Prince Harry’s book

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems to have fallen very quickly from the news. Haven't seen mention of it in a week or so.

Really wasn't much substance beyond a combination of frustration and spoiled clueless rich boy who couldn't figure out how to grow up. I didn't see anything in it that spoke badly of the royal family, which isn't surprising given how the rest of them seem to manage to function decently. I don't doubt they have their own frustrations but the others didn't need all this controversy to vent. The RF is an institution and all institutions need their rules to function and to make it coherent. The Queen was right when she told Harry the only alternative was to leave, but even Harry couldn't turn his escape into happiness, which tells you the real problem is him, not the royal family or others around him.

I highly doubt you've read the book. Had you read the book, you'd know that Harry isn't unhappy. Had you read the book, you'd realize how significant their need for security is and how The Firm makes it worse. Had you read the book, you'd know that because of how The Firm incorporated Harry into their production from birth, he can stop performing but he's still a member despite his unwillingness. It's like Hotel California. Just admit you didn't read the book.

I know no matter what I say you'll always be convinced I never read the book.

When you take the perspective the book was written by an unhappy man with an axe to grind and who is rather dim and short sighted, you'd see that it's someone amplifying many not atypical family frustrations and exploding it out on a bigger scale because of the backdrop of the royal family.

The royal family is an institution with its rules. There's a reason people refer to it as a firm. It is more than the sum of its members. And it abides by rules. Some of the rules don't make sense outside the family but they do exist, such as precedence and rituals. Many of the rules exist because of how the monarchy functions within Britain and the expectations for the family and how it needs to conduct itself. That's why the Queen said follow the rules or hit the road.

This.

+1 It's hard to argue Harry didn't write this book out of anger. To me he is as dim-witted as everyone says he is because he has made it clear he wants to remain within the royal fold in some capacity (demands security so he can keep visiting UK, wants titles for his children, and would jump at a chance for a half in half out role). He wants the royal pomp but on his own terms, and when that didn't happen he decided to seek revenge.

This^. Its not that he wanted to leave, its him wanting everyone to bend so he can stay at his own terms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't quite get the argument that everything that has been in the press that isn't positive was made up by the press.

Sure trash tabloids make things up. But in the says after the Spanish book release, there were countless journalists who actually had their hands on copies of the book and reported similar stories. It would have had to be a massive coordinated effort for all journalists during that time period to agree and come up with all the fake stories and fake quotes. Jounralists like a scoop, why would they agree to wait until other agencies created a fake story when they had a copy of the book?

For example, the conversation between Kate and Meghan about the dresses. If that was just made up by the press and wasn't in the book, there would have been some journos refuse to pretend to read a fake story from the book just to stick to the party line. There just isn't that kind of mass collaboration and camaraderie across all press sources for it all to have been an orchestrated fake campaign.

If you’d read the book or paid any attention you’d know that the bigger issue isn’t about things in the press being false it’s about the Royal sources feeding negative stories to the press and then pretending they are above reproach. Yes, sometimes they get it wrong. But more often it’s the spin that’s out on out the lack of context.

That is Harry's belief and issue. And there is no way prove or disprove. I do not believe Charles would leak bad things about his kids. That is ridiculous and paranoia fed by Meghan, who WAS doing her fair share (and more) of story planting since 2016.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't quite get the argument that everything that has been in the press that isn't positive was made up by the press.

Sure trash tabloids make things up. But in the says after the Spanish book release, there were countless journalists who actually had their hands on copies of the book and reported similar stories. It would have had to be a massive coordinated effort for all journalists during that time period to agree and come up with all the fake stories and fake quotes. Jounralists like a scoop, why would they agree to wait until other agencies created a fake story when they had a copy of the book?

For example, the conversation between Kate and Meghan about the dresses. If that was just made up by the press and wasn't in the book, there would have been some journos refuse to pretend to read a fake story from the book just to stick to the party line. There just isn't that kind of mass collaboration and camaraderie across all press sources for it all to have been an orchestrated fake campaign.

Part of the issue after the Spanish version released early was that journalists were sticking passages into translation apps and then reporting the translations as accurate, when in fact they mischaracterized the book in certain respects. It doesn’t take a lot of mistranslation to totally change the tone of an anecdote.

