). Both of these things can be true. Charles can think he was just idling speculating and H&M can think it was racist and you can't say one of them is lying. That's not how feelings work.

I'd believe that Harry wanted to live like a normal person and Meghan was only interested in Harry the person, if it wasn't for the fact that Harry continues to use his titles, Meghan uses the title she gained upon marriage, and they have insisted that their children be titled too.

Setting aside that Harry & Meghan never said they wanted to "live like a normal person," I see them being stuck on the titles more as scoring points in some weird war they are fighting. They see the BRF as being against them and trying to take stuff from them so keeping the titles is about "You want to take these from me so I will fight you for them so you don't win."

That's my take on it.

I don't remember that either of them has ever claimed to want to live like a normal person or out of the spotlight. There's a huge gap between working member of the British Royal Family and the average person.

We keep saying this but no one is listening. ?

 

[Karen-W]

No, you misunderstood what I was asking. See below:

The letter shows that the Queen supported what they wanted to do. But it didn't happen. So at some point between her writing that letter and the Susexes leaving, the plan was scrapped. I am wondering how they got from point A (the letter) to point B (them leaving instead of being part-time royals).

All of that happened well before H&M left for North America

No, the letter does not support the conclusion you've drawn that the Queen supported their "half in-half out" plan. In fact, it makes it abundantly clear that they will not be part of the working royals, even though much of what they will be doing (in support of the Commonwealth) may appear to be exactly the same to the public as if they were still working royals, albeit part-time ones.

The government wasn't willing to fund their ongoing security staff unless they were working royals, which is as it should be.

I suppose the question is was the Queen only humoring Harry at the Sandringham Summit in January 2020 when she agreed to keep up the security, knowing full well that RAVEC would not approve and that, at some point, in the coming year "trial period" the Sussexes would be told they needed to pay for it themselves instead, or did she really believe that RAVEC would continue to provide the security detail for them? We'll never know.

 

[Badams]

I honestly think that this might be a case of both sides being wrong in a lot of ways while sometimes also being right. It's unfortunate that there's an audience for their struggles as a family. We all have family turmoil, only nobody wants to read about it or use it to sell magazines.

 

[taf2002]

I'd believe that Harry wanted to live like a normal person and Meghan was only interested in Harry the person, if it wasn't for the fact that Harry continues to use his titles, Meghan uses the title she gained upon marriage, and they have insisted that their children be titled too.

The only thing about her children's titles that I have read that she or Harry said was if they were titled prince & princess they would be entitled to a certain level of protection/security. Anyone whose child was getting death threats (Archie was getting them before he was born) would want to make sure he was as safe as possible. Sue her! But they got the titles & the narrative was changed.

Meghan has been silent for a long time now but the mud keeps getting thrown at her. Even what Harry says or does is blamed on Meghan including Spare. I suspect a lot of us who defend them are not really fans but in the interest of fair play we speak up. Does anyone really believe that the RF has done nothing of what they've been accused? IMO Meghan's biggest sin was her level of popularity was higher for a time when she was newly married. They had to do something about that.

 

[airgelaal]

The only thing about her children's titles that I have read that she or Harry said was if they were titled prince & princess they would be entitled to a certain level of protection/security. Anyone whose child was getting death threats (Archie was getting them before he was born) would want to make sure he was as safe as possible. Sue her! But they got the titles & the narrative was changed.

Harry should have known that his children could only get titles when his father became King. Then what was the point of this discussion at all? Moreover, titles do not provide protection. Such mistakes are forgivable for Meghan, but not for Harry. Or Megan and Harry just wanted special treatment

 

[Tesla]

Harry should have known that his children could only get titles when his father became King. Then what was the point of this discussion at all? Moreover, titles do not provide protection. Such mistakes are forgivable for Meghan, but not for Harry. Or Megan and Harry just wanted special treatment

Or Harry just wanted special treatment.

 

[MacMadame]

Or Harry just wanted special treatment.

A bunch of us definitely have the impression that Harry wants to be treated like William. So that tracks.

 

[Judy]

The truth matters. But each side has their own truth.

