Prince Harry’s book

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree it’s appalling, and Harry should be speaking out vehemently about his uncle. But he doesn’t, because he supports it overall, and he’s friends with Eugenie. It would be easier to support him if he were anti-monarchy than wanting to have been more privileged within the monarchy

I’m curious. Do you think the other members of the British Royal Family should be speaking out against Andrew? His siblings for example? King Charles? Or just Harry?
And how would people “support him” — beyond buying his book?

I think Harry carefully focused on himself as much as possible, in his memoirs. I, personally, don’t think he “should” be speaking out about anything beyond that, although, of course, that’s up to him.

Yes, of course the Royal family should refuse to protect a pedophile.

The Royal family is publicly funded, which means they exist to serve the taxpayers. If Harry wants to remain a Royal, he depends on public support. It’s hard to support him given his focus on himself. And while he’s left the world of royalty in many ways, he hasn’t left entirely quite yet, nor does he seem to want to entirely.

"Publicly funded" is a bit of a misnomer. And while some call it a business instead of a family, it's really both. Loving and protecting a family member, whatever they do, is understandable, for a lot of people. Maybe we don't like it but we understand it.

Why is publicly funded a misnomer? They receive funds through the civil list and they also don’t pay taxes. They are publicly funded.

The BRF is funded from the civil list - the civil list is funded from revenue from the Crown Estate that is granted to the Government and then given to the BRF. So they are receiving revenue from their property - not exactly publicly-funded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_family#

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree it’s appalling, and Harry should be speaking out vehemently about his uncle. But he doesn’t, because he supports it overall, and he’s friends with Eugenie. It would be easier to support him if he were anti-monarchy than wanting to have been more privileged within the monarchy

I’m curious. Do you think the other members of the British Royal Family should be speaking out against Andrew? His siblings for example? King Charles? Or just Harry?
And how would people “support him” — beyond buying his book?

I think Harry carefully focused on himself as much as possible, in his memoirs. I, personally, don’t think he “should” be speaking out about anything beyond that, although, of course, that’s up to him.

Yes, of course the Royal family should refuse to protect a pedophile.

The Royal family is publicly funded, which means they exist to serve the taxpayers. If Harry wants to remain a Royal, he depends on public support. It’s hard to support him given his focus on himself. And while he’s left the world of royalty in many ways, he hasn’t left entirely quite yet, nor does he seem to want to entirely.

How, exactly, does Harry “depend on public support”? You’ve used the word “support” twice here. What exactly do you mean?

Public opinion. The people can end the monarchy whenever they want. Arguably, they should. They should not pay for people to live whatever lives they want.

The king can support his son privately as a father, as Elizabeth did Anne’s family, who are private citizens without titles or roles. He can also support his son as a king to an heir, as a role supporting another role. But he cannot use public funds to support the profiting of public roles for private gain, or to support private whims. The fact that both exist in the same set of people and relationships is confusing, which is why if Harry wanted to break off and go private, I’m sure he’d go with many well-wishes. But his argument to have his private desires publicly funded is problematic

Thanks for clarifying, PP. I agree with you that using public funds for private concerns can be problematic— but, as another person has said, Harry has asked for security and access to intelligence — because who he is, by birth, puts him at risk and puts his family at risk. I think that’s more than reasonable. As to the rest, almost every adult in that family has had private business interests — from the Queen with her horses and her gin, to Anne and her horses, to Fergie and her books and other ventures, to Tara and Peter who have appeared in advertisements for official sponsors, and Tara’s husband who was on a reality show. All of those people, even those who aren’t working royals, both benefit from public funds and profit from private ventures in part because of their royal roles and connections. Where would you draw the line? Ideally or practically?

Harry’s book — which I, personally applaud, was a response to the misinformation that others put out there for profit. While I can understand arguments against this, I think Harry’s memoir pales in comparison to the very revealing book that his father worked with Dimbleby to write decades ago. Again, where should one draw the line?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree it’s appalling, and Harry should be speaking out vehemently about his uncle. But he doesn’t, because he supports it overall, and he’s friends with Eugenie. It would be easier to support him if he were anti-monarchy than wanting to have been more privileged within the monarchy

I’m curious. Do you think the other members of the British Royal Family should be speaking out against Andrew? His siblings for example? King Charles? Or just Harry?
And how would people “support him” — beyond buying his book?

