Prince Harry’s book

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. I am sure that across all readership, motivations vary. But the very small sample size we have here tends to reflect that the anti-Harry folks have not 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:

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.

I will agree Twitter is not the same as a printed newspaper. But you seem to underestimate the influence of newspapers. I live in the US. How is it you think I heard about Squiggygate, Tampongate, Fergie and the toe thing? Hint, stories in newspapers don’t just stay there despite what you keep posting.

Also you realize that only a very small percentage of people are on something like Twitter right? People who are on it think it’s the center of the universe. Turns out the actual universe is much bigger.

[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.

Wow, I am embarrassed for you.

[Anonymous]

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

He received a reported $20M for the book. After taxes, that may support them for a year or two given their lifestyle, including the need for security, lawyers, publicists, agents, private flights, mortgage on an nearly $15M home, property taxes, maintenance on that home, landscaping, cleaning, nannies, etc. $20M is a drop in the bucket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

He received a reported $20M for the book. After taxes, that may support them for a year or two given their lifestyle, including the need for security, lawyers, publicists, agents, private flights, mortgage on an nearly $15M home, property taxes, maintenance on that home, landscaping, cleaning, nannies, etc. $20M is a drop in the bucket.

Was that the advance? I wonder of he’ll get more money given that it’s been so widely successful? I know they said some of the proceeds were going to charity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. I am sure that across all readership, motivations vary. But the very small sample size we have here tends to reflect that the anti-Harry folks have not read the book.

I’ve been pretty neutral to disinterested about the Royals, but was intrigued by the opportunity to hear directly from one rather than via twisted stories in the press. I didn’t really believe or pay too much attention to what the tabloids got upset about. I thought it was fascinating to hear Harry’s view on what was going on behind the scenes. I’m also now MUCH more sympathetic to him than I was in the past. There are still some parts that raise an eyebrow though. For example it’s clear throughout the book that at this point Harry has considerably self awareness and also intelligence about his situation. So bearing all that in mind, why did he drop trou in Vegas?!!! The Nazi uniform was obviously also inexplicable, but he was very young at that point and explains that he simply wasn’t thinking. Vegas was only ten years ago and yet he thought it ok to get naked in front of some casino staff?!! Just doesn’t make sense. On the other hand at least he’s not blaming anyone else for his dumb shit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. I am sure that across all readership, motivations vary. But the very small sample size we have here tends to reflect that the anti-Harry folks have not read the book.

I’ve been pretty neutral to disinterested about the Royals, but was intrigued by the opportunity to hear directly from one rather than via twisted stories in the press. I didn’t really believe or pay too much attention to what the tabloids got upset about. I thought it was fascinating to hear Harry’s view on what was going on behind the scenes. I’m also now MUCH more sympathetic to him than I was in the past. There are still some parts that raise an eyebrow though. For example it’s clear throughout the book that at this point Harry has considerably self awareness and also intelligence about his situation. So bearing all that in mind, why did he drop trou in Vegas?!!! The Nazi uniform was obviously also inexplicable, but he was very young at that point and explains that he simply wasn’t thinking. Vegas was only ten years ago and yet he thought it ok to get naked in front of some casino staff?!! Just doesn’t make sense. On the other hand at least he’s not blaming anyone else for his dumb shit.

Keep in mind that the writer is an excellent writer. Harry is not. And if his actions make him seem like a doink, it's probably because he is actually a doink.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. I am sure that across all readership, motivations vary. But the very small sample size we have here tends to reflect that the anti-Harry folks have not read the book.

I’ve been pretty neutral to disinterested about the Royals, but was intrigued by the opportunity to hear directly from one rather than via twisted stories in the press. I didn’t really believe or pay too much attention to what the tabloids got upset about. I thought it was fascinating to hear Harry’s view on what was going on behind the scenes. I’m also now MUCH more sympathetic to him than I was in the past. There are still some parts that raise an eyebrow though. For example it’s clear throughout the book that at this point Harry has considerably self awareness and also intelligence about his situation. So bearing all that in mind, why did he drop trou in Vegas?!!! The Nazi uniform was obviously also inexplicable, but he was very young at that point and explains that he simply wasn’t thinking. Vegas was only ten years ago and yet he thought it ok to get naked in front of some casino staff?!! Just doesn’t make sense. On the other hand at least he’s not blaming anyone else for his dumb shit.

Keep in mind that the writer is an excellent writer. Harry is not. And if his actions make him seem like a doink, it's probably because he is actually a doink.

Hm. I’ve watched his interviews and he comes across as insightful and reflective and intelligent in person too.

[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.

