Spare

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11602551/Prince-Harrys-book-William-pointed-finger-Meghan-called-rude.html
I hope Spare is clearer than this DailyMail article. Meghan makes a comment about hormones that sets Kate off at the bridal salon, but then somehow (at a different point in time?) William shows up and waves a finger in her face and that makes Meghan cry?

The way I read this is that there was a confrontation after the bridal salon exchange.

Man if someone I barely knew told me I had "baby brain" I would be LIVID. Is anyone else seeing this as William defending his wife?

Yeah, but I thought there was crying during the bridal salon exchange, so I guess I'm just not understanding the sequence. Anyway, I can see how some people would get pissed at that kind of offhand remark being made, especially Kate with her tough pregnancies. But many many many others would just laugh it off.

yeah. i joke about mommy brain and baby brain with my friends (who are also mothers). it's definitely not up there with the worst things you could say to an in-law.

Not the worst thing. But it can be used as an insult. And getting a finger wag in response seems appropriate.

Not a great relationship among in-laws. But not the worst. Or at least not then - now it is. SMH

How could the money and revenge possibly have been worth the end of your relationship with your only brother? I don't care how much you resented being "the spare," it is simply not worth it.

What did Harry actually want of William? To change their birth order? In every aspect of life (like it or not), there is a hierarchy.

I think he wanted his family/the institution to protect him in the same way William was protected. It's an understandable desire, if not realistic.

Of course he didn't want to "change the birth order." God, I don't think he envies William in any way and barely tolerated his royal duties, given what happened to his mother. And after finding other things that gave him more happiness: his military service, his philanthropies, and now his wife/kids. He absolutely expected his brother and father to protect his family and they didn't, going as far to remove their security detail once they decided to step away. Were they entitled to pull it back? Sure. But it makes them look petty and vindictive, and left them open to security breaches. Jesus, Tyler Perry had to step in to help them when their own family couldn't be magnanimous enough to keep them safe. It's absolutely grotesque.

While there are not doubt different recollections on the two sides re: some of the details, I 100000% believe Harry and Meghan. There are plenty of examples of hideous behavior by the Royal family to know what they are saying is true. Good for them for stepping away. Protecting their family. And of not longer sitting back and being the punching bags and telling their side.

H&M could have stayed in England (even as non-working Royals) and lived at Frogmore House and had security. They chose to move to the US, out of the jurisdiction of the British government. If they didn’t think through the consequences of that, that’s on them. They said they wanted to be independent and make their own way (except for the titles, and the police protection, and the Royal family sticking up for them in the press…). Choices have consequences.

Well, they're making more money now than in Britain. So, yeah! You're right, choices have consequences .

Security alone was worth more than they have made by cashing in all their cards.

Yet at some point, had they stayed, their financial well-being, possibly where they lived, and legal custody of their children would have been in William’s hands. That’s reason enough for leaving while they still had multiple options for making money — and possibly better options for the well-being of their kids.

This nonsense was floated as a justification for Meghan to take Archie and run. It was nonsense then and it's nonsense now.

Also, Beatrice and Eugenie may not have everything they desire but they are doing just fine. "Better option for the well-being of their kids"? Being raised as the idle rich in California is healthier for them than being raised in England among family? I suppose anything is possible.

Blood does not make one family. Blood relatives can be toxic. Sometimes it’s best to disconnect and make your own family. Isn’t that’s what is touted in the relationship section of DCUM and self-help forums.

Your entire family on all sides except for one mother?

[Anonymous]

OK, it seems that MOST of the posters on here do not want to truly discuss this book and what's in it.

Ping ponging back and forth over trivialities when there's literally a bomb within the text of this book that everyone on here wants to gloss over:

Harry has put a huge jihadi target on his back along with his wife's, kids' and the most tragic part - ANY innocents who happen to be in in the vicinity.

In case anyone forgot or doesn't know, go back and look at history and read up about how terrorists plan for YEARS to avenge. This book will literally go down in infamy.

But pardon my digression. Go on back to the ping-pong game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who are appalled at how Harry is airing his “family’s” dirty laundry, this isn’t a family. At best this is a dysfunctional business that is desperate to hang into its position. While many of us would operate under different norms when it comes to our own families, those norms have never applied to the BRF.

