Prince Harry’s book

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every big and small grievance gets aired by this guy so why would anyone not be sure about a incoming backlash if end of lease terms aren't up-to his liking.

Actually, Harry has said that the book was heavily edited, and hundreds of pages didn’t make the cut — in part because he didn’t want to publicly reveal certain things about his father and his brother. I’m sure they have some idea what kinds of things he’s left out. So: No, not every grievance. It’s tempting to wonder what things would have been like if Charles hadn’t cultivated the press with his biography and a years worth of filming when the kids were quite young. That alone set an interesting precedent for how and why this family attempts to use the press and publicly air their grievances, at some cost to their children’s privacy, among other things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every big and small grievance gets aired by this guy so why would anyone not be sure about a incoming backlash if end of lease terms aren't up-to his liking.

Actually, Harry has said that the book was heavily edited, and hundreds of pages didn’t make the cut — in part because he didn’t want to publicly reveal certain things about his father and his brother. I’m sure they have some idea what kinds of things he’s left out. So: No, not every grievance. It’s tempting to wonder what things would have been like if Charles hadn’t cultivated the press with his biography and a years worth of filming when the kids were quite young. That alone set an interesting precedent for how and why this family attempts to use the press and publicly air their grievances, at some cost to their children’s privacy, among other things.

The British Royal Family is unique in their success at retaining their stature as other monarchies have fallen in European countries and around the globe, due in large part to their close relationship to the British press/tabloids. But you're blaming Charles for trying to ride the tiger instead of getting eaten by it - the tabloids are not under his control and he didn't create them. He just tried to come to some sort of accommodation, semi-successfully.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do UK have the BRF and why do the taxpayer support them? Such a racist and stupid family.

To annoy the colonials who think they have a right to tell other countries how to manage their affairs and their taxing system. Particularly the colonials who can't be bothered to learn about the British royal family and place the race card and use juvenile descriptions like "stupid."

Ta ta.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are kicking Andrew and Fergie out of his giant house and giving him Frogmore.

Charles already said he is streamlining. This is it. Probably doing all the hard stuff so William doesn't have to.

Charles is doing all the hard stuff because the British government is making him substantially cut back the Sovereign Grant. Frogmore Cottage is part of the Crown Estates, and the Queen gave H&M a two year lease on the cottage as a wedding present. When they moved to Canada and then California, they took most of their stuff from the cottage. They had renewed the lease but Charles (pressured by the gov.uk) did not allow them to renew the lease. But he did let them extend their occupancy from March 31 (when they should have vacated) to June 30. Not sure what the fuss is since they haven't lived there and landlords are permitted to terminate leases. It is not an "eviction," which would be done if a tenant had violated lease terms, but a simple termination of the lease. NBD.

Well, one reason for the fuss is that they put a lot of money into the property— presumably based on their understanding with the Queen that this would be their home indefinitely, similar to the arrangements held by other family members. It’s funny that one of the few British Royal families actually paying market rate for their house is having their lease terminated — if the issue is related to money / the Sovereign Grant.

They should be made whole for those expenses.

That is being worked out with Prince Harry and Meghan. The "Financial Times" had a very good piece on it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/courteney-cox-prince-harry-mushrooms-b2290924.html?amp

This was 2016. This dude is so immature.

Isn’t he putting his visa at risk by admitting he uses so many illegal drugs?

Fascinating point. He is, by admitting he lied in his visa applications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interjecting here - do you truly think Prince Charles and Camilla "planted" bad stories about William and Harry?

According to book: There are office systems, their staff, and yes, Harry indicated numerous times in which they were the only ones to know something. Secondly, she apparently was using his issues as a way to deflect her bad press. Stuff only Charles and she knew.

I have not read the book yet (still a ways down my library hold shelf) but this had to have stung when it happened. Just absolutely horrible.

Those who actually have read the book: now that it’s been a few weeks at least, do you still like the book? Sometimes when I finish a book I love it or hate it and then a few weeks later I feel differently about it.