Yes it is projection. From years of marriage. I tried to tell everyone about my father in law. I tried to be in the same house as he was. I broke out in hives, i would throw up, i would cry. I tried to defend myself. I tried over and over again. My fil mother once told me she believed me, but she was going to have to.stand by him. We lived next door to him for about 18 months. Although we were buying the house, when we moved the house was "his" any equity we has in the house was gone. Nothing I could do was going to be "good enough" for his son.

I tried for years because of our children, to know his grandchildren. Eventually I stayed away for my own mental health. I gave up trying to tell people what was going on. I was not believed. How DH and I made it through those years, I'll never know. I truly don't
And i didnt have 75% of the world telling me i was a gold digger. It's impossible for me to not believe part of their story, because i dont believe everything the Royals say can be true.

I was not believed UNTIL one day someone else in the family experienced it. That person learned from me, they only told me and one outsider. I'm the only own they confided in because they saw what happened to me. When my FIL died, they did not attend a memorial service for several other reasons, but they were not believed about that either.

So yeah projection. But everyone else here, has their own projection of a happy trio/royality.

Every person knows a truth. It may or may not be what happened/happens according to all.

I'm just tired of people defending and blaming. I too find it difficult to read what posters I generally agree with.....

I'm going to do what I should have done eons ago, ignore this thread.

I have some friends who have gone through very toxic relationships within their families. It’s horrible. Hugs for getting through it.

 

[taf2002]

A bunch of us definitely have the impression that Harry wants to be treated like William. So that tracks.

A family that has 2 children in which one is the golden child & one is an afterthought makes the 2nd child pretty messed up. The part of Spare that I read (before I got bored ) deals with that part of W's & H's life. Harry was called spare by his own father. I think that was mean & damaging.

I can relate because I used to be insecure about being unwanted as the 3rd child of the same gender. My dad used to laugh about not having a girl's name picked before I was born because I was supposed to be a boy. My mother asked her nurse's name - that's how I came to be named Claudia. I was the only one out of six not to be named for someone family or close to family. I have 3 younger bros but my father used to tell the story of my name until I was about 18 when I screamed at him that the story wasn't funny & it didn't show him or my mother in a good light. I told him if he ever told it again in my hearing that would be the last he ever saw of me. I struggled a lot to overcome that part of my upbringing so I don't blame Harry for being bitter.

 

[airgelaal]

I was the only granddaughter of my grandparents. Moreover, throughout my childhood I was the youngest. All my adult relatives spoiled me. My cousins were jealous, but the adults didn't pay attention to them. I didn’t like this situation much, but I was a child and I was taught to respect my elders. Therefore, I could not argue with them and ask for equal treatment. Moreover, I could not afford to behave “badly”, because I was so pampered. I was too obedient girl and this is not a very good quality in adult life.
Each status has its pros and cons. Harry sees only the disadvantages of his status and only the advantages of his brother's status. But it doesn't work that way.

 

[Jenny]

Each status has its pros and cons. Harry sees only the disadvantages of his status and only the advantages of his brother's status. But it doesn't work that way.

Agree, and I think we've discussed this before. William did not choose to be born first, or to have a career path laid out for him generations ago. His life comes with much greater responsibility and scrutiny than his brother's; the pressure must be enormous at times.

In addition, there have been multiple reports that when his parents' marriage was falling apart, Diana leaned on William for support - which is again a lot for a teenager to deal with. Maybe this is part of why he's put a focus on men's mental health as one of his causes, I don't know.

Not saying one or the other has more to complain about, more that just because one of them isn't complaining doesn't mean his life is all wonderfully fabulous either.

 

[Lynn226]

Anne's daughter, Zara, has spoken about the advantage of not having a title. It's too bad Harry's parents couldn't have emphasized the freedoms and advantages of not being the heir.

I never understood why they couldn't just take an extended sabbatical. It's not like William and Catherine were full time working royals after they got married. William was in the air ambulance service and I don't remember Catherine doing solo engagements. They were called work shy and it seemed they didn't want many royal duties.

I do believe Meghan was subjected to racism in the media. I also think four years after they left the royal family they seem like professional victims. They've been caught in enough discrepancies that I take what they say with a grain of salt.

 

[ballettmaus]

We keep saying this but no one is listening. ?

I think that depends on the definition of "normal".