I think Harry carefully focused on himself as much as possible, in his memoirs. I, personally, don’t think he “should” be speaking out about anything beyond that, although, of course, that’s up to him.

Yes, of course the Royal family should refuse to protect a pedophile.

The Royal family is publicly funded, which means they exist to serve the taxpayers. If Harry wants to remain a Royal, he depends on public support. It’s hard to support him given his focus on himself. And while he’s left the world of royalty in many ways, he hasn’t left entirely quite yet, nor does he seem to want to entirely.

"Publicly funded" is a bit of a misnomer. And while some call it a business instead of a family, it's really both. Loving and protecting a family member, whatever they do, is understandable, for a lot of people. Maybe we don't like it but we understand it.

Why is publicly funded a misnomer? They receive funds through the civil list and they also don’t pay taxes. They are publicly funded.

The BRF is funded from the civil list - the civil list is funded from revenue from the Crown Estate that is granted to the Government and then given to the BRF. So they are receiving revenue from their property - not exactly publicly-funded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_family#

It’s an arrangement they have with the government like USPS. It’s a public institution. Harry’s issue is that he wants a private life based on public arrangements including funds, titles, etc. Public support or opinion is wavering. Tip the whole thing and the monarchy tumbles, which I’m sure would also be fine with many taxpayers. He assumes his father has more power than he does

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree it’s appalling, and Harry should be speaking out vehemently about his uncle. But he doesn’t, because he supports it overall, and he’s friends with Eugenie. It would be easier to support him if he were anti-monarchy than wanting to have been more privileged within the monarchy

I’m curious. Do you think the other members of the British Royal Family should be speaking out against Andrew? His siblings for example? King Charles? Or just Harry?
And how would people “support him” — beyond buying his book?

I think Harry carefully focused on himself as much as possible, in his memoirs. I, personally, don’t think he “should” be speaking out about anything beyond that, although, of course, that’s up to him.

Yes, of course the Royal family should refuse to protect a pedophile.

The Royal family is publicly funded, which means they exist to serve the taxpayers. If Harry wants to remain a Royal, he depends on public support. It’s hard to support him given his focus on himself. And while he’s left the world of royalty in many ways, he hasn’t left entirely quite yet, nor does he seem to want to entirely.

How, exactly, does Harry “depend on public support”? You’ve used the word “support” twice here. What exactly do you mean?

Public opinion. The people can end the monarchy whenever they want. Arguably, they should. They should not pay for people to live whatever lives they want.

The king can support his son privately as a father, as Elizabeth did Anne’s family, who are private citizens without titles or roles. He can also support his son as a king to an heir, as a role supporting another role. But he cannot use public funds to support the profiting of public roles for private gain, or to support private whims. The fact that both exist in the same set of people and relationships is confusing, which is why if Harry wanted to break off and go private, I’m sure he’d go with many well-wishes. But his argument to have his private desires publicly funded is problematic

Thanks for clarifying, PP. I agree with you that using public funds for private concerns can be problematic— but, as another person has said, Harry has asked for security and access to intelligence — because who he is, by birth, puts him at risk and puts his family at risk. I think that’s more than reasonable. As to the rest, almost every adult in that family has had private business interests — from the Queen with her horses and her gin, to Anne and her horses, to Fergie and her books and other ventures, to Tara and Peter who have appeared in advertisements for official sponsors, and Tara’s husband who was on a reality show. All of those people, even those who aren’t working royals, both benefit from public funds and profit from private ventures in part because of their royal roles and connections. Where would you draw the line? Ideally or practically?

Harry’s book — which I, personally applaud, was a response to the misinformation that others put out there for profit. While I can understand arguments against this, I think Harry’s memoir pales in comparison to the very revealing book that his father worked with Dimbleby to write decades ago. Again, where should one draw the line?

I think if you want to draw a hard line, anti-monarchy is easy enough. A softer line is keep as much of the monarchy the public is willing to support, which is not a lot compared to decades past.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree it’s appalling, and Harry should be speaking out vehemently about his uncle. But he doesn’t, because he supports it overall, and he’s friends with Eugenie. It would be easier to support him if he were anti-monarchy than wanting to have been more privileged within the monarchy

I’m curious. Do you think the other members of the British Royal Family should be speaking out against Andrew? His siblings for example? King Charles? Or just Harry?
And how would people “support him” — beyond buying his book?