Yes. Actually I like the book even more, and plan to read it a second time at some point. The first time I read it, I was reading it more for interesting content— as Harry himself said: I wanted to find out how Diana’s boy was doing, and, I admit, hoping for a happily-ever-after resolution. The book is actually MUCH more powerful than that. It offers glimpses of a type of life that few have been privy to. More importantly though, it’s an insightful memoir documenting grief, loss, certain types of neglect…. in a life that has been lived since birth in the often noxious public eye. The next time I read it will be as an invaluable psychohistory.

Diana's boy is doing very well, indeed. He has graduated from Saint Andrew's University, married a fellow student, attended Sandhurst and then completed helicopter training with the RAF. For two years he did search and rescue missions for the ambulance services in Wales and then returned to England to take up duties with the royal family. During that time, he and his wife have had three children, who attend a school near their home at Adelaide Cottage. He was received made the Prince of Wales and his wife, the Princess of Wales.

This son used the grief, loss, cerrtain tpes of neglect in a life lived in the often noxious public eye to gain perspective on his life. Rather than using alcohol, cocaine, hallucinogenic drugs, and marijuana to self medicate, he availed himself of the therapy offered to him rather than resist it as his younger brother did. For your invaluable psychohistory, you will have to read the book by his brother. You seem the sort who appreciates the victime rather than the achiever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every big and small grievance gets aired by this guy so why would anyone not be sure about a incoming backlash if end of lease terms aren't up-to his liking.

Actually, Harry has said that the book was heavily edited, and hundreds of pages didn’t make the cut — in part because he didn’t want to publicly reveal certain things about his father and his brother. I’m sure they have some idea what kinds of things he’s left out. So: No, not every grievance. It’s tempting to wonder what things would have been like if Charles hadn’t cultivated the press with his biography and a years worth of filming when the kids were quite young. That alone set an interesting precedent for how and why this family attempts to use the press and publicly air their grievances, at some cost to their children’s privacy, among other things.

Maybe it’s just me, but the book just came across as vindictive. And it’s sad. It’s sad that kids lost their mom so young and it’s sad that the family is so fractured.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every big and small grievance gets aired by this guy so why would anyone not be sure about a incoming backlash if end of lease terms aren't up-to his liking.

Actually, Harry has said that the book was heavily edited, and hundreds of pages didn’t make the cut — in part because he didn’t want to publicly reveal certain things about his father and his brother. I’m sure they have some idea what kinds of things he’s left out. So: No, not every grievance. It’s tempting to wonder what things would have been like if Charles hadn’t cultivated the press with his biography and a years worth of filming when the kids were quite young. That alone set an interesting precedent for how and why this family attempts to use the press and publicly air their grievances, at some cost to their children’s privacy, among other things.

Maybe it’s just me, but the book just came across as vindictive. And it’s sad. It’s sad that kids lost their mom so young and it’s sad that the family is so fractured.

Some of the book seemed petty, but vindictive might be a better word. Overall, the ghost writer provided a very literate read, but I didn't understand why he went into so much detail about things that made Harry look bad. He admitted that he lied to his mentor about drug use at Eton but said that he was angry when it came out in the press. He also said that he had to reveal losing his virginity to a friend because it was in the context of his drug use. I am not sure why Harry has such animosity toward the family since he seemed to be doing fine and enjoying life. It is sad that Harry and William lost their mother when they were 12 and 14, but I wonder if the family is as fractured as portrayed in the book. I have followed the royal family for years and have seen what appear to be happy family pictures of Harry and William with their father and than Harry and William with his wife, Catherine.

[Anonymous]

Maybe he wanted to get in front of bad things and tell his own story since so many false bad things were already in the tabloids - to feel like you have some kind of control over what people know about you.

For a rich aristo kid who was largely unsupervised by any parental figure - the drug use didnt' seem that extreme honestly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every big and small grievance gets aired by this guy so why would anyone not be sure about a incoming backlash if end of lease terms aren't up-to his liking.

Actually, Harry has said that the book was heavily edited, and hundreds of pages didn’t make the cut — in part because he didn’t want to publicly reveal certain things about his father and his brother. I’m sure they have some idea what kinds of things he’s left out. So: No, not every grievance. It’s tempting to wonder what things would have been like if Charles hadn’t cultivated the press with his biography and a years worth of filming when the kids were quite young. That alone set an interesting precedent for how and why this family attempts to use the press and publicly air their grievances, at some cost to their children’s privacy, among other things.