We all know it’s ugly and unfair. But apparently no one wants to see it in print or hear it said out loud.

See, that's part of the charm of the royal family. It is a family, including family squabbles and family laundry. But still, family laundry doesn't need to be public.

As an American and someone who believes in the importance of family, I don’t find any of it charming. And you’re still applying traditional family norms to them. They are in the public eye and hold their positions because….they were born into a certain group of people who are related by birth whose ancestors acquired wealth and power in questionable ways. Being part of that “family” means nothing if you aren’t the monarch, the direct heir to the throne, or are willing to live your entire life supporting the monarch and the heir.

I guess I'm not sure what you're arguing. That they aren't a family? Or should behave better since they are a family? Or that you just think it's good entertainment and fine for Harry to write a tell-all book about his family and the current and future king and queen of England?

Did you read the first post? To be clear, I think Harry is fully within his rights to tell his story. Those claiming to be appalled that he’d “air his family’s dirty laundry” presume that his family operates as ours do. But it doesn’t. Given everything that the world has learned about the royals over the last 40 years, it’s baffling to me how people honestly can claim he “shouldn’t” be saying these things in public. And for Americans to side with the monarchy and act as though they are the epitome of class and morality - and that Harry is persona non grata for speaking out against them- is even more baffling.

I don’t think the Americans who don’t support H&M are “sid(ing) with the monarchy”, it’s just difficult to support people as tacky as H&M - it’s cringe-inducing.

And he is literally persona non grata - strictly by his own doing and choices.

He and his wife are all about the money.

Shoutout to American capitalism. It’s the American way, by way of British.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, it seems that MOST of the posters on here do not want to truly discuss this book and what's in it.

Ping ponging back and forth over trivialities when there's literally a bomb within the text of this book that everyone on here wants to gloss over:

Harry has put a huge jihadi target on his back along with his wife's, kids' and the most tragic part - ANY innocents who happen to be in in the vicinity.

In case anyone forgot or doesn't know, go back and look at history and read up about how terrorists plan for YEARS to avenge. This book will literally go down in infamy.

But pardon my digression. Go on back to the ping-pong game.

This has been discussed in this thread. Some Brit expats have already had to evacuate from Afghanistan and there is heightened security threat from the Invictus Games in Dusseldof next year.

Not to mention the Coronation...sigh,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, his comments about his experience in the military have definitely put a nail in his faux "Invictus Games" charity. I can't imagine any military members in any country's military who would want to participate again, after his undignified brag about his kills.

Was he bragging or just stating a fact about his service. The part about having to disassociate himself from his kills does not come across as bragging, but PTSD. He put it in his memoirs which is a part of his life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, his comments about his experience in the military have definitely put a nail in his faux "Invictus Games" charity. I can't imagine any military members in any country's military who would want to participate again, after his undignified brag about his kills.

Was he bragging or just stating a fact about his service. The part about having to disassociate himself from his kills does not come across as bragging, but PTSD. He put it in his memoirs which is a part of his life.

I think in context from the book it is not as bad, but it was still very unwise to put a specific number in there.

He could have made the point without the kill count, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there anything good in the book? Is it just a list of grievances or is this miserable SOB grateful or happy about anything in his sorry (privileged) life?

They are scraping the barrel of grievances, we’re at lipgloss level now.

LOL! That was a weird thing to include....I don't know a single 40 year old woman who would ask to borrow lip gloss from another woman.

A lot of the little stories that they shared in the Netflix doc and in the book make me think Meghan does this stuff on purpose. "I hug!" "I wear ripped jeans!" "I talk to my girlfriends like this!"......just feels like she purposely tried to push the envelope to create some narrative of stuffy Brit vs. cool American.

I wonder if the palace is breathing a sigh of relief. They are going to come out winners in all this now that people are seeing what they were dealing with. They don't need to even say anything. The books speaks volumes about Harry, and not in the way he probably hoped.

+1 Having worked in middle schools for many years, the complaints and stories about lip gloss and circumcision and falling on a dog bowl sound very familiar to those of that age group.

He sounds like a classic case of arrested development. His mother's death came at the worst possible time. Maybe William, being a bit older, was better able to move forward.