I think Harry carefully focused on himself as much as possible, in his memoirs. I, personally, don’t think he “should” be speaking out about anything beyond that, although, of course, that’s up to him.

Yes, of course the Royal family should refuse to protect a pedophile.

The Royal family is publicly funded, which means they exist to serve the taxpayers. If Harry wants to remain a Royal, he depends on public support. It’s hard to support him given his focus on himself. And while he’s left the world of royalty in many ways, he hasn’t left entirely quite yet, nor does he seem to want to entirely.

How, exactly, does Harry “depend on public support”? You’ve used the word “support” twice here. What exactly do you mean?

Public opinion. The people can end the monarchy whenever they want. Arguably, they should. They should not pay for people to live whatever lives they want.

The king can support his son privately as a father, as Elizabeth did Anne’s family, who are private citizens without titles or roles. He can also support his son as a king to an heir, as a role supporting another role. But he cannot use public funds to support the profiting of public roles for private gain, or to support private whims. The fact that both exist in the same set of people and relationships is confusing, which is why if Harry wanted to break off and go private, I’m sure he’d go with many well-wishes. But his argument to have his private desires publicly funded is problematic

Thanks for clarifying, PP. I agree with you that using public funds for private concerns can be problematic— but, as another person has said, Harry has asked for security and access to intelligence — because who he is, by birth, puts him at risk and puts his family at risk. I think that’s more than reasonable. As to the rest, almost every adult in that family has had private business interests — from the Queen with her horses and her gin, to Anne and her horses, to Fergie and her books and other ventures, to Tara and Peter who have appeared in advertisements for official sponsors, and Tara’s husband who was on a reality show. All of those people, even those who aren’t working royals, both benefit from public funds and profit from private ventures in part because of their royal roles and connections. Where would you draw the line? Ideally or practically?

Harry’s book — which I, personally applaud, was a response to the misinformation that others put out there for profit. While I can understand arguments against this, I think Harry’s memoir pales in comparison to the very revealing book that his father worked with Dimbleby to write decades ago. Again, where should one draw the line?

Oops: Zara — not Tara.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree it’s appalling, and Harry should be speaking out vehemently about his uncle. But he doesn’t, because he supports it overall, and he’s friends with Eugenie. It would be easier to support him if he were anti-monarchy than wanting to have been more privileged within the monarchy

I’m curious. Do you think the other members of the British Royal Family should be speaking out against Andrew? His siblings for example? King Charles? Or just Harry?
And how would people “support him” — beyond buying his book?

I think Harry carefully focused on himself as much as possible, in his memoirs. I, personally, don’t think he “should” be speaking out about anything beyond that, although, of course, that’s up to him.

Yes, of course the Royal family should refuse to protect a pedophile.

The Royal family is publicly funded, which means they exist to serve the taxpayers. If Harry wants to remain a Royal, he depends on public support. It’s hard to support him given his focus on himself. And while he’s left the world of royalty in many ways, he hasn’t left entirely quite yet, nor does he seem to want to entirely.

"Publicly funded" is a bit of a misnomer. And while some call it a business instead of a family, it's really both. Loving and protecting a family member, whatever they do, is understandable, for a lot of people. Maybe we don't like it but we understand it.

Why is publicly funded a misnomer? They receive funds through the civil list and they also don’t pay taxes. They are publicly funded.

The BRF is funded from the civil list - the civil list is funded from revenue from the Crown Estate that is granted to the Government and then given to the BRF. So they are receiving revenue from their property - not exactly publicly-funded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_family#

It’s an arrangement they have with the government like USPS. It’s a public institution. Harry’s issue is that he wants a private life based on public arrangements including funds, titles, etc. Public support or opinion is wavering. Tip the whole thing and the monarchy tumbles, which I’m sure would also be fine with many taxpayers. He assumes his father has more power than he does

Not anymore. His filing to the UK government in early 2021 was requesting access to intelligence and armed protection that he would privately reimburse. Without it, he didn't feel safe to bring his family or for extended periods by himself. I think they only attended the Jubilee last June because the Queen herself agreed to give him security for that visit.