Maybe it’s just me, but the book just came across as vindictive. And it’s sad. It’s sad that kids lost their mom so young and it’s sad that the family is so fractured.

I don’t think it’s just you by a long shot — but it didn’t seem that way to me at all. I thought Charles was presented in a very kind and sympathetic light — when, to my mind, he was a quite neglectful parent and kind of an odd duck. I also think Harry deliberately chose not to say more about William’s behavior and issues — beyond providing contexts for his own story. I think Camilla, too, could have —accurately— been shown in a much worse light. I think it IS very sad, and I felt that some of the sadness was accompanied by quite a bit of sympathy for people who were born into roles and relationships that impacted the trajectory of their lives in negative as well as positive ways.

[Anonymous]

There are millions of people who had worse upbringing and they aren't loaded with money, best healthcare, luxury, fame, elite schooling, hired help, extravagant weddings, jet travel and connections. Royals can handle it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are kicking Andrew and Fergie out of his giant house and giving him Frogmore.

Charles already said he is streamlining. This is it. Probably doing all the hard stuff so William doesn't have to.

Charles is doing all the hard stuff because the British government is making him substantially cut back the Sovereign Grant. Frogmore Cottage is part of the Crown Estates, and the Queen gave H&M a two year lease on the cottage as a wedding present. When they moved to Canada and then California, they took most of their stuff from the cottage. They had renewed the lease but Charles (pressured by the gov.uk) did not allow them to renew the lease. But he did let them extend their occupancy from March 31 (when they should have vacated) to June 30. Not sure what the fuss is since they haven't lived there and landlords are permitted to terminate leases. It is not an "eviction," which would be done if a tenant had violated lease terms, but a simple termination of the lease. NBD.

Well, one reason for the fuss is that they put a lot of money into the property— presumably based on their understanding with the Queen that this would be their home indefinitely, similar to the arrangements held by other family members. It’s funny that one of the few British Royal families actually paying market rate for their house is having their lease terminated — if the issue is related to money / the Sovereign Grant.

They should be made whole for those expenses.

That is being worked out with Prince Harry and Meghan. The "Financial Times" had a very good piece on it

I haven’t found anything in the Financial Times. This article from the International Business Times did pop up though.


https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/prince-harry-meghan-markle-evicted-frogmore-cottage-despite-spending-24m-fixes-1713570

[Anonymous]

Its a textbook example of how you can make more money and fame by saying I do to a prince then you can by working all your life. It sure happened for Diana, Cathrine and Meghan. Obviously, they don't have to worry about their kids either, as a royal, each will inherit directly and attract indirectly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe he wanted to get in front of bad things and tell his own story since so many false bad things were already in the tabloids - to feel like you have some kind of control over what people know about you.

For a rich aristo kid who was largely unsupervised by any parental figure - the drug use didnt' seem that extreme honestly

You probably read in the book about Harry's visit from Mark Dyer who he called "Marko." Dyer was a Welsh Guard who became an equerry to Prince Charles and who was a mentor to William and Harry during the teen years. Harry still refers to Dyer as his second father. You probably also read in "Spare" that Harry and William would frequently visit their grandparents after classes at nearby Eton College. They lived with Charles after Diana died, and you probably also ready in "Spare" that William and Harry set up a room at Charles home, Highgrove, that they dubbed "Club H" for Club Highgrove. They hung out there and had friends over frequently.

Harry might have been a rich aristo kid, but he was not largely unsupervised by any parental figure. What I find odd is that William -- who was in the same situation -- availed himself of the same therapy resisted by Harry. He is under much greater stress, but he did mask his problems with drugs. Nor does Williams seem to use marijuana for self-medication as Harry said he does his "intimate conversation" with Dr. Gabor Mate last Saturday.

[Anonymous]

It must be difficult for William to always get shadowed by his brother's drama and held accountable in people's eyes for his actions and complaints. What a constant emotional burden to weigh you down.