Prince Harry’s book

[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.

Read the book. Stop derailing this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

So, I guess Harry is, too. We are both British and fully disagree with you.

[Anonymous]

My guess is that the book readers are self selecting H&M sympathizers anyway.

I can imagine is a difficult read and not worth the time if you don't respect or like the guy.

Overall I would say the book has done damage to his reputation because most people are only going to get the sensational/cringey excerpts and blurbs and not any nuance or context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My guess is that the book readers are self selecting H&M sympathizers anyway.

I can imagine is a difficult read and not worth the time if you don't respect or like the guy.

Overall I would say the book has done damage to his reputation because most people are only going to get the sensational/cringey excerpts and blurbs and not any nuance or context.

If your theory is correct, the sales to date suggest there are a heck of a lot of H&M sympathizers.

[Anonymous]

I think there are a large number of neutral readers too. People who wanted to see what the fuss was about. Clearly there is enormous interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there are a large number of neutral readers too. People who wanted to see what the fuss was about. Clearly there is enormous interest.

Many people are "hate-reading," have reading comprehension issues, or are just afraid of their own trauma (not willing to have a royal talk about his).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My guess is that the book readers are self selecting H&M sympathizers anyway.

I can imagine is a difficult read and not worth the time if you don't respect or like the guy.

Overall I would say the book has done damage to his reputation because most people are only going to get the sensational/cringey excerpts and blurbs and not any nuance or context.

Why? It’s just as likely that early readers might be vehemently NOT sympathetic— and are scavenging for data to support their own preconceived notions. The book is selling very well, and extremely well for a memoir, and is likely to include readers with varying levels of familiarity with Prince Harry and his history. I’d bet that quite a few readers are — as Harry has said — people who thought fondly of Diana, and are curious to know how her kid turned out.

[Anonymous]

The buyers for Open weren’t limited to tennis fans. It was a really written book and attracted more readers who probably never watched a tennis game but were interested in a well written look inside a different world and experience. Spare is following the same path. Harry is recognizable enough to attract enough attention to the book so people who read memoirs will give it a go. It’s getting good reviews so that brings in another bunch of readers. There is enough curiosity about the BRF after the Crown that this will bring in more. Hiring a good ghostwriter was a good decision.

[Anonymous]

So fascinating. It's a financial success. They will be fine in montecito now

[Anonymous]

That's why I think they will keep on revealing more private royal family interactions and conversations with more interviews and books.

[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.

Commenting out of your rear end about a book you haven’t read is indeed worthless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s my understanding it’s breaking records with regard to the sales. Obviously people are very interested.

https://apnews.com/article/prince-harry-book-sales-2853618b7ca1591d67e870171c3aef99

I’m not surprised. It pulls back the curtain and gives us a person look at certain members of the family. They must be beyond pissed 😂

Easy to attack your family when you know they can't fight back. Cowardly.

Sorry, don’t they have hands? Or enough money to hire their own ghostwriters? They’re hardly helpless victims. Please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is such a whining attention seeker

I want to hear more about his todger!

Read the book!

There is also an extended version of his interview with Colbert on YouTube (a little less than 30 mins?) in which his todger is discussed in detail, including a list of entertaining British euphemisms. Enjoy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s my understanding it’s breaking records with regard to the sales. Obviously people are very interested.

https://apnews.com/article/prince-harry-book-sales-2853618b7ca1591d67e870171c3aef99

I’m not surprised. It pulls back the curtain and gives us a person look at certain members of the family. They must be beyond pissed 😂

Easy to attack your family when you know they can't fight back. Cowardly.

Haha. Yes. They can fight back. They do. They have. That’s one of the points in the book.

Yes, we know that is one of Harry's points. He's actually made it often.

Clearly the quoted PP didn’t know it, since they said the bolded.

[Anonymous]

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.

For years Camilla was ridiculed and hated in the UK.

And deservedly so. And yes, before you bother, Charles deserved it too.