Prince Harry’s book

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is such a whining attention seeker

Funny. no one says that about Diana. She is, instead, a martyr.
Secondly, there's no bad press about the other royals. Not Anne who left her husband, not her kids, and really low key reporting on Andrew with the Epstein case, nothing about Camilla, nothing about Beatrice's husband and his divorce- just passing references. They've been after Meghan like swarms of bees.

The ours used to say that about Diana all the time. And Camilla was roped to pieces for being a horse face marriage wrecker.

For a minute. That's it.

Sounds like you missed most of the 1990s.

I was living in England and the age of Diana in the 1990s. I didn't miss anything. Literally nothing happened to Camilla that has happened to Meghan. Nothing. And you can see there's nothing happening now. Nothing about Andrew. Nothing about Anne's adult kids and their respective spouses, nothing about Phillip who went unscathed for his entire marriage, but everything is piled on Meghan.

I thought the leak tapes about Charles wanted to be Camilla’s tampon sure were something. So we’ll have to disagree here.

I did say there was nothing at all. I said it wasn't eventful enough or long lasting enough to change anything or make a difference. I said the comparison of their treatment paled in comparison to Harry and Meghan. And, we know that the monarchy puts the kabosh on anything going to far in the press. Hence, the problem Harry is writing about. There was nothing happening like that for them. They were not protected.

I don’t disagree with what you say about Harry but it is absolutely false to say it wasn’t eventful. Most of the 90s was full of negative coverage of the Royal family. The tampon stuff wasn’t a blip. It was massive news. For months or years. As was all of the speciation about Charles and Diana’s relationship king before they actually split.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Prince Harry took a lot of the mystery away with this book, and now he just looks like a whiner. It’s been a huge success in terms of selling books, but his reputation? Wowww he is totally F*cked. Meghan is sooooo desperate to be one of the Hollywood elite (evidence: in voting the clooneys, Oprah etc to her wedding when she hadn’t even met them, instead of her actual family and friends) but now she is an actual joke in Hollywood. Chelsea handler, jimmy kimmel, Seth Myers, they’re getting roasted everywhere. Couldn’t happen to a better couple.

You didn’t read the book.

And yet you couldn’t manage to cite to anything in the book to support your view that it was a mistake. You had to rely on false gossip that Harry and Meghan had never met Oprah before their wedding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is such a whining attention seeker

Funny. no one says that about Diana. She is, instead, a martyr.
Secondly, there's no bad press about the other royals. Not Anne who left her husband, not her kids, and really low key reporting on Andrew with the Epstein case, nothing about Camilla, nothing about Beatrice's husband and his divorce- just passing references. They've been after Meghan like swarms of bees.

The ours used to say that about Diana all the time. And Camilla was roped to pieces for being a horse face marriage wrecker.

For a minute. That's it.

Sounds like you missed most of the 1990s.

I was living in England and the age of Diana in the 1990s. I didn't miss anything. Literally nothing happened to Camilla that has happened to Meghan. Nothing. And you can see there's nothing happening now. Nothing about Andrew. Nothing about Anne's adult kids and their respective spouses, nothing about Phillip who went unscathed for his entire marriage, but everything is piled on Meghan.

Philip certainly didn’t go unscathed - he famously made many gaffes, frequently racist ones. I am British, lived in the UK during the 90s and Camilla was HATED! Zara got a lot of negativity for marrying a rugby player. Anne and her kids for being horsey. Charles for being dumb. Kate was “wait-y Katie”. Chelsy was hounded. Fergie got hate after hate (and don’t forget toe-gate, and Charles “I want to be your tampon”. Meghan is different because of the racism and because it’s now solely on them - perhaps because of a deal or collusion by the Royal press offices . I have no idea why Andrew, a pedophile allegedly has got off so lightly.

You gave the 1 or 15 minute examples of criticism of each of the above, but it was not world wide condemnation for any. Kate is chronicalled as perfect on a daily basis, her family beyond reproach, Fergie still lives with Andrew, she is beloved by Brits. No mention of Anne's son's divorce to speak of other than a day's worth. Phillip's affairs have never been brought to the papers, only alluded to in various documentations. He nearly killed someone driving around a few years before he was too sick. His gaffes were only the butt of jokes. Charles and Camilla are King and Queen now. Andrew is ever present and will return to royal standing. Why wasn't he raked over the coals? That was the information trade off... that Harry implied.
Harry and Meghan-called narcissistic, whiney, attention seeking, ungrateful, unhinged, power seeking, dangerous- for years. One doesn't even need to read the book to understand.