The stories I saw were about

Harry losing his virginity

Harry being pushed onto a dog food bowl by his brother

Harry talking to his dad to get him to not marry Camilla

Harry getting mad William didn't come away with him before his wedding and a story about his penis freezing before William's wedding

Stories of Meghan wearing jeans and to being hugged by Kate, a conversation between Kate and Meghan about flowergirl dresses, and William and Kate being awed by Meghan being in Suits

Harry now having found Meghan on instagram and started dating that way and Meghan knowing nothing about the RF

Harry talking about Meghan being magical and him swimming with seals.

William and Kate laughing / supporting the Nazi outfit

Harry killing 25 Taliban

I have a hard time believing that none of that was actually in the book and that it was all made up by journalists. I haven't read the book but the BBC and reuters and others were commenting on these stories so when people on here say it was all lies and if you read he book you would know that none of that is even in it...I find that hard to believe.

You can’t understand why an approximately 14 yo Harry and 16 yo Williams might not have wanted their father to marry his mistress less than two years after their mother’s death given how much a marriage would stir up the media rehashing Charles and Diana’s marriage and Diana’s death? The boys gave their blessing to the relationship, they just asked not to bring the media onslaught of a wedding upon them.

He is their father but he is also an adult, he once sacrificed his wishes for how mom and his royal career, it failed horribly. Why would he let two teens decide if he can marry or not?

Charles was entitled to make his own decision, and he did. His children were entitled to their own feelings about it. You’re really going to fault grieving teenagers for not wanting to Sun next themselves to a brutal media campaign? That shows a striking absence of empathy and compassion for understandable human emotions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't quite get the argument that everything that has been in the press that isn't positive was made up by the press.

Sure trash tabloids make things up. But in the says after the Spanish book release, there were countless journalists who actually had their hands on copies of the book and reported similar stories. It would have had to be a massive coordinated effort for all journalists during that time period to agree and come up with all the fake stories and fake quotes. Jounralists like a scoop, why would they agree to wait until other agencies created a fake story when they had a copy of the book?

For example, the conversation between Kate and Meghan about the dresses. If that was just made up by the press and wasn't in the book, there would have been some journos refuse to pretend to read a fake story from the book just to stick to the party line. There just isn't that kind of mass collaboration and camaraderie across all press sources for it all to have been an orchestrated fake campaign.

If you’d read the book or paid any attention you’d know that the bigger issue isn’t about things in the press being false it’s about the Royal sources feeding negative stories to the press and then pretending they are above reproach. Yes, sometimes they get it wrong. But more often it’s the spin that’s out on out the lack of context.

That is Harry's belief and issue. And there is no way prove or disprove. I do not believe Charles would leak bad things about his kids. That is ridiculous and paranoia fed by Meghan, who WAS doing her fair share (and more) of story planting since 2016.

DP. You don’t seem to understand what a memoir is. A memoir isn’t just a dry recitation of events with citations to outside evidence. A memoir is meant to be about the person’s experience of those events, their emotions, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't quite get the argument that everything that has been in the press that isn't positive was made up by the press.

Sure trash tabloids make things up. But in the says after the Spanish book release, there were countless journalists who actually had their hands on copies of the book and reported similar stories. It would have had to be a massive coordinated effort for all journalists during that time period to agree and come up with all the fake stories and fake quotes. Jounralists like a scoop, why would they agree to wait until other agencies created a fake story when they had a copy of the book?

For example, the conversation between Kate and Meghan about the dresses. If that was just made up by the press and wasn't in the book, there would have been some journos refuse to pretend to read a fake story from the book just to stick to the party line. There just isn't that kind of mass collaboration and camaraderie across all press sources for it all to have been an orchestrated fake campaign.

Part of the issue after the Spanish version released early was that journalists were sticking passages into translation apps and then reporting the translations as accurate, when in fact they mischaracterized the book in certain respects. It doesn’t take a lot of mistranslation to totally change the tone of an anecdote.

The stories I saw were about

Harry losing his virginity

Harry being pushed onto a dog food bowl by his brother

Harry talking to his dad to get him to not marry Camilla

Harry getting mad William didn't come away with him before his wedding and a story about his penis freezing before William's wedding

Stories of Meghan wearing jeans and to being hugged by Kate, a conversation between Kate and Meghan about flowergirl dresses, and William and Kate being awed by Meghan being in Suits

Harry now having found Meghan on instagram and started dating that way and Meghan knowing nothing about the RF

Harry talking about Meghan being magical and him swimming with seals.

