Prince Harry’s book

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It was written by a woman whose organization receives funding from Archewell, FYI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It was written by a woman whose organization receives funding from Archewell, FYI.

Good to know! It’s extremely well-written, as PP said, and seems to be meticulously crafted with credible supporting data sources. Pieces like this probably won’t be enough to drown out the clamor of the tabloids, but great that they’re out there, and great that the NYT chose to publish it.

I’m guessing that 20 years from now, Harry and Meghan will be seen more as gently aging philanthropists then as celebrities. This is assuming, though, that the British tabloids —and the British- inspired tabloids — will have moved on to younger and more exciting fodder.

Rupert Murdoch, by then 110, may have released his hold on the media influences. It will be interesting to see how that evolves and if the major influences on public opinion are completely different from what we’ve quickly become used to now, with social media, cable new and “news” as well as what remains of traditional print media.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

So then drop them. The Emperor of Japan’s daughter raised just as much scandal as Harry, dropped her titles, married a paralegal, moved to NYC, and dropped from public view. Harry could choose many places to live well. He chose to profit from his Royal background in the Hollywood spotlight

[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.

Zara had sponsorships for her equestrian pursuits.

Yes, Harry’s childhood was tragic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

So then drop them. The Emperor of Japan’s daughter raised just as much scandal as Harry, dropped her titles, married a paralegal, moved to NYC, and dropped from public view. Harry could choose many places to live well. He chose to profit from his Royal background in the Hollywood spotlight

+1. They could stop using the titles immediately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

I mean, yeah. They’re low on my list of interests but I do know more about them now.

[Anonymous]

During the first wave of Me Too I thought a lot about Monica Lewinsky and how she was treated. I feel similarly about watching the clips of Harry and William as children. It’s just appalling. It’s the media but it’s also the royal family. There’s really no reason the children need to be public figures except that the Royals do it for their own PR gains. I feel the same about them parading the children as I do about people putting their children on Tik Tok or YouTube. It shouldn’t be allowed and I think we’re on the cusp of a big cultural shift. Certainly I’ve had one in my lifetime. I didn’t think twice about the sons having to literally parade behind their mother’s coffin at the time except that it was sad. Now when I see clips of it I can’t believe anyone would do such a thing. So I think Harry and Meghan are a little silly and vain, but the bar is extremely low and at least they’re trying to figure themselves out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Zara had sponsorships for her equestrian pursuits.

Yes, Harry’s childhood was tragic.

A) those sponsorships don’t add up to squat
B) she got them because of her parents

She’s very talented and hardworking but equestrian pursuits are not a meritocracy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It was written by a woman whose organization receives funding from Archewell, FYI.

And? Are you familiar with Tuferki's writing? Are questioning her ethics or judgment here? What, in the article, do you disagree with?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It was written by a woman whose organization receives funding from Archewell, FYI.

And? Are you familiar with Tuferki's writing? Are questioning her ethics or judgment here? What, in the article, do you disagree with?

She cannot present an objective opinion on this matter if she’s getting paid by Meghan and Harry. I do question her ethics and judgement. She should have disclosed her financial ties to Archewell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It was written by a woman whose organization receives funding from Archewell, FYI.

And? Are you familiar with Tuferki's writing? Are questioning her ethics or judgment here? What, in the article, do you disagree with?

She cannot present an objective opinion on this matter if she’s getting paid by Meghan and Harry. I do question her ethics and judgement. She should have disclosed her financial ties to Archewell.

Instead of shooting the messenger, why don't you address her message? Please refute her arguments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

So then drop them. The Emperor of Japan’s daughter raised just as much scandal as Harry, dropped her titles, married a paralegal, moved to NYC, and dropped from public view. Harry could choose many places to live well. He chose to profit from his Royal background in the Hollywood spotlight

+1. They could stop using the titles immediately.

True, they could. But I see no reason why they should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It was written by a woman whose organization receives funding from Archewell, FYI.

And? Are you familiar with Tuferki's writing? Are questioning her ethics or judgment here? What, in the article, do you disagree with?

She cannot present an objective opinion on this matter if she’s getting paid by Meghan and Harry. I do question her ethics and judgement. She should have disclosed her financial ties to Archewell.

Really? But people like Jeremy Clarkson — whose paycheck is made from writing about his sadistic and racist fantasies about Meghan doesn’t warrant your criticism or disclosures about his relationship with Camilla? Please, please tell me about how “objective” the many many supposed “royal biographers” have been — with special notes about how they earn their pay. And, while you’re at it, point me to some “objective “ opinion sources that you feel comfortable recommending — just for context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

So then drop them. The Emperor of Japan’s daughter raised just as much scandal as Harry, dropped her titles, married a paralegal, moved to NYC, and dropped from public view. Harry could choose many places to live well. He chose to profit from his Royal background in the Hollywood spotlight

+1. They could stop using the titles immediately.

True, they could. But I see no reason why they should.

Why offer, then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It was written by a woman whose organization receives funding from Archewell, FYI.

Do you have anything to support your assertion? As in: Tufekci has tweeted that she DOESN’T , she works for Columbia, and has never received any funding from Archwell. Do you, anonymous internet poster, have any actual information that refutes that?