As I actually lived through this in the UK and understand the tabloids, I could give many more examples but there isn’t time. No Fergie is not beloved, far from it. No Phillips gaffes were not only jokes. Yes, things have changed now. They generally get more positive coverage and Megan doesn’t. But you must have been asleep if you missed all the anger and negativity directed at Kate, for example.

Harry should absolutely be railing against Andrew in the press, loud and vocally, but Harry barely mentions him, probably because of Harry’s friendship with Eugenie. By that measure even Harry protects Andrew, not because he wants to protect Andrew, but because he wants to protect Eugenie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Prince Harry took a lot of the mystery away with this book, and now he just looks like a whiner. It’s been a huge success in terms of selling books, but his reputation? Wowww he is totally F*cked. Meghan is sooooo desperate to be one of the Hollywood elite (evidence: in voting the clooneys, Oprah etc to her wedding when she hadn’t even met them, instead of her actual family and friends) but now she is an actual joke in Hollywood. Chelsea handler, jimmy kimmel, Seth Myers, they’re getting roasted everywhere. Couldn’t happen to a better couple.

+1. People aren’t buying the book as a sign or support. They are reading it to get a peek behind the curtains. Everyone stops to look at a trainwreck. Look at H&M’s approval ratings both before and after the boom launch. They went from low to lower.

I always loved Harry and loved Meghan initially. I couldn’t name the precise time my opinion changed but it was definitely changed by finding out she penned the letter to her dear daddy in calligraphy with the intention that the letter be leaked.

I would agree if it was just headline clicking or a couple episodes on TV. I don't agree that most people pay money and spend time reading books unless they have a strong interest in either direction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is such a whining attention seeker

Funny. no one says that about Diana. She is, instead, a martyr.
Secondly, there's no bad press about the other royals. Not Anne who left her husband, not her kids, and really low key reporting on Andrew with the Epstein case, nothing about Camilla, nothing about Beatrice's husband and his divorce- just passing references. They've been after Meghan like swarms of bees.

The ours used to say that about Diana all the time. And Camilla was roped to pieces for being a horse face marriage wrecker.

For a minute. That's it.

Sounds like you missed most of the 1990s.

I was living in England and the age of Diana in the 1990s. I didn't miss anything. Literally nothing happened to Camilla that has happened to Meghan. Nothing. And you can see there's nothing happening now. Nothing about Andrew. Nothing about Anne's adult kids and their respective spouses, nothing about Phillip who went unscathed for his entire marriage, but everything is piled on Meghan.

Philip certainly didn’t go unscathed - he famously made many gaffes, frequently racist ones. I am British, lived in the UK during the 90s and Camilla was HATED! Zara got a lot of negativity for marrying a rugby player. Anne and her kids for being horsey. Charles for being dumb. Kate was “wait-y Katie”. Chelsy was hounded. Fergie got hate after hate (and don’t forget toe-gate, and Charles “I want to be your tampon”. Meghan is different because of the racism and because it’s now solely on them - perhaps because of a deal or collusion by the Royal press offices . I have no idea why Andrew, a pedophile allegedly has got off so lightly.

You gave the 1 or 15 minute examples of criticism of each of the above, but it was not world wide condemnation for any. Kate is chronicalled as perfect on a daily basis, her family beyond reproach, Fergie still lives with Andrew, she is beloved by Brits. No mention of Anne's son's divorce to speak of other than a day's worth. Phillip's affairs have never been brought to the papers, only alluded to in various documentations. He nearly killed someone driving around a few years before he was too sick. His gaffes were only the butt of jokes. Charles and Camilla are King and Queen now. Andrew is ever present and will return to royal standing. Why wasn't he raked over the coals? That was the information trade off... that Harry implied.
Harry and Meghan-called narcissistic, whiney, attention seeking, ungrateful, unhinged, power seeking, dangerous- for years. One doesn't even need to read the book to understand.

As I actually lived through this in the UK and understand the tabloids, I could give many more examples but there isn’t time. No Fergie is not beloved, far from it. No Phillips gaffes were not only jokes. Yes, things have changed now. They generally get more positive coverage and Megan doesn’t. But you must have been asleep if you missed all the anger and negativity directed at Kate, for example.

