Prince Harry’s book

[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.

Yes, this. If you’ve only read quoted excerpts from the book, please read the original text. If you’ve read the original text, please re-read it with your criticisms in mind. As the PP said, I, too, think that your views and Harry’s — overlap. Harry also discussed issues related to this passage when he was questioned about it in his interview with Colbert.

I’m trying not to be too detailed here, but to suggest that you go directly to what Harry wrote and has said himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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...

What is your understanding of why he kept a count?

[Anonymous]

I really don’t know. I’m about 3/4 of the way through the audiobook. I have not watched the Netflix special.

I lean towards giving Harry a pass on mostly everything because of the trauma of losing his mother and getting NO support or help in any way from it. That will F you up for life, and it did.

Plus her death was caused by the “paps”, so he’s definitely valid in hating them and being worried about safety because they do not care.

[Anonymous]

I think both Harry and Meghan have serious mental health issues and on top of that she comes across as an opportunist and he comes across as a spoiled nepotism baby. That's my interpretation, yours and theirs mileage may vary.

[Anonymous]

Its not like other royals are angels, they are trying to serve their own interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think both Harry and Meghan have serious mental health issues and on top of that she comes across as an opportunist and he comes across as a spoiled nepotism baby. That's my interpretation, yours and theirs mileage may vary.

What portions of the book do you believe supports this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think both Harry and Meghan have serious mental health issues and on top of that she comes across as an opportunist and he comes across as a spoiled nepotism baby. That's my interpretation, yours and theirs mileage may vary.

What portions of the book do you believe supports this?

The entire thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think both Harry and Meghan have serious mental health issues and on top of that she comes across as an opportunist and he comes across as a spoiled nepotism baby. That's my interpretation, yours and theirs mileage may vary.

What portions of the book do you believe supports this?

The entire thing.

The entire thing you didn’t read?

[Anonymous]

It is really unfortunate that normal people cannot discuss this book without deranged Harry-haters ruining it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is really unfortunate that normal people cannot discuss this book without deranged Harry-haters ruining it.

There are two types, deranged haters and deranged lovers, neutral posts are sprinkled here and there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is really unfortunate that normal people cannot discuss this book without deranged Harry-haters ruining it.

There are two types, deranged haters and deranged lovers, neutral posts are sprinkled here and there.

What posts here do you believe are from “deranged lovers”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is really unfortunate that normal people cannot discuss this book without deranged Harry-haters ruining it.

There are two types, deranged haters and deranged lovers, neutral posts are sprinkled here and there.

What posts here do you believe are from “deranged lovers”?

I am firmly anti-royalist and it’s clear to me the haters are far more deranged, speaking as someone who is not a fan of any of the royals, including Harry. I don’t see many deranged fans in here, but the haters are next-level crazy.

Anyhow, I just finished the audiobook and thought it was well-done. He has a good reading voice, that’s for sure.

[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.

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.

When someone is a middle age father them self , they tend to have a more sympathetic view of their father's relationships than they had as a grieving teen.

[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.

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.

When someone is a middle age father them self , they tend to have a more sympathetic view of their father's relationships than they had as a grieving teen.

So? What does that have to do with his feelings as a teenager?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is really unfortunate that normal people cannot discuss this book without deranged Harry-haters ruining it.

There are two types, deranged haters and deranged lovers, neutral posts are sprinkled here and there.

What posts here do you believe are from “deranged lovers”?

I am firmly anti-royalist and it’s clear to me the haters are far more deranged, speaking as someone who is not a fan of any of the royals, including Harry. I don’t see many deranged fans in here, but the haters are next-level crazy.

Anyhow, I just finished the audiobook and thought it was well-done. He has a good reading voice, that’s for sure.

But Harry himself seems anti-royal.