I thought this was interesting, too. As a parent of kids with ADHD/anxiety/LD, my thoughts went immediately to him being undiagnosed with ADHD/anxiety/LD. His cousin Beatrice has dyslexia and there are other instances of royal family members with disabilities. Anyone who can learn to fly an Apache helicopter cannot be a dullard or stupid.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/20/uk/royal-news-newsletter-08-20-21-scli-gbr-cmd-intl/index.html

[Anonymous]

It's disappointing that so many people on this thread clearly haven't read the book yet feel confident in opining. I'm appalled by the British class system and how it protects pedos like Prince Andrew. I was interested in Spare because of the chance it offered to see behind the curtain - and it did not disappoint. Harry's got a GREAT voice for audiobooks and listening to it was very easy and pleasant. The dysfunction he describes resonates with me and my experiences with a dysfunctional 'family'. I also suspect he has learning disabilities. He, clearly, has anxiety/depression that was untreated for most of his life. It seems he's on a path that's good for him.

As someone who also married into a family with strong ideas about the role of a wife and women, I can really sympathize with Megan. I wouldn't want my DD marrying into that family nor the institution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

He received a reported $20M for the book. After taxes, that may support them for a year or two given their lifestyle, including the need for security, lawyers, publicists, agents, private flights, mortgage on an nearly $15M home, property taxes, maintenance on that home, landscaping, cleaning, nannies, etc. $20M is a drop in the bucket.

Was that the advance? I wonder of he’ll get more money given that it’s been so widely successful? I know they said some of the proceeds were going to charity.

Has the book been successful enough to justify what he was paid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

He received a reported $20M for the book. After taxes, that may support them for a year or two given their lifestyle, including the need for security, lawyers, publicists, agents, private flights, mortgage on an nearly $15M home, property taxes, maintenance on that home, landscaping, cleaning, nannies, etc. $20M is a drop in the bucket.

Was that the advance? I wonder of he’ll get more money given that it’s been so widely successful? I know they said some of the proceeds were going to charity.

Has the book been successful enough to justify what he was paid?

Isn’t it the highest selling manor in history? (It maybe that’s just in the UK) either way pretty sure he’s covered his advance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

He received a reported $20M for the book. After taxes, that may support them for a year or two given their lifestyle, including the need for security, lawyers, publicists, agents, private flights, mortgage on an nearly $15M home, property taxes, maintenance on that home, landscaping, cleaning, nannies, etc. $20M is a drop in the bucket.

Was that the advance? I wonder of he’ll get more money given that it’s been so widely successful? I know they said some of the proceeds were going to charity.

Has the book been successful enough to justify what he was paid?

Isn’t it the highest selling manor in history? (It maybe that’s just in the UK) either way pretty sure he’s covered his advance.

DP. He may not have covered the advance yet (it takes more than you think), but it has sold incredibly well so far so I doubt they are worried about whether it will cover the advance. Book publishers are notoriously secretive about that data, though, so it’s unlikely the public will know when it covers the advance or what royalties he may be entitled to beyond the advance.

[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.

I will agree Twitter is not the same as a printed newspaper. But you seem to underestimate the influence of newspapers. I live in the US. How is it you think I heard about Squiggygate, Tampongate, Fergie and the toe thing? Hint, stories in newspapers don’t just stay there despite what you keep posting.

Also you realize that only a very small percentage of people are on something like Twitter right? People who are on it think it’s the center of the universe. Turns out the actual universe is much bigger.

Uh, yeah, no one is even talking about Twitter. That's not what is meant by social media. I think you don't understand social media is, or how it works. Please stop commenting because you aren't able to address this issue. Seriously...how old are you? I am older than you think and even I am shocked by your comments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's disappointing that so many people on this thread clearly haven't read the book yet feel confident in opining. I'm appalled by the British class system and how it protects pedos like Prince Andrew. I was interested in Spare because of the chance it offered to see behind the curtain - and it did not disappoint. Harry's got a GREAT voice for audiobooks and listening to it was very easy and pleasant. The dysfunction he describes resonates with me and my experiences with a dysfunctional 'family'. I also suspect he has learning disabilities. He, clearly, has anxiety/depression that was untreated for most of his life. It seems he's on a path that's good for him.

As someone who also married into a family with strong ideas about the role of a wife and women, I can really sympathize with Megan. I wouldn't want my DD marrying into that family nor the institution.

A good path? They are a trainwreck right now.

She was in her mid 30s when they got together and had already been married at least once. She is older than Kate. People act like she was this naive unaware person yet also this strong independent woman. I suppose it is whatever suites her objectives at the moment.