Also, every option that Harry and Meghan presented to the Palace for stepping back involved them paying their own way otherwise; public funding was only requested for security given the high threat levels against them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Had you read the book or seen the interviews, you'd know that Harry believes he's on the right path. You may not like the path but it's not your path and his journey has absolutely no impact on you. So, if it's good for him, then it's good.

I stand by my comment regarding marrying into the royal family and the institution. I wouldn't wish it for my DD or DSs. My opinion on that has nothing to do with what MM did/didn't do, how many times she was married or what baggage she brought. It's a toxic institution with systemic familial dysfunction. Who would wish that on anyone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree it’s appalling, and Harry should be speaking out vehemently about his uncle. But he doesn’t, because he supports it overall, and he’s friends with Eugenie. It would be easier to support him if he were anti-monarchy than wanting to have been more privileged within the monarchy

I’m curious. Do you think the other members of the British Royal Family should be speaking out against Andrew? His siblings for example? King Charles? Or just Harry?
And how would people “support him” — beyond buying his book?

I think Harry carefully focused on himself as much as possible, in his memoirs. I, personally, don’t think he “should” be speaking out about anything beyond that, although, of course, that’s up to him.

Yes, of course the Royal family should refuse to protect a pedophile.

The Royal family is publicly funded, which means they exist to serve the taxpayers. If Harry wants to remain a Royal, he depends on public support. It’s hard to support him given his focus on himself. And while he’s left the world of royalty in many ways, he hasn’t left entirely quite yet, nor does he seem to want to entirely.

"Publicly funded" is a bit of a misnomer. And while some call it a business instead of a family, it's really both. Loving and protecting a family member, whatever they do, is understandable, for a lot of people. Maybe we don't like it but we understand it.

Why is publicly funded a misnomer? They receive funds through the civil list and they also don’t pay taxes. They are publicly funded.

The BRF is funded from the civil list - the civil list is funded from revenue from the Crown Estate that is granted to the Government and then given to the BRF. So they are receiving revenue from their property - not exactly publicly-funded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_family#

It’s an arrangement they have with the government like USPS. It’s a public institution. Harry’s issue is that he wants a private life based on public arrangements including funds, titles, etc. Public support or opinion is wavering. Tip the whole thing and the monarchy tumbles, which I’m sure would also be fine with many taxpayers. He assumes his father has more power than he does

Not anymore. His filing to the UK government in early 2021 was requesting access to intelligence and armed protection that he would privately reimburse. Without it, he didn't feel safe to bring his family or for extended periods by himself. I think they only attended the Jubilee last June because the Queen herself agreed to give him security for that visit.

Also, every option that Harry and Meghan presented to the Palace for stepping back involved them paying their own way otherwise; public funding was only requested for security given the high threat levels against them.

Titles?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree it’s appalling, and Harry should be speaking out vehemently about his uncle. But he doesn’t, because he supports it overall, and he’s friends with Eugenie. It would be easier to support him if he were anti-monarchy than wanting to have been more privileged within the monarchy

I’m curious. Do you think the other members of the British Royal Family should be speaking out against Andrew? His siblings for example? King Charles? Or just Harry?
And how would people “support him” — beyond buying his book?

I think Harry carefully focused on himself as much as possible, in his memoirs. I, personally, don’t think he “should” be speaking out about anything beyond that, although, of course, that’s up to him.

Yes, of course the Royal family should refuse to protect a pedophile.

The Royal family is publicly funded, which means they exist to serve the taxpayers. If Harry wants to remain a Royal, he depends on public support. It’s hard to support him given his focus on himself. And while he’s left the world of royalty in many ways, he hasn’t left entirely quite yet, nor does he seem to want to entirely.

"Publicly funded" is a bit of a misnomer. And while some call it a business instead of a family, it's really both. Loving and protecting a family member, whatever they do, is understandable, for a lot of people. Maybe we don't like it but we understand it.

Why is publicly funded a misnomer? They receive funds through the civil list and they also don’t pay taxes. They are publicly funded.