William and Kate laughing / supporting the Nazi outfit

Harry killing 25 Taliban

I have a hard time believing that none of that was actually in the book and that it was all made up by journalists. I haven't read the book but the BBC and reuters and others were commenting on these stories so when people on here say it was all lies and if you read he book you would know that none of that is even in it...I find that hard to believe.

And what did you hear about them? The story about losing his virginity came across as far more sordid in the translation than in the English language original. Similarly, people made out the part about his penis frostbite and the Elizabeth Arden cream to be some erotic thing about his mother, when in reality a friend had recommended a specific cream to him to treat the frostbite that was the same as his mother had used, and he basically said the smell reminded him of her when he opened it so the experience was kind of weird but he dealt with it and moved on. The real focus on the frostbite anecdote was the challenges of getting medical care for the problem discreetly because he didn’t trust that it wouldn’t end up in the tabloids if he went through the usual staff channels to make an appointment.

People also spun the 25 kills thing in weird ways. He said that most soldiers can’t really track their kill numbers because they happen in things like firefights where you don’t know for sure, but because of the nature of the Apache work he did during the tours, he actually did know his number. He said he felt it was important to know the number for accountability rather than live in willful ignorance, and that he was neither ashamed nor proud of it. What do you think is problematic about that anecdote?

It's incredibly problematic.

https://apnews.com/article/prince-harry-afghanistan-service-claims-1c497d35a8211dc0366429856a539e2a

And yes, after criticism, he responded defensively. Instead of apologizing for doing the wrong thing.

And that article reflects exactly the issue with using translated snippets (which is was since it misquotes the book). Harry said those things in reflecting on how he was trained to think about war, the detachment it required, which he states in the book is problematic. You really think it’s a bad thing for someone who fought in a war to reflect on the experience and recognize the ways in which it was troubling?

No, keeping count is exactly what the military is trained not to do. For several different reasons, all of which Harry either missed or disagrees with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't quite get the argument that everything that has been in the press that isn't positive was made up by the press.

Sure trash tabloids make things up. But in the says after the Spanish book release, there were countless journalists who actually had their hands on copies of the book and reported similar stories. It would have had to be a massive coordinated effort for all journalists during that time period to agree and come up with all the fake stories and fake quotes. Jounralists like a scoop, why would they agree to wait until other agencies created a fake story when they had a copy of the book?

For example, the conversation between Kate and Meghan about the dresses. If that was just made up by the press and wasn't in the book, there would have been some journos refuse to pretend to read a fake story from the book just to stick to the party line. There just isn't that kind of mass collaboration and camaraderie across all press sources for it all to have been an orchestrated fake campaign.

If you’d read the book or paid any attention you’d know that the bigger issue isn’t about things in the press being false it’s about the Royal sources feeding negative stories to the press and then pretending they are above reproach. Yes, sometimes they get it wrong. But more often it’s the spin that’s out on out the lack of context.

That is Harry's belief and issue. And there is no way prove or disprove. I do not believe Charles would leak bad things about his kids. That is ridiculous and paranoia fed by Meghan, who WAS doing her fair share (and more) of story planting since 2016.

DP. You don’t seem to understand what a memoir is. A memoir isn’t just a dry recitation of events with citations to outside evidence. A memoir is meant to be about the person’s experience of those events, their emotions, etc.

I know what a memoir is. That is my point. He is wrong about a lot of it because of his victim mentality and paranoia fed by his wife.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't quite get the argument that everything that has been in the press that isn't positive was made up by the press.

Sure trash tabloids make things up. But in the says after the Spanish book release, there were countless journalists who actually had their hands on copies of the book and reported similar stories. It would have had to be a massive coordinated effort for all journalists during that time period to agree and come up with all the fake stories and fake quotes. Jounralists like a scoop, why would they agree to wait until other agencies created a fake story when they had a copy of the book?

