Prince Harry’s book

[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.

Where does he say he was “exonerated” or even that it was ok?

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]

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?

Where does he say he was “exonerated” or even that it was ok?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Where does he say he was “exonerated” or even that it was ok?

The implication, at least my interpretation of this frankly devastating anecdote, is that because he made her laugh once, it wasn’t that bad. Again, this is my take away based on how he framed the story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Where does he say he was “exonerated” or even that it was ok?

The implication, at least my interpretation of this frankly devastating anecdote, is that because he made her laugh once, it wasn’t that bad. Again, this is my take away based on how he framed the story.

DP. You clearly didn’t read the book that closely since it indicated he made her laugh more than once.

It’s also worth noting that this happened when he was 13, in the first year after Diana died. I would hope that decent people can appreciate how that might skew someone’s behavior.

[Anonymous]

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

I’m sure that Jeremy Clarkson appreciates your support.

It’s also a deliberate loop. Tabloids publish rubbish and people comment and post. “Mean internet postings” might look very different if they didn’t stem from the stuff in the tabloids based primarily on the ravings of anonymous sources.

On the other hand, your comment does highlight what passes for “the press” now. People like Clarkson spew their deranged hatred — and it counts as an Op-Ed post. “Articles” are based solely on supposed comments from people who are never identified. It’s a hot mess. And as the press gets both devalued and confused with legitimate journalism, we’re all the worse for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Where does he say he was “exonerated” or even that it was ok?

The implication, at least my interpretation of this frankly devastating anecdote, is that because he made her laugh once, it wasn’t that bad. Again, this is my take away based on how he framed the story.

Did you read the whole book or just the excerpt? I didn’t get the impression that he was saying really anything he did was “ok”. He was just explaining what happened and what his thinking was at the time. Throughout the book. Up to and including his time in the military which certainly wasn’t all “ok”.

[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.

Wow, that's terrible. Is he really so dumb to think Pat was laughing with him while he mocked her. He's missing an empathy button if he can't consider that maybe it wasn't funny to her, but that was her way of protecting herself and getting through interactions with him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Where does he say he was “exonerated” or even that it was ok?

The implication, at least my interpretation of this frankly devastating anecdote, is that because he made her laugh once, it wasn’t that bad. Again, this is my take away based on how he framed the story.

DP. You clearly didn’t read the book that closely since it indicated he made her laugh more than once.

It’s also worth noting that this happened when he was 13, in the first year after Diana died. I would hope that decent people can appreciate how that might skew someone’s behavior.

It's just like when you make fun of a fat person or mock someone's accent. As long as they laugh it's ok. They think it's funny too. It's not like laughing is a defense mechanism or anything.

[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.

Wow, that's terrible. Is he really so dumb to think Pat was laughing with him while he mocked her. He's missing an empathy button if he can't consider that maybe it wasn't funny to her, but that was her way of protecting herself and getting through interactions with him.

It would help if you read the book. It comes across pretty clearly that he appreciates Pat’s indulgence of him in those moments, that someone who otherwise seemed lacking in empathy toward the boys under her charge was able to show what seemed to be empathy toward young Harry. There’s more context or the story, but I’m not going to basically republish it here just so you can pretend to have read the book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Where does he say he was “exonerated” or even that it was ok?

The implication, at least my interpretation of this frankly devastating anecdote, is that because he made her laugh once, it wasn’t that bad. Again, this is my take away based on how he framed the story.

DP. You clearly didn’t read the book that closely since it indicated he made her laugh more than once.

It’s also worth noting that this happened when he was 13, in the first year after Diana died. I would hope that decent people can appreciate how that might skew someone’s behavior.

It's just like when you make fun of a fat person or mock someone's accent. As long as they laugh it's ok. They think it's funny too. It's not like laughing is a defense mechanism or anything.

You have the intensity of a rabid dog on this. It is interesting.

[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.

Wow, that's terrible. Is he really so dumb to think Pat was laughing with him while he mocked her. He's missing an empathy button if he can't consider that maybe it wasn't funny to her, but that was her way of protecting herself and getting through interactions with him.

It would help if you read the book. It comes across pretty clearly that he appreciates Pat’s indulgence of him in those moments, that someone who otherwise seemed lacking in empathy toward the boys under her charge was able to show what seemed to be empathy toward young Harry. There’s more context or the story, but I’m not going to basically republish it here just so you can pretend to have read the book.

Absolutely - this is very accurate.

[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.

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.

You may be out of touch with how the press and social media work today. Or what incredible means. Or what circulation means. Or how sm works (?) Social media reaches billions of people in seconds all across time zones and dynamically refreshes every few minutes, while interacting with layered readership and other press outlets in the same amount of time.
A newspaper is published terminally, with a capped amount, and purchased in hand, with nothing promoted beyone the printed word. It's old news as soon as it's printed. Not the same.

[Anonymous]

I have to read this 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:

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.

You may be out of touch with how the press and social media work today. Or what incredible means. Or what circulation means. Or how sm works (?) Social media reaches billions of people in seconds all across time zones and dynamically refreshes every few minutes, while interacting with layered readership and other press outlets in the same amount of time.
A newspaper is published terminally, with a capped amount, and purchased in hand, with nothing promoted beyone the printed word. It's old news as soon as it's printed. Not the same.

Different poster but you clearly don’t understand the scope of British media. You do understand that in the days of social media the tabloids are integrated into this, don’t you?? I know you are clueless about how embedded into British culture they are.

[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.

NP. Actually your thought are worthless in a book club. In my book club, if you did not bother to read the book, you’re shout down and asked not to participate. Actually, you wouldn’t be so rude to show up and get to render a worthless opinion. How crude.