William would have been protected and coddled because of his position as heir to the throne. Everyone keeps equating their positions in life, but they’re nothing the same. Even look at something as small as the picture released a few years ago of the Queen, Charles, William, and George. That’s the line. Once George was born, Harry’s place became insignificant. You can’t tell me that, especially after losing the mother he was very close to, that it doesn’t sting that you are reminded quite publicly that you’re part of the family, but not really.

The spares always end up messed up - Princess Margaret, Prince Andrew, etc. Their whole life exists and is designed to serve and protect their older, more important sibling, and their own wants and needs are secondary.

It is only insignificant with regard to the crown. You can still have a fulfilling, luxurious life as a supporting actor with every possible perk PLUS the peace and quiet.

Rubbish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there anything good in the book? Is it just a list of grievances or is this miserable SOB grateful or happy about anything in his sorry (privileged) life?

They are scraping the barrel of grievances, we’re at lipgloss level now.

LOL! That was a weird thing to include....I don't know a single 40 year old woman who would ask to borrow lip gloss from another woman.

A lot of the little stories that they shared in the Netflix doc and in the book make me think Meghan does this stuff on purpose. "I hug!" "I wear ripped jeans!" "I talk to my girlfriends like this!"......just feels like she purposely tried to push the envelope to create some narrative of stuffy Brit vs. cool American.

I wonder if the palace is breathing a sigh of relief. They are going to come out winners in all this now that people are seeing what they were dealing with. They don't need to even say anything. The books speaks volumes about Harry, and not in the way he probably hoped.

+1 Having worked in middle schools for many years, the complaints and stories about lip gloss and circumcision and falling on a dog bowl sound very familiar to those of that age group.

He sounds like a classic case of arrested development. His mother's death came at the worst possible time. Maybe William, being a bit older, was better able to move forward.

William would have been protected and coddled because of his position as heir to the throne. Everyone keeps equating their positions in life, but they’re nothing the same. Even look at something as small as the picture released a few years ago of the Queen, Charles, William, and George. That’s the line. Once George was born, Harry’s place became insignificant. You can’t tell me that, especially after losing the mother he was very close to, that it doesn’t sting that you are reminded quite publicly that you’re part of the family, but not really.

The spares always end up messed up - Princess Margaret, Prince Andrew, etc. Their whole life exists and is designed to serve and protect their older, more important sibling, and their own wants and needs are secondary.

It is only insignificant with regard to the crown. You can still have a fulfilling, luxurious life as a supporting actor with every possible perk PLUS the peace and quiet.

Rubbish.

It's clearly not rubbish. These are some of the most privilege people in the world. Of course their lives could be fine and significant, even without the crown.

What I might grant you is that growing up in a monarchy might so warp their sense of reality that they become miserable because of their status relative to the crown, even if, by normal standards, they have amazingly comfortable lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, his comments about his experience in the military have definitely put a nail in his faux "Invictus Games" charity. I can't imagine any military members in any country's military who would want to participate again, after his undignified brag about his kills.

Was he bragging or just stating a fact about his service. The part about having to disassociate himself from his kills does not come across as bragging, but PTSD. He put it in his memoirs which is a part of his life.

I think in context from the book it is not as bad, but it was still very unwise to put a specific number in there.

He could have made the point without the kill count, no?

You have zero understanding of terrorism nor of military service. Come back to this thread in a month, a year, or even 5 years from now after a terrorist attack spawned by this book. Then tell the victims and their families that you don't think it's so bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jealous and disgruntled spares over the history have often killed or tried to kill their heir siblings, he is only ruining him in public opinion.

\

Hilarious!

My husband's reaction to the news about the fight was, "They're brothers, of course they have fights. I had worse-sounding fights with my brother and we get along fine."

Your husband is having fist fights with his brother? Dysfunctional

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:'Taliban taunts 'big mouth loser' Prince Harry after he revealed he killed 25 enemies in Afghanistan: Islamists say Duke is 'mad' and 'the "chess pieces" now rule after you fled to your grandmother's palace'

I love it!!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11606051/Furious-Taliban-taunts-big-mouth-loser-Prince-Harry-revealed-killed-25-enemies.html

So you love the Taliban. Check.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, his comments about his experience in the military have definitely put a nail in his faux "Invictus Games" charity. I can't imagine any military members in any country's military who would want to participate again, after his undignified brag about his kills.