For example, the conversation between Kate and Meghan about the dresses. If that was just made up by the press and wasn't in the book, there would have been some journos refuse to pretend to read a fake story from the book just to stick to the party line. There just isn't that kind of mass collaboration and camaraderie across all press sources for it all to have been an orchestrated fake campaign.

Part of the issue after the Spanish version released early was that journalists were sticking passages into translation apps and then reporting the translations as accurate, when in fact they mischaracterized the book in certain respects. It doesn’t take a lot of mistranslation to totally change the tone of an anecdote.

The stories I saw were about

Harry losing his virginity

Harry being pushed onto a dog food bowl by his brother

Harry talking to his dad to get him to not marry Camilla

Harry getting mad William didn't come away with him before his wedding and a story about his penis freezing before William's wedding

Stories of Meghan wearing jeans and to being hugged by Kate, a conversation between Kate and Meghan about flowergirl dresses, and William and Kate being awed by Meghan being in Suits

Harry now having found Meghan on instagram and started dating that way and Meghan knowing nothing about the RF

Harry talking about Meghan being magical and him swimming with seals.

William and Kate laughing / supporting the Nazi outfit

Harry killing 25 Taliban

I have a hard time believing that none of that was actually in the book and that it was all made up by journalists. I haven't read the book but the BBC and reuters and others were commenting on these stories so when people on here say it was all lies and if you read he book you would know that none of that is even in it...I find that hard to believe.

And what did you hear about them? The story about losing his virginity came across as far more sordid in the translation than in the English language original. Similarly, people made out the part about his penis frostbite and the Elizabeth Arden cream to be some erotic thing about his mother, when in reality a friend had recommended a specific cream to him to treat the frostbite that was the same as his mother had used, and he basically said the smell reminded him of her when he opened it so the experience was kind of weird but he dealt with it and moved on. The real focus on the frostbite anecdote was the challenges of getting medical care for the problem discreetly because he didn’t trust that it wouldn’t end up in the tabloids if he went through the usual staff channels to make an appointment.

People also spun the 25 kills thing in weird ways. He said that most soldiers can’t really track their kill numbers because they happen in things like firefights where you don’t know for sure, but because of the nature of the Apache work he did during the tours, he actually did know his number. He said he felt it was important to know the number for accountability rather than live in willful ignorance, and that he was neither ashamed nor proud of it. What do you think is problematic about that anecdote?

It's incredibly problematic.

https://apnews.com/article/prince-harry-afghanistan-service-claims-1c497d35a8211dc0366429856a539e2a

And yes, after criticism, he responded defensively. Instead of apologizing for doing the wrong thing.

And that article reflects exactly the issue with using translated snippets (which is was since it misquotes the book). Harry said those things in reflecting on how he was trained to think about war, the detachment it required, which he states in the book is problematic. You really think it’s a bad thing for someone who fought in a war to reflect on the experience and recognize the ways in which it was troubling?

No, keeping count is exactly what the military is trained not to do. For several different reasons, all of which Harry either missed or disagrees with.

So you’re saying it’s wrong for someone to think critically about what they were taught?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't quite get the argument that everything that has been in the press that isn't positive was made up by the press.

Sure trash tabloids make things up. But in the says after the Spanish book release, there were countless journalists who actually had their hands on copies of the book and reported similar stories. It would have had to be a massive coordinated effort for all journalists during that time period to agree and come up with all the fake stories and fake quotes. Jounralists like a scoop, why would they agree to wait until other agencies created a fake story when they had a copy of the book?

For example, the conversation between Kate and Meghan about the dresses. If that was just made up by the press and wasn't in the book, there would have been some journos refuse to pretend to read a fake story from the book just to stick to the party line. There just isn't that kind of mass collaboration and camaraderie across all press sources for it all to have been an orchestrated fake campaign.

If you’d read the book or paid any attention you’d know that the bigger issue isn’t about things in the press being false it’s about the Royal sources feeding negative stories to the press and then pretending they are above reproach. Yes, sometimes they get it wrong. But more often it’s the spin that’s out on out the lack of context.

That is Harry's belief and issue. And there is no way prove or disprove. I do not believe Charles would leak bad things about his kids. That is ridiculous and paranoia fed by Meghan, who WAS doing her fair share (and more) of story planting since 2016.

