Prince Harry’s book

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What are you talking about? You’ve said twice now that William “availed himself of therapy”. This has never been publicly stated. In fact Harry has been very open about getting therapy and his struggles. William has not.

When William started "Heads Together" with Harry and Catherine, he said that he had therapy to cope with his mother's death. In the "Palace Papers," the Queen wanted Harry to have therapy but he resisted. He tried to self medicate at Eton with pot and then moved onto heavier drugs as an adult. He told Gabor Mate in his conversation last weekend that he takes hallucinogenic drugs and pot to deal with his trauma. He also told Mate that Meghan saved his life by strongly encouraging him to return to therapy. He had tried before but thought that therapy would make him lose the memory of his mother.

William does not seem to have the same level of trauma as Harry, so he may not write or talk about his struggles as much as Harry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm still on the library's waitlist, but in an interview, Harry said that for many years, he didn't really believe (or maybe accept?) that his mother was dead. If his coping mechanism was denial for so long, it would make sense to resist therapy. In therapy, he would have been forced to acknowledge the truth, and it sounds like that was too painful for a long.

It also makes sense that Harry would feel this way and not William. They were different ages. There is interesting research on the impact of major events on siblings-- how much it varies based on age and stage of development.

He was denial throughout his teens but neither of them had therapy then. Harry did later and became a big advocate for it. Not clear of William ever did. He certainly hasn’t opened up about it like Harry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You say that you’ve followed the royal family for years. Has it ever occurred to you — for this, or, indeed any family — that the reality might be more complex than what you might see in carefully curated photographs that, for the most part, are intended for public scrutiny?
Again, a general comment: Many people who present themselves as doing “fine” are not.

In contrast to your perceptions, I didn’t find “animosity” in the book — as much as deep pain. I’d guess from what’s NOT in the book that the family might be even more “fractured” than the book suggests. While it may have happened, there’s little mention of extended family members providing buffers and support. It’s hard for me to imagine boarding school for quite young kids and nannies as a norm, with parents in a disintegrating marriage. It’s impossible for me to imagine growing up in the glare of media and public interest on top of that. I hope that Harry and William were whisked away by aunts and uncles and family friends out of the public eye more than we now know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You say that you’ve followed the royal family for years. Has it ever occurred to you — for this, or, indeed any family — that the reality might be more complex than what you might see in carefully curated photographs that, for the most part, are intended for public scrutiny?
Again, a general comment: Many people who present themselves as doing “fine” are not.

In contrast to your perceptions, I didn’t find “animosity” in the book — as much as deep pain. I’d guess from what’s NOT in the book that the family might be even more “fractured” than the book suggests. While it may have happened, there’s little mention of extended family members providing buffers and support. It’s hard for me to imagine boarding school for quite young kids and nannies as a norm, with parents in a disintegrating marriage. It’s impossible for me to imagine growing up in the glare of media and public interest on top of that. I hope that Harry and William were whisked away by aunts and uncles and family friends out of the public eye more than we now know.

Why that has occurred to me, but your condescension is noted. Based on your finding of deep pain in a book ghostwritten for a troubled man, you would not have known that the people who did most to alleviate the pain of William and Harry were their paternal grandparents rather than tge aunts, uncles, and family friends you like to imagine. Despite the Earl of Spencer’s claim at Diana Spencer’s funeral that his family would support his nephews, he and his sister, Sarah, did little. The most involved was Diana’s sister, Jane, who was a lady in waiting to the Queen. It was she who arranged the after school visits to the Queen and Prince Philip when William and Harry were at Eton.

You are seeing one side of the family through Harry’s book, but Americans tend to follow the victim mentality, so I am not surprised at your reaction

[Anonymous]

Their royal connection is the base of their brand so even if book and interviews say no contact without an apology, they'll not miss once in a lifetime event like coronation to highlight their brand. We may read about that in his book's sequel or her upcoming book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Their royal connection is the base of their brand so even if book and interviews say no contact without an apology, they'll not miss once in a lifetime event like coronation to highlight their brand. We may read about that in his book's sequel or her upcoming book.

In this case, mostly twice in a lifetime— if the monarchy holds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Their royal connection is the base of their brand so even if book and interviews say no contact without an apology, they'll not miss once in a lifetime event like coronation to highlight their brand. We may read about that in his book's sequel or her upcoming book.

In this case, mostly twice in a lifetime— if the monarchy holds.

Then what will Harry and Meghan do? Their only currency is association with the royal family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You say that you’ve followed the royal family for years. Has it ever occurred to you — for this, or, indeed any family — that the reality might be more complex than what you might see in carefully curated photographs that, for the most part, are intended for public scrutiny?
Again, a general comment: Many people who present themselves as doing “fine” are not.

In contrast to your perceptions, I didn’t find “animosity” in the book — as much as deep pain. I’d guess from what’s NOT in the book that the family might be even more “fractured” than the book suggests. While it may have happened, there’s little mention of extended family members providing buffers and support. It’s hard for me to imagine boarding school for quite young kids and nannies as a norm, with parents in a disintegrating marriage. It’s impossible for me to imagine growing up in the glare of media and public interest on top of that. I hope that Harry and William were whisked away by aunts and uncles and family friends out of the public eye more than we now know.

Why that has occurred to me, but your condescension is noted. Based on your finding of deep pain in a book ghostwritten for a troubled man, you would not have known that the people who did most to alleviate the pain of William and Harry were their paternal grandparents rather than tge aunts, uncles, and family friends you like to imagine. Despite the Earl of Spencer’s claim at Diana Spencer’s funeral that his family would support his nephews, he and his sister, