Prince Harry’s book

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suspect most people's opinions are already set before reading the book and didn't change afterwards.

I did grow up in the 1990s. I remember extensive coverage of all royal scandals major and minor. It started in the late 1980s. Meghan's coverage when married to Harry was mild compared to the flak that a number of royals got. Fergie was devoured by the press. So was Diana. On the other hand, the royals weren't innocent themselves either. Nor is Meghan.

I find it intriguing Will is able to navigate life more easily than Harry despite facing the same set of pressures. Having a different kind of wife clearly helps. And Will is brighter. Harry is not bright. Harry had a hard time despite his privileges but he is not capable of balancing the two. Other royals found a way to slip into a quieter life. But Harry courts the press and fuels their fire in venting at them, so there's a symbiotic relationship going on and he's too dim to understand it. Announcing you're stepping down for privacy and your family's own well-being and then spending the subsequent three years giving toxic interviews and publishing explosive (or not so explosive) memoirs isn't the way to do it. And this, I daresay, is why most people are tired of the duo and he's lost a great deal of sympathy he might have had.

I guess there's one more "bombshell" to come in Meghan's memoir and then what's left? Hopefully Harry figures out the best way to the happiness he seeks is stop moaning, stop seeing spirits that don't exist, keep his mouth shut and getting on with life.

You didn’t actually read the book did you? Just made these statements based on your own biases. And driving the press kool aid that he’s “dim”. Read the book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that Harry is stereotyped as a dullard. His interview with Stephen Colbert shows how engaging and funny and relatable he is - there’s different types of intelligence, after all. He’s always been talented at physical stuff as well and shows a lot of bravery, throwing himself into physical challenges. Only a handful of people in the world are able to fly Apache helicopters. As far as writing a memoir and giving interviews - good for him, able to break away and finally tell his side without the media putting words into his mouth and painting him in the worst light possible.

Lots of emotional intelligence and maturity in being able to understand what has happened at him. Some of those things are much more important than book smarts.

[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: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.

You'll have to provide actual sources. I only saw the most benign silly stuff out of any British tabloid about Kate. Meghan? Lies, lies and more lies. Interviews with her half siblings, setting her father up, unbelievable amount of racism.
Go ahead and give examples of how Kate experienced the same.
.

We’re not comparing. You are. And you are wrong. Kate faced relentless media criticism. For years.

[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: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.

You'll have to provide actual sources. I only saw the most benign silly stuff out of any British tabloid about Kate. Meghan? Lies, lies and more lies. Interviews with her half siblings, setting her father up, unbelievable amount of racism.
Go ahead and give examples of how Kate experienced the same.
.

We’re not comparing. You are. And you are wrong. Kate faced relentless media criticism. For years.

It's not coincidental that Kate and Camilla's negative attention went away once their was a new member to focus on. That was exactly why communication offices leaked stories (specifically Charles & Camilla's), so the good press would remain on them, negative attention to dumb Harry, or M. It's all in the book if you'd bother to read.

[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.

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.

The press literally recorded and published transcripts of Charles’ private phone calls. The name-calling and class-shaming of Kate went in for years. You just don’t remember.

You focus on the internet. I’m not sure what the Royal Family was supposed to do about randos posting on social media.

[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?

Yes, you missed the point of the anecdote. It acknowledges the unkindness in retrospect but said that as a kid he didn’t really think of it in terms of its impact on Pat, that he was trying to make his friends laugh and find a reason himself to laugh when he was still so deep in grief about his mothers death. At the end of the anecdote he notes that even Pat would laugh at him when she turned around and caught him, which he said made him feel good that he could even make the other humorless (in his estimation) Pat laugh. It also acknowledges that, for as strict and harsh as she was with the boys generally, Pat actually was probably a pretty compassionate and empathetic person because she seemed to understand what Harry was going through and laugh with him rather than punishing him, even though she would have been fully within her rights to do so.

If true, this just proves how clueless and entitled he really is. Does he really think the matron was cutting him slack because she felt sorry for him? He never considered that it might be perhaps because he was the grandson of the Queen? That poor woman. What was she supposed to do when she caught a prince mocking her disabilities? It “made him feel good?” SMDH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes, you missed the point of the anecdote. It acknowledges the unkindness in retrospect but said that as a kid he didn’t really think of it in terms of its impact on Pat, that he was trying to make his friends laugh and find a reason himself to laugh when he was still so deep in grief about his mothers death. At the end of the anecdote he notes that even Pat would laugh at him when she turned around and caught him, which he said made him feel good that he could even make the other humorless (in his estimation) Pat laugh. It also acknowledges that, for as strict and harsh as she was with the boys generally, Pat actually was probably a pretty compassionate and empathetic person because she seemed to understand what Harry was going through and laugh with him rather than punishing him, even though she would have been fully within her rights to do so.

If true, this just proves how clueless and entitled he really is. Does he really think the matron was cutting him slack because she felt sorry for him? He never considered that it might be perhaps because he was the grandson of the Queen? That poor woman. What was she supposed to do when she caught a prince mocking her disabilities? It “made him feel good?” SMDH.

As noted previously, he details plenty of other discipline he received at school. Your comments on this book thread are worthless if you haven’t bothered to read the book.

[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: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.

You don’t understand the British tabloids. The 90s were their heyday. You know they literally hacked phones don’t you? Tracked cars? Bribed police? It’s all proven.

But it just appeared in their rags- which you had to buy. Even if I don't want to see anything now, don't care, I inevitability will, and the world's comments like a giant Greek Chorus. It will inform an opinion that I could care less about informing. The problem now is that it's exponential combined with racism and classism.

The British “rags” had incredible circulation numbers in the 1990s. I think you have just forgotten.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes, you missed the point of the anecdote. It acknowledges the unkindness in retrospect but said that as a kid he didn’t really think of it in terms of its impact on Pat, that he was trying to make his friends laugh and find a reason himself to laugh when he was still so deep in grief about his mothers death. At the end of the anecdote he notes that even Pat would laugh at him when she turned around and caught him, which he said made him feel good that he could even make the other humorless (in his estimation) Pat laugh. It also acknowledges that, for as strict and harsh as she was with the boys generally, Pat actually was probably a pretty compassionate and empathetic person because she seemed to understand what Harry was going through and laugh with him rather than punishing him, even though she would have been fully within her rights to do so.

If true, this just proves how clueless and entitled he really is. Does he really think the matron was cutting him slack because she felt sorry for him? He never considered that it might be perhaps because he was the grandson of the Queen? That poor woman. What was she supposed to do when she caught a prince mocking her disabilities? It “made him feel good?” SMDH.

You need to read the book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes, you missed the point of the anecdote. It acknowledges the unkindness in retrospect but said that as a kid he didn’t really think of it in terms of its impact on Pat, that he was trying to make his friends laugh and find a reason himself to laugh when he was still so deep in grief about his mothers death. At the end of the anecdote he notes that even Pat would laugh at him when she turned around and caught him, which he said made him feel good that he could even make the other humorless (in his estimation) Pat laugh. It also acknowledges that, for as strict and harsh as she was with the boys generally, Pat actually was probably a pretty compassionate and empathetic person because she seemed to understand what Harry was going through and laugh with him rather than punishing him, even though she would have been fully within her rights to do so.

If true, this just proves how clueless and entitled he really is. Does he really think the matron was cutting him slack because she felt sorry for him? He never considered that it might be perhaps because he was the grandson of the Queen? That poor woman. What was she supposed to do when she caught a prince mocking her disabilities? It “made him feel good?” SMDH.

As noted previously, he details plenty of other discipline he received at school. Your comments on this book thread are worthless if you haven’t bothered to read the book.

You're not the thread police. Reading part or all of a book is helpful in a discussion but not required. Comments aren't worthless, even if you think they are wrong.

[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: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.

You don’t understand the British tabloids. The 90s were their heyday. You know they literally hacked phones don’t you? Tracked cars? Bribed police? It’s all proven.

But it just appeared in their rags- which you had to buy. Even if I don't want to see anything now, don't care, I inevitability will, and the world's comments like a giant Greek Chorus. It will inform an opinion that I could care less about informing. The problem now is that it's exponential combined with racism and classism.

You could care less? You realize that means that you care a great deal, don’t you? If you were trying to cover that you are NOT interested the correct phrase is I couldn’t care less”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes, you missed the point of the anecdote. It acknowledges the unkindness in retrospect but said that as a kid he didn’t really think of it in terms of its impact on Pat, that he was trying to make his friends laugh and find a reason himself to laugh when he was still so deep in grief about his mothers death. At the end of the anecdote he notes that even Pat would laugh at him when she turned around and caught him, which he said made him feel good that he could even make the other humorless (in his estimation) Pat laugh. It also acknowledges that, for as strict and harsh as she was with the boys generally, Pat actually was probably a pretty compassionate and empathetic person because she seemed to understand what Harry was going through and laugh with him rather than punishing him, even though she would have been fully within her rights to do so.

If true, this just proves how clueless and entitled he really is. Does he really think the matron was cutting him slack because she felt sorry for him? He never considered that it might be perhaps because he was the grandson of the Queen? That poor woman. What was she supposed to do when she caught a prince mocking her disabilities? It “made him feel good?” SMDH.

As noted previously, he details plenty of other discipline he received at school. Your comments on this book thread are worthless if you haven’t bothered to read the book.

You're not the thread police. Reading part or all of a book is helpful in a discussion but not required. Comments aren't worthless, even if you think they are wrong.

Different poster. It’s pretty important to have read the book if you are going to instead draw false conclusions. It’s really not helpful to decide that it means one thing when actually reading the book would make it clear that it means something else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes, you missed the point of the anecdote. It acknowledges the unkindness in retrospect but said that as a kid he didn’t really think of it in terms of its impact on Pat, that he was trying to make his friends laugh and find a reason himself to laugh when he was still so deep in grief about his mothers death. At the end of the anecdote he notes that even Pat would laugh at him when she turned around and caught him, which he said made him feel good that he could even make the other humorless (in his estimation) Pat laugh. It also acknowledges that, for as strict and harsh as she was with the boys generally, Pat actually was probably a pretty compassionate and empathetic person because she seemed to understand what Harry was going through and laugh with him rather than punishing him, even though she would have been fully within her rights to do so.

If true, this just proves how clueless and entitled he really is. Does he really think the matron was cutting him slack because she felt sorry for him? He never considered that it might be perhaps because he was the grandson of the Queen? That poor woman. What was she supposed to do when she caught a prince mocking her disabilities? It “made him feel good?” SMDH.

As noted previously, he details plenty of other discipline he received at school. Your comments on this book thread are worthless if you haven’t bothered to read the book.

He refers to the woman as “miserable” and thinks because she laughed once when she caught him mocking her that he’s exonerated. How many times do you think she went home and cried? You’d think a man his age would have a more mature, less myopic perspective.

As a side note, how do you think the Invictus athletes would feel about this if they read it?

[Anonymous]

I do think that both Harry and Meghan are getting social media and mean internet postings confused with "the press".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes, you missed the point of the anecdote. It acknowledges the unkindness in retrospect but said that as a kid he didn’t really think of it in terms of its impact on Pat, that he was trying to make his friends laugh and find a reason himself to laugh when he was still so deep in grief about his mothers death. At the end of the anecdote he notes that even Pat would laugh at him when she turned around and caught him, which he said made him feel good that he could even make the other humorless (in his estimation) Pat laugh. It also acknowledges that, for as strict and harsh as she was with the boys generally, Pat actually was probably a pretty compassionate and empathetic person because she seemed to understand what Harry was going through and laugh with him rather than punishing him, even though she would have been fully within her rights to do so.

If true, this just proves how clueless and entitled he really is. Does he really think the matron was cutting him slack because she felt sorry for him? He never considered that it might be perhaps because he was the grandson of the Queen? That poor woman. What was she supposed to do when she caught a prince mocking her disabilities? It “made him feel good?” SMDH.

As noted previously, he details plenty of other discipline he received at school. Your comments on this book thread are worthless if you haven’t bothered to read the book.

He refers to the woman as “miserable” and thinks because she laughed once when she caught him mocking her that he’s exonerated. How many times do you think she went home and cried? You’d think a man his age would have a more mature, less myopic perspective.

As a side note, how do you think the Invictus athletes would feel about this if they read it?

I think they remember their school days and the strict teachers and they comradery of demonizing them.