DP. You don’t seem to understand what a memoir is. A memoir isn’t just a dry recitation of events with citations to outside evidence. A memoir is meant to be about the person’s experience of those events, their emotions, etc.

I know what a memoir is. That is my point. He is wrong about a lot of it because of his victim mentality and paranoia fed by his wife.

And yet you can provide zero evidence to support that because you have not read the book. Vague rhetoric is not a substantive argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't quite get the argument that everything that has been in the press that isn't positive was made up by the press.

Sure trash tabloids make things up. But in the says after the Spanish book release, there were countless journalists who actually had their hands on copies of the book and reported similar stories. It would have had to be a massive coordinated effort for all journalists during that time period to agree and come up with all the fake stories and fake quotes. Jounralists like a scoop, why would they agree to wait until other agencies created a fake story when they had a copy of the book?

For example, the conversation between Kate and Meghan about the dresses. If that was just made up by the press and wasn't in the book, there would have been some journos refuse to pretend to read a fake story from the book just to stick to the party line. There just isn't that kind of mass collaboration and camaraderie across all press sources for it all to have been an orchestrated fake campaign.

If you’d read the book or paid any attention you’d know that the bigger issue isn’t about things in the press being false it’s about the Royal sources feeding negative stories to the press and then pretending they are above reproach. Yes, sometimes they get it wrong. But more often it’s the spin that’s out on out the lack of context.

That is Harry's belief and issue. And there is no way prove or disprove. I do not believe Charles would leak bad things about his kids. That is ridiculous and paranoia fed by Meghan, who WAS doing her fair share (and more) of story planting since 2016.

DP. You don’t seem to understand what a memoir is. A memoir isn’t just a dry recitation of events with citations to outside evidence. A memoir is meant to be about the person’s experience of those events, their emotions, etc.

I know what a memoir is. That is my point. He is wrong about a lot of it because of his victim mentality and paranoia fed by his wife.

And yet you can provide zero evidence to support that because you have not read the book. Vague rhetoric is not a substantive argument.

I have read plenty outside of the book and also observed with my own eyes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't quite get the argument that everything that has been in the press that isn't positive was made up by the press.

Sure trash tabloids make things up. But in the says after the Spanish book release, there were countless journalists who actually had their hands on copies of the book and reported similar stories. It would have had to be a massive coordinated effort for all journalists during that time period to agree and come up with all the fake stories and fake quotes. Jounralists like a scoop, why would they agree to wait until other agencies created a fake story when they had a copy of the book?

For example, the conversation between Kate and Meghan about the dresses. If that was just made up by the press and wasn't in the book, there would have been some journos refuse to pretend to read a fake story from the book just to stick to the party line. There just isn't that kind of mass collaboration and camaraderie across all press sources for it all to have been an orchestrated fake campaign.

If you’d read the book or paid any attention you’d know that the bigger issue isn’t about things in the press being false it’s about the Royal sources feeding negative stories to the press and then pretending they are above reproach. Yes, sometimes they get it wrong. But more often it’s the spin that’s out on out the lack of context.

That is Harry's belief and issue. And there is no way prove or disprove. I do not believe Charles would leak bad things about his kids. That is ridiculous and paranoia fed by Meghan, who WAS doing her fair share (and more) of story planting since 2016.

DP. You don’t seem to understand what a memoir is. A memoir isn’t just a dry recitation of events with citations to outside evidence. A memoir is meant to be about the person’s experience of those events, their emotions, etc.

I know what a memoir is. That is my point. He is wrong about a lot of it because of his victim mentality and paranoia fed by his wife.

And yet you can provide zero evidence to support that because you have not read the book. Vague rhetoric is not a substantive argument.

I have read plenty outside of the book and also observed with my own eyes.

This is a book discussion. Since you have not read the book and are not interested in reading the book, you have no place in this discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't quite get the argument that everything that has been in the press that isn't positive was made up by the press.

Sure trash tabloids make things up. But in the says after the Spanish book release, there were countless journalists who actually had their hands on copies of the book and reported similar stories. It would have had to be a massive coordinated effort for all journalists during that time period to agree and come up with all the fake stories and fake quotes. Jounralists like a scoop, why would they agree to wait until other agencies created a fake story when they had a copy of the book?