Did they say they want a life out of the public eye? No. Did they say they wanted a normal life? Not in so many words. But they did move halfway around the world to a country where their titles aren't worth a thing and that went to war to leave the crown behind and left the business of the BRF behind. So, even if they didn't explicitly say so, I think it's fair to say that they did want a normal life, or, at least, a more normal life, considering. Because if they didn't want a normal/more normal life, one would have to wonder what kind of a life they want and why they left in the first place. (Of course, that assumes that normal means a self-determined life that doesn't come with the constraints, obligations and publicity and whatever else a royal life comes with and not quiet and private and like every other (non-famous) person).

 

[Andora]

Anne's daughter, Zara, has spoken about the advantage of not having a title. It's too bad Harry's parents couldn't have emphasized the freedoms and advantages of not being the heir.

I never understood why they couldn't just take an extended sabbatical. It's not like William and Catherine were full time working royals after they got married. William was in the air ambulance service and I don't remember Catherine doing solo engagements. They were called work shy and it seemed they didn't want many royal duties.

I do believe Meghan was subjected to racism in the media. I also think four years after they left the royal family they seem like professional victims. They've been caught in enough discrepancies that I take what they say with a grain of salt.

I couldn't agree more with this post except comparisons to Zara. I think those in this thread trying to compare Charles' kids' upbringing to his sibling's kids are forgetting how the very family they're speaking about operates in terms of titles, family lines and expectations. Anne was raised well behind Charles from the jump - and she didn't get the benefit Andrew and Edward did of a mother who was more attached to her younger children after giving birth to the first. Anne's pragmatism is the best part about her, and certainly her children benefitted - but that was not the experience Harry was ever going to have, especially considering who his parents were.

All discussions about titles seem truly ridiculous. It's not some gotcha from royal fans to ridicule H&M for keeping them, I'm sorry, and I think it's goddamn ridiculous we give these titles any serious weight anyways. It's all window dressing that we accept as important because of tradition-- colonial traditions. Those upholding any of that are ridiculous, and that includes Harry & Megan.

 

[Lynn226]

I couldn't agree more with this post except comparisons to Zara. I think those in this thread trying to compare Charles' kids' upbringing to his sibling's kids are forgetting how the very family they're speaking about operates in terms of titles, family lines and expectations. Anne was raised well behind Charles from the jump - and she didn't get the benefit Andrew and Edward did of a mother who was more attached to her younger children after giving birth to the first. Anne's pragmatism is the best part about her, and certainly her children benefitted - but that was not the experience Harry was ever going to have, especially considering who his parents were.

All discussions about titles seem truly ridiculous. It's not some gotcha from royal fans to ridicule H&M for keeping them, I'm sorry, and I think it's goddamn ridiculous we give these titles any serious weight anyways. It's all window dressing that we accept as important because of tradition-- colonial traditions. Those upholding any of that are ridiculous, and that includes Harry & Megan.

I agree titled are ridiculous. Some of the ceremonies are, too.

I see your point about Anne. Harry could have benefited from having a more practical parent such as her to help him find his way as the second son.

I used Zara as my example because I think she herself compared herself to her titled cousins. I understand her statements to mean she has more freedom than them and appreciates that. Nevertheless, she benefited from being the grandchild of a monarch for most of life.

 

[Andora]

I agree titled are ridiculous. Some of the ceremonies are, too.

I see your point about Anne. Harry could have benefited from having a more practical parent such as her to help him find his way as the second son.

I used Zara as my example because I think she herself compared herself to her titled cousins. I understand her statements to mean she has more freedom than them and appreciates that. Nevertheless, she benefited from being the grandchild of a monarch for most of life.

Sorry, Lynn - I should have been clearer. Your comparison was benign, but there have been posts suggesting H&M "should" have taken Zara's approach. You reminded me that's a non-starter when Harry didn't grow up with Anne as a mother.

Harry would be smart to appreciate Zara's approach, I agree, but being raised as the literal Spare, he'd need something closer to deprogramming to get that far.

 

[canbelto]

Also Diana for all her positive traits was a hardcore royalist whose family was so aristocratic that they considered themselves more royal than the Windsors. Titles were extremely important to her (so much so that William promised that when he was king he'd retroactively apply HRH to her) so it makes sense that they would be super-important for Harry.