Duchess of Pork, Kate’s middle class background. The Brits pay taxes for a family to live in opulence. There are a lot of feelings about that including, from some, hateful resentment. If Harry took the stance of wanting to abolish the monarchy he may get more support than wanting to keep it but improve the experience of the siblings living within it

[Anonymous]

Can we talk about the fish biro anecdote? I was a little confused by the meaning of the gift. Harry describes it as cold-blooded, but then goes on to talk about how much he and Princess Margaret had in common and how he wishes he had put more effort into building a relationship with her before her final months. The only commentary I can find elsewhere about it discusses it as being a cold/distant gift, but the juxtaposition makes me think Harry saw something more to it, that might have signaled some fondness or sense of connection (even distant).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we talk about the fish biro anecdote? I was a little confused by the meaning of the gift. Harry describes it as cold-blooded, but then goes on to talk about how much he and Princess Margaret had in common and how he wishes he had put more effort into building a relationship with her before her final months. The only commentary I can find elsewhere about it discusses it as being a cold/distant gift, but the juxtaposition makes me think Harry saw something more to it, that might have signaled some fondness or sense of connection (even distant).

I thought he was just saying that felt she was a bit odd but he regretted not looking beyond that to get to know her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we talk about the fish biro anecdote? I was a little confused by the meaning of the gift. Harry describes it as cold-blooded, but then goes on to talk about how much he and Princess Margaret had in common and how he wishes he had put more effort into building a relationship with her before her final months. The only commentary I can find elsewhere about it discusses it as being a cold/distant gift, but the juxtaposition makes me think Harry saw something more to it, that might have signaled some fondness or sense of connection (even distant).

I thought he was just saying that felt she was a bit odd but he regretted not looking beyond that to get to know her.

Odd and extremely cheap (I googled it and it is a regular pen, but one had a fish on it for decoration or something). But he still thinks they could have had a connection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we talk about the fish biro anecdote? I was a little confused by the meaning of the gift. Harry describes it as cold-blooded, but then goes on to talk about how much he and Princess Margaret had in common and how he wishes he had put more effort into building a relationship with her before her final months. The only commentary I can find elsewhere about it discusses it as being a cold/distant gift, but the juxtaposition makes me think Harry saw something more to it, that might have signaled some fondness or sense of connection (even distant).

I thought he was just saying that felt she was a bit odd but he regretted not looking beyond that to get to know her.

Odd and extremely cheap (I googled it and it is a regular pen, but one had a fish on it for decoration or something). But he still thinks they could have had a connection.

Oh yeah, a biro is the cheapest type of pen. It’s very strange. But doesn’t every family have the weird aunt who gives bizarre gifts? (In my family it’s my mother in law)

[Anonymous]

I’m surprised he included the story about mocking the physically disabled matron at his school. He described her body type and said she didn’t make the boys “horny”.

Disgusting. Did I miss any context or nuance or is he really just a run-of-the-mill misogynist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m surprised he included the story about mocking the physically disabled matron at his school. He described her body type and said she didn’t make the boys “horny”.

Disgusting. Did I miss any context or nuance or is he really just a run-of-the-mill misogynist?

Is there a reason you’re asking other anonymous readers our opinions — vs reading the book, or at least what you deem to be relevant passages from the book and deciding for yourself? You’re “surprised” and find something “disgusting “ — but you’re apparently basing this solely on other people’s opinions? It’s hard to fathom this combination of interest and ignorance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m surprised he included the story about mocking the physically disabled matron at his school. He described her body type and said she didn’t make the boys “horny”.

Disgusting. Did I miss any context or nuance or is he really just a run-of-the-mill misogynist?

Is there a reason you’re asking other anonymous readers our opinions — vs reading the book, or at least what you deem to be relevant passages from the book and deciding for yourself? You’re “surprised” and find something “disgusting “ — but you’re apparently basing this solely on other people’s opinions? It’s hard to fathom this combination of interest and ignorance.

My reason for asking other readers their opinions is because this is a forum to discuss books and, you know, sharing opinions on books. I guess we could all just go buy the book and stay quiet about it, but then that’s not really the point of a book club forum, is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is such a whining attention seeker

Funny. no one says that about Diana. She is, instead, a martyr.
Secondly, there's no bad press about the other royals. Not Anne who left her husband, not her kids, and really low key reporting on Andrew with the Epstein case, nothing about Camilla, nothing about Beatrice's husband and his divorce- just passing references. They've been after Meghan like swarms of bees.

The ours used to say that about Diana all the time. And Camilla was roped to pieces for being a horse face marriage wrecker.

For a minute. That's it.

Sounds like you missed most of the 1990s.

I was living in England and the age of Diana in the 1990s. I didn't miss anything. Literally nothing happened to Camilla that has happened to Meghan. Nothing. And you can see there's nothing happening now. Nothing about Andrew. Nothing about Anne's adult kids and their respective spouses, nothing about Phillip who went unscathed for his entire marriage, but everything is piled on Meghan.

Philip certainly didn’t go unscathed - he famously made many gaffes, frequently racist ones. I am British, lived in the UK during the 90s and Camilla was HATED! Zara got a lot of negativity for marrying a rugby player. Anne and her kids for being horsey. Charles for being dumb. Kate was “wait-y Katie”. Chelsy was hounded. Fergie got hate after hate (and don’t forget toe-gate, and Charles “I want to be your tampon”. Meghan is different because of the racism and because it’s now solely on them - perhaps because of a deal or collusion by the Royal press offices . I have no idea why Andrew, a pedophile allegedly has got off so lightly.

You gave the 1 or 15 minute examples of criticism of each of the above, but it was not world wide condemnation for any. Kate is chronicalled as perfect on a daily basis, her family beyond reproach, Fergie still lives with Andrew, she is beloved by Brits. No mention of Anne's son's divorce to speak of other than a day's worth. Phillip's affairs have never been brought to the papers, only alluded to in various documentations. He nearly killed someone driving around a few years before he was too sick. His gaffes were only the butt of jokes. Charles and Camilla are King and Queen now. Andrew is ever present and will return to royal standing. Why wasn't he raked over the coals? That was the information trade off... that Harry implied.
Harry and Meghan-called narcissistic, whiney, attention seeking, ungrateful, unhinged, power seeking, dangerous- for years. One doesn't even need to read the book to understand.

As I actually lived through this in the UK and understand the tabloids, I could give many more examples but there isn’t time. No Fergie is not beloved, far from it. No Phillips gaffes were not only jokes. Yes, things have changed now. They generally get more positive coverage and Megan doesn’t. But you must have been asleep if you missed all the anger and negativity directed at Kate, for example.

Duchess of Pork, Kate’s middle class background. The Brits pay taxes for a family to live in opulence. There are a lot of feelings about that including, from some, hateful resentment. If Harry took the stance of wanting to abolish the monarchy he may get more support than wanting to keep it but improve the experience of the siblings living within it

Again, those were temporary and not all encompassing. There was never hatred toward Kate. A couple of shots about her college modeling outfit, really nothing. The family's aspirations were in some question, she was called " waity Katy"...they didn't even continue in a deep dive about sketchy uncle. Her parents were literally flight crew employees before opening an online store, and got relatively no harraasment. Come on.

They were one off comments, all remediated by the time these folks were solidly in their position. They were and are still going for Meghan's jugular. Reading comprehension is still an issue here, I see. It was nothing like what happened to Meghan- not comparable at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is such a whining attention seeker

Funny. no one says that about Diana. She is, instead, a martyr.
Secondly, there's no bad press about the other royals. Not Anne who left her husband, not her kids, and really low key reporting on Andrew with the Epstein case, nothing about Camilla, nothing about Beatrice's husband and his divorce- just passing references. They've been after Meghan like swarms of bees.

The ours used to say that about Diana all the time. And Camilla was roped to pieces for being a horse face marriage wrecker.

For a minute. That's it.

Sounds like you missed most of the 1990s.

I was living in England and the age of Diana in the 1990s. I didn't miss anything. Literally nothing happened to Camilla that has happened to Meghan. Nothing. And you can see there's nothing happening now. Nothing about Andrew. Nothing about Anne's adult kids and their respective spouses, nothing about Phillip who went unscathed for his entire marriage, but everything is piled on Meghan.

I thought the leak tapes about Charles wanted to be Camilla’s tampon sure were something. So we’ll have to disagree here.

I did say there was nothing at all. I said it wasn't eventful enough or long lasting enough to change anything or make a difference. I said the comparison of their treatment paled in comparison to Harry and Meghan. And, we know that the monarchy puts the kabosh on anything going to far in the press. Hence, the problem Harry is writing about. There was nothing happening like that for them. They were not protected.