Was he bragging or just stating a fact about his service. The part about having to disassociate himself from his kills does not come across as bragging, but PTSD. He put it in his memoirs which is a part of his life.

I think in context from the book it is not as bad, but it was still very unwise to put a specific number in there.

He could have made the point without the kill count, no?

You have zero understanding of terrorism nor of military service. Come back to this thread in a month, a year, or even 5 years from now after a terrorist attack spawned by this book. Then tell the victims and their families that you don't think it's so bad.

No, trust me, I get it. It's bad. All I am saying is that the context in the book softens that language vis a vis the headlines. Of course, he should have anticipated the headlines.

Taliban is already using it as propaganda, saying that it was not enemy combatants he killed but civilians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jealous and disgruntled spares over the history have often killed or tried to kill their heir siblings, he is only ruining him in public opinion.

\

Hilarious!

My husband's reaction to the news about the fight was, "They're brothers, of course they have fights. I had worse-sounding fights with my brother and we get along fine."

Mine said the exact same thing -- brothers get in fights, even in their 30s and 40s!

Trashy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
2) Meghan was never cut out to be an obedient princess. She was/is a nice but ambitious and hard working woman with a vision of what she wants out of life, a clear feeling about what she believes is wrong and right, and an unwillingness to compromise herself entirely for anything or anyone. And in the end, this clashed with the institution and doomed her. She was never going to not fight back. And if you admire that quality overall you support her, and if you think she should have been thanking the gods for landing her a prince and keeping her mouth shut as she enjoyed the trappings of the royal life than you hate her.

Meghan thought that the whole institution of the BRF should be bent to suit her because she's so special. And when it didn't, she cried. She was fighting back against what she perceived as slights, but is in fact just reality: you, Meghan, are NOT as important as Kate, because hierarchy. And this hierarchy will not change based on how fabulous or glamorous or popular you are. That's why they get priceless art and you get IKEA. Both of you live in places you do not own and never will.

That’s where you are wrong. Meghan is no less important than Kate or anyone else. I agree with the poster before you, Meghan was never going to take a backseat to anyone. And she shouldn’t. It’s unAmerican. And it should be unBritish as well. Kate, William, Harry, Charles did nothing important in their life or helped others. They were just born into an institution that should have been dissolved a long time ago. She should bow to no man or woman. WTF. Do you teach your children that they are less important than others simply because of their birth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most vicious revelation is him writing about his father taking his childhood teddy bear everywhere sue to scars from childhood bullying. This is such a private and painful thing to reveal about someone else.

What a tragic end for Harry, I can’t see anyone wanting to keep his company.

It's appalling, I simply can't get over how vicious and petty the details are. Daily Mail has excerpts of the Kate vs. Meghan anecdotes, and they are mind-glowingly stupid. Anger about hugs, lip gloss, children's tights and requests not to be too informal prematurely? I mean wtf.

Amazing how this is mostly coming from the Sussexes, and Meghan really does not come across well at all. Arrogant, abrasive, presumptuous, and definitely jealous.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11606199/Inside-Meghan-Kates-long-standing-feud-fallings-drove-apart.html

It is mostly incredibly stupid and small, but do we think it's true Meghan paid for the Sussex's Ikea furniture vs. the Wales's lap-of-luxury decor? Very strange!

Meghan had a $1M wardrobe during her 18 months of service so I doubt it. They spent $4M renovating Frogmore and included a personal yoga room and floating floor and she had the designer of SOHO house do the interior decor.

That was not a part of the renovation, and it was 3.2 million, and they repaid it. And maybe that all seems nitpicky but it shows how people change and frame these stories to make her look comically awful.

But the comical awfulness is just from the semantics of the exact cost or the silly reno features. Are they not embarrassed to now be publicly complaining about how small their newlywed home was or how nice William and Catherine's furniture was when they ended up removating their dream home and now live in a mansion.

They were married for 2 minutes and were already comparing and complaining. What an awful way to start a marriage and join a family.

It's also quite bizarre for what amounts to a new employee feeling entitled to anything, much less parity with well-established senior royals.

Y’all need to make up your mind. Is she an employee or is she supposed to be family?