Prince Harry’s book

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Why not? Most people put multiple options out there when they try to develop complex plans.

[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.

I’ll assume the NYT has rules about disclosure and will issue a correction if needed. I agree that such funding should be disclosed.

One of Harry’s main complaints is that the royal family/staff place stories while denying that they comment right? I’m inclined to agree. The rules the tabloids and the royals use seem wildly different from the rules that newspapers in DC use with government officials, for example. I think the coded phrasing in our newspapers is confusing and unnecessary but you can usually get a sense of approximately who is talking and whether it was sanctioned by their boss. The royals/palace seems to be totally dishonest about what they’re doing.

[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.

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?

Exactly. Tufekci said very clearly that she is an external faculty associate of the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard (which got the Archwell grant). She is one of many faculty associates because the center follows her work; she's not on their faculty. She's employed by Columbia University.

[Anonymous]

The fundamental challenge for Harry isn’t that he was treated unjustly. It’s that he wants to be righted within in an unjust institution that he wants to continue to have exist with all its other injustices that don’t impact him. Can you imagine a hairdresser in Idaho having to pay taxes for a Duke of Idaho to live in splendor? Or having to curtesy to a Duke? Or even have a Duke at all? The only reason one would is out of inertia. But he wants change, only with him at the forefront, not the hairdresser subjected to it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fundamental challenge for Harry isn’t that he was treated unjustly. It’s that he wants to be righted within in an unjust institution that he wants to continue to have exist with all its other injustices that don’t impact him. Can you imagine a hairdresser in Idaho having to pay taxes for a Duke of Idaho to live in splendor? Or having to curtesy to a Duke? Or even have a Duke at all? The only reason one would is out of inertia. But he wants change, only with him at the forefront, not the hairdresser subjected to it

It's clear you didn't read the book.

[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.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I suspect that if you'd read the book you'd be better to articulate a point and understand how his titles have nothing to do with his need for security.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fundamental challenge for Harry isn’t that he was treated unjustly. It’s that he wants to be righted within in an unjust institution that he wants to continue to have exist with all its other injustices that don’t impact him. Can you imagine a hairdresser in Idaho having to pay taxes for a Duke of Idaho to live in splendor? Or having to curtesy to a Duke? Or even have a Duke at all? The only reason one would is out of inertia. But he wants change, only with him at the forefront, not the hairdresser subjected to it

I’m sorry, but you aren’t making much sense. You should know that Harry doesn’t want anyone to “curtsy” before him. According to the book, he finds all that stuff embarrassing. You should give it a read because you have misconceptions about him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fundamental challenge for Harry isn’t that he was treated unjustly. It’s that he wants to be righted within in an unjust institution that he wants to continue to have exist with all its other injustices that don’t impact him. Can you imagine a hairdresser in Idaho having to pay taxes for a Duke of Idaho to live in splendor? Or having to curtesy to a Duke? Or even have a Duke at all? The only reason one would is out of inertia. But he wants change, only with him at the forefront, not the hairdresser subjected to it

I’m sorry, but you aren’t making much sense. You should know that Harry doesn’t want anyone to “curtsy” before him. According to the book, he finds all that stuff embarrassing. You should give it a read because you have misconceptions about him.

Neither are you. I suggest you learn how the British government works

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fundamental challenge for Harry isn’t that he was treated unjustly. It’s that he wants to be righted within in an unjust institution that he wants to continue to have exist with all its other injustices that don’t impact him. Can you imagine a hairdresser in Idaho having to pay taxes for a Duke of Idaho to live in splendor? Or having to curtesy to a Duke? Or even have a Duke at all? The only reason one would is out of inertia. But he wants change, only with him at the forefront, not the hairdresser subjected to it

I’m sorry, but you aren’t making much sense. You should know that Harry doesn’t want anyone to “curtsy” before him. According to the book, he finds all that stuff embarrassing. You should give it a read because you have misconceptions about him.

Neither are you. I suggest you learn how the British government works

DP. You are making even less sense than before, if that is possible. Please say what you mean more clearly because this isn't it. I'm a dual US/UK national btw. And I work with the British government in my job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fundamental challenge for Harry isn’t that he was treated unjustly. It’s that he wants to be righted within in an unjust institution that he wants to continue to have exist with all its other injustices that don’t impact him. Can you imagine a hairdresser in Idaho having to pay taxes for a Duke of Idaho to live in splendor? Or having to curtesy to a Duke? Or even have a Duke at all? The only reason one would is out of inertia. But he wants change, only with him at the forefront, not the hairdresser subjected to it

I’m sorry, but you aren’t making much sense. You should know that Harry doesn’t want anyone to “curtsy” before him. According to the book, he finds all that stuff embarrassing. You should give it a read because you have misconceptions about him.

Neither are you. I suggest you learn how the British government works

I’m sorry, but I’m with PP here. I can’t make sense of what you are saying. I know pretty well how the British government works - I have a degree in it for one and worked in it for another - and whatever point you are trying to make is completely unclear.

[Anonymous]

Best OpEd:
Harry Was Right

Prince Harry Is Right, and It’s Not Just a Matter of Royal Gossip https://nyti.ms/3kJDlLi

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Best OpEd:
Harry Was Right

Prince Harry Is Right, and It’s Not Just a Matter of Royal Gossip https://nyti.ms/3kJDlLi

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Best OpEd:
Harry Was Right

Prince Harry Is Right, and It’s Not Just a Matter of Royal Gossip https://nyti.ms/3kJDlLi

Umm, this op ES is what’s been discussed the last two pages. Keep up.

[Anonymous]

I'm just grateful that Harry and Meghan can now afford to pay their mortgage