I don’t disagree with what you say about Harry but it is absolutely false to say it wasn’t eventful. Most of the 90s was full of negative coverage of the Royal family. The tampon stuff wasn’t a blip. It was massive news. For months or years. As was all of the speciation about Charles and Diana’s relationship king before they actually split.

By 1990s, you mean pre internet. And that's a biiig difference. No, it wasn't comparable at all. They were sent up in sketches, etc. , pictures of them with captions. Really. It's like a bow and arrows compared to a nuclear bomb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is such a whining attention seeker

Funny. no one says that about Diana. She is, instead, a martyr.
Secondly, there's no bad press about the other royals. Not Anne who left her husband, not her kids, and really low key reporting on Andrew with the Epstein case, nothing about Camilla, nothing about Beatrice's husband and his divorce- just passing references. They've been after Meghan like swarms of bees.

The ours used to say that about Diana all the time. And Camilla was roped to pieces for being a horse face marriage wrecker.

For a minute. That's it.

Sounds like you missed most of the 1990s.

I was living in England and the age of Diana in the 1990s. I didn't miss anything. Literally nothing happened to Camilla that has happened to Meghan. Nothing. And you can see there's nothing happening now. Nothing about Andrew. Nothing about Anne's adult kids and their respective spouses, nothing about Phillip who went unscathed for his entire marriage, but everything is piled on Meghan.

Philip certainly didn’t go unscathed - he famously made many gaffes, frequently racist ones. I am British, lived in the UK during the 90s and Camilla was HATED! Zara got a lot of negativity for marrying a rugby player. Anne and her kids for being horsey. Charles for being dumb. Kate was “wait-y Katie”. Chelsy was hounded. Fergie got hate after hate (and don’t forget toe-gate, and Charles “I want to be your tampon”. Meghan is different because of the racism and because it’s now solely on them - perhaps because of a deal or collusion by the Royal press offices . I have no idea why Andrew, a pedophile allegedly has got off so lightly.

You gave the 1 or 15 minute examples of criticism of each of the above, but it was not world wide condemnation for any. Kate is chronicalled as perfect on a daily basis, her family beyond reproach, Fergie still lives with Andrew, she is beloved by Brits. No mention of Anne's son's divorce to speak of other than a day's worth. Phillip's affairs have never been brought to the papers, only alluded to in various documentations. He nearly killed someone driving around a few years before he was too sick. His gaffes were only the butt of jokes. Charles and Camilla are King and Queen now. Andrew is ever present and will return to royal standing. Why wasn't he raked over the coals? That was the information trade off... that Harry implied.
Harry and Meghan-called narcissistic, whiney, attention seeking, ungrateful, unhinged, power seeking, dangerous- for years. One doesn't even need to read the book to understand.

As I actually lived through this in the UK and understand the tabloids, I could give many more examples but there isn’t time. No Fergie is not beloved, far from it. No Phillips gaffes were not only jokes. Yes, things have changed now. They generally get more positive coverage and Megan doesn’t. But you must have been asleep if you missed all the anger and negativity directed at Kate, for example.

Duchess of Pork, Kate’s middle class background. The Brits pay taxes for a family to live in opulence. There are a lot of feelings about that including, from some, hateful resentment. If Harry took the stance of wanting to abolish the monarchy he may get more support than wanting to keep it but improve the experience of the siblings living within it

Again, those were temporary and not all encompassing. There was never hatred toward Kate. A couple of shots about her college modeling outfit, really nothing. The family's aspirations were in some question, she was called " waity Katy"...they didn't even continue in a deep dive about sketchy uncle. Her parents were literally flight crew employees before opening an online store, and got relatively no harraasment. Come on.

They were one off comments, all remediated by the time these folks were solidly in their position. They were and are still going for Meghan's jugular. Reading comprehension is still an issue here, I see. It was nothing like what happened to Meghan- not comparable at all.

You seem to be falling prey to a strong cognitive bias. There has been a ton of positive press about Meghan and a ton of negative press about Kate - you dismiss all of that because it doesn't fit your narrative and perspective. Just because you have decided to ignore and minimize the positive press about Meghan and the negative press about Kate, it doesn't change the reality. Just like if you disagreed / ignored all the positive benefits of the vaccine and only focused on possible adverse events - again as many people do because it fits their bias. Everyone is a bit biased but when you start to get as lopsided as you are, it is time to reconsider and find out facts.