The BRF is funded from the civil list - the civil list is funded from revenue from the Crown Estate that is granted to the Government and then given to the BRF. So they are receiving revenue from their property - not exactly publicly-funded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_family#

It’s an arrangement they have with the government like USPS. It’s a public institution. Harry’s issue is that he wants a private life based on public arrangements including funds, titles, etc. Public support or opinion is wavering. Tip the whole thing and the monarchy tumbles, which I’m sure would also be fine with many taxpayers. He assumes his father has more power than he does

Not anymore. His filing to the UK government in early 2021 was requesting access to intelligence and armed protection that he would privately reimburse. Without it, he didn't feel safe to bring his family or for extended periods by himself. I think they only attended the Jubilee last June because the Queen herself agreed to give him security for that visit.

Also, every option that Harry and Meghan presented to the Palace for stepping back involved them paying their own way otherwise; public funding was only requested for security given the high threat levels against them.

Titles?

What is your question?

[Anonymous]

He relies on public titles even for his private earnings. Once again, he twists public and private privileges. Without the former, the latter wouldn’t come nearly as easily.

The titles themselves are an issue, which is why he wants them but many of the British don’t. If I were from New Jersey and the Duke of New Jersey were making comments about Nott Cott being small, I’d really want the title back. People forget England is not America. Marrying into the British Royal family and wanting to be understood as an American is like a foreign princess becoming the First Lady and saying American traditions like freedom of speech are bizarre (as Harry has implied). You’re not just marrying into a foreign family, but the representatives of a foreign nation.

Finally security and titles go hand in hand. Zara is the perfect example of someone without titles without a need for security. If Harry had left for a private life that didn’t involve riding on Royal coattails, 3 years after he left he wouldn’t need the security that he wants the British people to fund so badly.

[Anonymous]

I was just realizing the other day that while I feel the same, more or less neutral, about Harry and Meghan, I feel a lot more negatively about Charles, Camilla, William and Kate! So they really did move my opinion. Not that it matters.

Zara is not a good example. Her upbringing was totally different and had a ton of financial support. Horses are really expensive. There’s no comparison between growing up as Zara and occasionally waiving from a balcony and being paraded behind your mother’s coffin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was just realizing the other day that while I feel the same, more or less neutral, about Harry and Meghan, I feel a lot more negatively about Charles, Camilla, William and Kate! So they really did move my opinion. Not that it matters.

Zara is not a good example. Her upbringing was totally different and had a ton of financial support. Horses are really expensive. There’s no comparison between growing up as Zara and occasionally waiving from a balcony and being paraded behind your mother’s coffin.

How nice of Harry to help you out in lowering your opinion of everyone else in his life! Very considerate and kind of him to do that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He relies on public titles even for his private earnings. Once again, he twists public and private privileges. Without the former, the latter wouldn’t come nearly as easily.

The titles themselves are an issue, which is why he wants them but many of the British don’t. If I were from New Jersey and the Duke of New Jersey were making comments about Nott Cott being small, I’d really want the title back. People forget England is not America. Marrying into the British Royal family and wanting to be understood as an American is like a foreign princess becoming the First Lady and saying American traditions like freedom of speech are bizarre (as Harry has implied). You’re not just marrying into a foreign family, but the representatives of a foreign nation.

Finally security and titles go hand in hand. Zara is the perfect example of someone without titles without a need for security. If Harry had left for a private life that didn’t involve riding on Royal coattails, 3 years after he left he wouldn’t need the security that he wants the British people to fund so badly.

Read the book - he offered to return the Sussex titles. Prince Harry is his name, he was born royal. His life experience is his to do what he wants, including monetize. He has said in the book and in all the interviews that the book is to put his recollections and perspective into the record - for his children and to refute the unsubstantiated claims by the British media. Netflix doc and the book are imo respectively Meghan and Harry's stories. I think this closes a chapter for them. Aside from those, all of their work has been about causes and effecting real change. Veterans, COVID vaccine equity, disaster relief, refugees, homeless, AIDs orphans, womens' empowerment and rights.

Do you think that all of the threats that Harry and Meghan endured - real ones where people went to jail - just went away when they left working royal status?

[Anonymous]

This NYT op ed gets to the gist of Harry's message.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/25/opinion/harry-meghan-tabloids.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This NYT op ed gets to the gist of Harry's message.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/25/opinion/harry-meghan-tabloids.html

Very well written ! I wonder what public opinion about Harry and Meghan will be like 20 years from now.