For example, the conversation between Kate and Meghan about the dresses. If that was just made up by the press and wasn't in the book, there would have been some journos refuse to pretend to read a fake story from the book just to stick to the party line. There just isn't that kind of mass collaboration and camaraderie across all press sources for it all to have been an orchestrated fake campaign.

Part of the issue after the Spanish version released early was that journalists were sticking passages into translation apps and then reporting the translations as accurate, when in fact they mischaracterized the book in certain respects. It doesn’t take a lot of mistranslation to totally change the tone of an anecdote.

The stories I saw were about

Harry losing his virginity

Harry being pushed onto a dog food bowl by his brother

Harry talking to his dad to get him to not marry Camilla

Harry getting mad William didn't come away with him before his wedding and a story about his penis freezing before William's wedding

Stories of Meghan wearing jeans and to being hugged by Kate, a conversation between Kate and Meghan about flowergirl dresses, and William and Kate being awed by Meghan being in Suits

Harry now having found Meghan on instagram and started dating that way and Meghan knowing nothing about the RF

Harry talking about Meghan being magical and him swimming with seals.

William and Kate laughing / supporting the Nazi outfit

Harry killing 25 Taliban

I have a hard time believing that none of that was actually in the book and that it was all made up by journalists. I haven't read the book but the BBC and reuters and others were commenting on these stories so when people on here say it was all lies and if you read he book you would know that none of that is even in it...I find that hard to believe.

And what did you hear about them? The story about losing his virginity came across as far more sordid in the translation than in the English language original. Similarly, people made out the part about his penis frostbite and the Elizabeth Arden cream to be some erotic thing about his mother, when in reality a friend had recommended a specific cream to him to treat the frostbite that was the same as his mother had used, and he basically said the smell reminded him of her when he opened it so the experience was kind of weird but he dealt with it and moved on. The real focus on the frostbite anecdote was the challenges of getting medical care for the problem discreetly because he didn’t trust that it wouldn’t end up in the tabloids if he went through the usual staff channels to make an appointment.

People also spun the 25 kills thing in weird ways. He said that most soldiers can’t really track their kill numbers because they happen in things like firefights where you don’t know for sure, but because of the nature of the Apache work he did during the tours, he actually did know his number. He said he felt it was important to know the number for accountability rather than live in willful ignorance, and that he was neither ashamed nor proud of it. What do you think is problematic about that anecdote?

It's incredibly problematic.

https://apnews.com/article/prince-harry-afghanistan-service-claims-1c497d35a8211dc0366429856a539e2a

And yes, after criticism, he responded defensively. Instead of apologizing for doing the wrong thing.

And that article reflects exactly the issue with using translated snippets (which is was since it misquotes the book). Harry said those things in reflecting on how he was trained to think about war, the detachment it required, which he states in the book is problematic. You really think it’s a bad thing for someone who fought in a war to reflect on the experience and recognize the ways in which it was troubling?

No, keeping count is exactly what the military is trained not to do. For several different reasons, all of which Harry either missed or disagrees with.

So you’re saying it’s wrong for someone to think critically about what they were taught?

It's disrespectful of him. Thinking critically doesn't make it less disrespectful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't quite get the argument that everything that has been in the press that isn't positive was made up by the press.

Sure trash tabloids make things up. But in the says after the Spanish book release, there were countless journalists who actually had their hands on copies of the book and reported similar stories. It would have had to be a massive coordinated effort for all journalists during that time period to agree and come up with all the fake stories and fake quotes. Jounralists like a scoop, why would they agree to wait until other agencies created a fake story when they had a copy of the book?

For example, the conversation between Kate and Meghan about the dresses. If that was just made up by the press and wasn't in the book, there would have been some journos refuse to pretend to read a fake story from the book just to stick to the party line. There just isn't that kind of mass collaboration and camaraderie across all press sources for it all to have been an orchestrated fake campaign.

Part of the issue after the Spanish version released early was that journalists were sticking passages into translation apps and then reporting the translations as accurate, when in fact they mischaracterized the book in certain respects. It doesn’t take a lot of mistranslation to totally change the tone of an anecdote.