 

[MacMadame]

The Hollywood Reporter and People mag weigh in:

Harry and Meghan among Hollywood’s ‘biggest losers’ in 2023, but Harry still ‘intriguing’

The Hollywood Reporter didn’t hold back in summing up Harry and Meghan’s tumultuous year, though People found reason to give Harry some props for ‘Spare.’

www.mercurynews.com

 

[Lynn226]

Sorry, Lynn - I should have been clearer. Your comparison was benign, but there have been posts suggesting H&M "should" have taken Zara's approach. You reminded me that's a non-starter when Harry didn't grow up with Anne as a mother.

Harry would be smart to appreciate Zara's approach, I agree, but being raised as the literal Spare, he'd need something closer to deprogramming to get that far.

I agree that Harry would need a change of attitude at this point. I don't mind if they use their titles or let their kids use theirs, but they need to take a page out of Edward's and Sophie's book. I believe they have impressed upon their children they will never be working royals and will need to pursue other occupations.

Beatrice and Eugenie didn't have great parents, but they seem to have turned out well. Of course, they have each other which may have helped. Harry didn't have another sibling who also was unlikely to be monarch. I wonder if that would have given him someone who understood that aspect of being royal that he could completely trust.

 

[Mugs]

I can relate because I used to be insecure about being unwanted as the 3rd child of the same gender. My dad used to laugh about not having a girl's name picked before I was born because I was supposed to be a boy. My mother asked her nurse's name - that's how I came to be named Claudia. I was the only one out of six not to be named for someone family or close to family. I have 3 younger bros but my father used to tell the story of my name until I was about 18 when I screamed at him that the story wasn't funny & it didn't show him or my mother in a good light. I told him if he ever told it again in my hearing that would be the last he ever saw of me. I struggled a lot to overcome that part of my upbringing so I don't blame Harry for being bitter.

I love the name Claudia. It's not a typical name but also not an unusual name either. I think your name is beautiful

 

[taf2002]

It just occurred to me that raising Harry as a "spare" & even calling him that ensured that he would not be able to do his job efficiently if at some point William passed away & he became the heir esp if he was already grown when that happened.

I love the name Claudia. It's not a typical name but also not an unusual name either. I think your name is beautiful.

Thanks but I don't think I can be objective at this point. However my husband thinks it's beautiful even if I don't. Besides when you say it out loud with my maiden name which begins with an A it's clunky.

 

[Jenny]

Thanks but I don't think I can be objective at this point. However my husband thinks it's beautiful even if I don't. Besides when you say it out loud with my maiden name which begins with an A it's clunky.

I also think it's a great name, but if you don't like it and associate it with bad memories, then change it! I know you've likely got a whole life with this name all over it, but surely you can ask those close to you to call you a different name or version of the name of your choosing, and you can use it in less formal/legal contexts too

 

[Lynn226]

It just occurred to me that raising Harry as a "spare" & even calling him that ensured that he would not be able to do his job efficiently if at some point William passed away & he became the heir esp if he was already grown when that happened.



Thanks but I don't think I can be objective at this point. However my husband thinks it's beautiful even if I don't. Besides when you say it out loud with my maiden name which begins with an A it's clunky.

I've wondered about the death of the heir, too, in terms of the second in line being prepared. Given the history of the first in line not serving as monarch for long or not at all in Britain, it makes sense to educate the second in line. It also better prepares that person to assist the sibling who becomes monarch and to stand in when when the monarch is out of the country.

Given that William travels with his children, it would only take a single tragic accident for Harry to be next in line. The BRF should have made him an offer he couldn't refuse, even if it was only short term while he and Meghan took some time to consider all the long term implications.

 

[taf2002]

I also think it's a great name, but if you don't like it and associate it with bad memories, then change it! I know you've likely got a whole life with this name all over it, but surely you can ask those close to you to call you a different name or version of the name of your choosing, and you can use it in less formal/legal contexts too

I've gone by a nickname (which is not in any way derivative of Claudia) all my life until I married my current DH. Strangely enough my dad gave me the name when I was 2 days old. DH always refused to call me the nickname so all my family & friends prior to 1985 use the nickname & my coworkers & newer friends call me Claudia. I answer to both.