The stories I saw were about

Harry losing his virginity

Harry being pushed onto a dog food bowl by his brother

Harry talking to his dad to get him to not marry Camilla

Harry getting mad William didn't come away with him before his wedding and a story about his penis freezing before William's wedding

Stories of Meghan wearing jeans and to being hugged by Kate, a conversation between Kate and Meghan about flowergirl dresses, and William and Kate being awed by Meghan being in Suits

Harry now having found Meghan on instagram and started dating that way and Meghan knowing nothing about the RF

Harry talking about Meghan being magical and him swimming with seals.

William and Kate laughing / supporting the Nazi outfit

Harry killing 25 Taliban

I have a hard time believing that none of that was actually in the book and that it was all made up by journalists. I haven't read the book but the BBC and reuters and others were commenting on these stories so when people on here say it was all lies and if you read he book you would know that none of that is even in it...I find that hard to believe.

And what did you hear about them? The story about losing his virginity came across as far more sordid in the translation than in the English language original. Similarly, people made out the part about his penis frostbite and the Elizabeth Arden cream to be some erotic thing about his mother, when in reality a friend had recommended a specific cream to him to treat the frostbite that was the same as his mother had used, and he basically said the smell reminded him of her when he opened it so the experience was kind of weird but he dealt with it and moved on. The real focus on the frostbite anecdote was the challenges of getting medical care for the problem discreetly because he didn’t trust that it wouldn’t end up in the tabloids if he went through the usual staff channels to make an appointment.

People also spun the 25 kills thing in weird ways. He said that most soldiers can’t really track their kill numbers because they happen in things like firefights where you don’t know for sure, but because of the nature of the Apache work he did during the tours, he actually did know his number. He said he felt it was important to know the number for accountability rather than live in willful ignorance, and that he was neither ashamed nor proud of it. What do you think is problematic about that anecdote?

It's incredibly problematic.

https://apnews.com/article/prince-harry-afghanistan-service-claims-1c497d35a8211dc0366429856a539e2a

And yes, after criticism, he responded defensively. Instead of apologizing for doing the wrong thing.

And that article reflects exactly the issue with using translated snippets (which is was since it misquotes the book). Harry said those things in reflecting on how he was trained to think about war, the detachment it required, which he states in the book is problematic. You really think it’s a bad thing for someone who fought in a war to reflect on the experience and recognize the ways in which it was troubling?

No, keeping count is exactly what the military is trained not to do. For several different reasons, all of which Harry either missed or disagrees with.

So you’re saying it’s wrong for someone to think critically about what they were taught?

It's disrespectful of him. Thinking critically doesn't make it less disrespectful.

“You have no respect for excessive authority or obsolete traditions. You're dangerous and depraved, and you ought to be taken outside and shot!”

[Anonymous]

I deployed twice to Iraq, including one tour supporting SOF. No one talks about their kill count, unless they want to be viewed as a psychopath.

What I found even more disturbing was when Harry referred to enemy combatants as “chess pieces”. I disagree with any attempt to equate acts of war with game playing. It denies the cold, dark truth of war. War destroys human lives. I understand a soldier wanting to separate himself from that truth in the moment, but after so many years away from the battle field, I would hope he would have the maturity by now to see how his mindset was wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I deployed twice to Iraq, including one tour supporting SOF. No one talks about their kill count, unless they want to be viewed as a psychopath.

What I found even more disturbing was when Harry referred to enemy combatants as “chess pieces”. I disagree with any attempt to equate acts of war with game playing. It denies the cold, dark truth of war. War destroys human lives. I understand a soldier wanting to separate himself from that truth in the moment, but after so many years away from the battle field, I would hope he would have the maturity by now to see how his mindset was wrong.

Did you read the book? If so, I think you misunderstood that passage, because he essentially agrees with you in many respects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I deployed twice to Iraq, including one tour supporting SOF. No one talks about their kill count, unless they want to be viewed as a psychopath.

What I found even more disturbing was when Harry referred to enemy combatants as “chess pieces”. I disagree with any attempt to equate acts of war with game playing. It denies the cold, dark truth of war. War destroys human lives. I understand a soldier wanting to separate himself from that truth in the moment, but after so many years away from the battle field, I would hope he would have the maturity by now to see how his mindset was wrong.

Did you read the book? If so, I think you misunderstood that passage, because he essentially agrees with you in many respects.

DP. Except for the respect of not keeping count...