 

[puglover]

I am just not convinced that knowing you are to be the heir is easy and although there may be a downside to being the "spare" there are some obvious upsides. King George VI was not supposed to be king and apparently his Elizabeth declined two proposals from him as she did not want to be royal at all. We know, Albert or Bertie, had a dreadful speech impediment and hated public speaking and his listeners suffered along with him. His heir, his daughter, the lovely young Elizabeth wanted to live in the country and work with horses, which always made me wonder if her great enjoyment of Anne and Zara's success was due to the fact they got to experience the life she would have liked to have. Bertie apparently cried, not from joy, when he realized that his beloved daughter would be queen. The Queen took the throne at the age of 27, still a young married woman with two little children. William is 41 and I am sure he hopes to get his family older before his turn comes. Charles has had the opposite experience of being "a man in waiting" until he is way past his prime. Harry said, once at least, that he felt for his father and brother because they had no way out.

Anne seems to have done a good job of staying involved in royal service and yet having a happy and fulfilling private life. I am ever so impressed with Edward and Sophie and I can see why she and the Queen were so close. As someone I feel has a good sense of the royal family and has known Harry most of his life said, "Harry has never worn the mantle of royalty easily". She also says Harry was always "obsessed" with what is being said about him so surely these last few years cannot have been what he envisioned.

One hopes that Charlotte and Louis will grow up in a much more supportive and secure situation and they will find a comfortable place for themselves and their families going forward.

There is so much pain and suffering in the world at present, let us remember that at it's worst they are all very privileged people who are loved, have beautiful healthy children, the best that money can buy and that includes opportunities for their children, and many, many who support them. Most of us would not want their lives but I doubt many of them know what "normal" life really is.

 

[MacMadame]

I am just not convinced that knowing you are to be the heir is easy and although there may be a downside to being the "spare" there are some obvious upsides.

There are pros and cons to both positions IMO.

 

[taf2002]

Well said @puglover. IMO George's childhood is over at 10. He already looks like the weight of royalty is on him.

 

[puglover]

There seem to be certain personality/character traits that are better suited than others to royal life and all that entails, especially in this day of social media and no holds barred approach to journalism. I think Princess Anne has displayed a remarkable ability to be herself and just "get on with the job". No where near as glamorous as her contemporary Princess Diana or even Fergie, she appears okay with her tweeds and simple hair style. She jokes about the insults that she looks like a horse. Her dad apparently said after the attempt to kidnap Anne - something like - he's lucky he didn't succeed in kidnapping her. Although a royal by marriage, I see some of that same "thick skin" in Catherine. Only married a year when those pictures of her sunbathing topless were published, those on the tour with them said William was visibly distraught but Catherine carried on as if nothing untoward had happened. Charlotte has an amazing amount of composure, still so young but possessing a quiet confidence that cannot be taught.
Harry seems to be a man with his heart on his sleeve and very affected by others thoughts about him and perceived slights. He clearly suffers and has suffered and whether they sought privacy or not, with the spotlight always comes public judgement and criticism. I don't know if it is possible to develop a thicker skin and the ability to let hurtful and hateful comments roll off you but if his life's dream was really to be a tour guide living in the outback of Africa, he is a very long way from it. For Harry's sake, I hope they do adopt a lower profile and he is able to find a meaningful path for himself. I actually think Meghan will do just fine.

 

[barbk]

Court rules that Harry's phone was hacked by the Mirror group.
A London court on Friday ruled in favor of Prince Harry in a lawsuit that he had pursued against a British tabloid publisher, a major victory in the royal’s long-running battle with Britain’s news media and a personal vindication of his crusade over press intrusion into his life.

The judge found there was sufficient proof that Mirror Group Newspapers, which owns several publications, had engaged in unlawful information gathering, including phone hacking, in its coverage of Harry and the other plaintiffs.

Judge Timothy Fancourt determined that the information in 15 of 33 articles submitted by Harry’s lawyers as evidence of phone hacking had been unlawfully gathered by journalists, and he awarded the royal 140,600 pounds, or around $180,000, in damages. He said that it appeared Harry’s personal phone was targeted between 2004 and 2009.
NY Times, but behind paywall. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/15/world/europe/prince-harry-tabloid-hacking-lawsuit-ruling.html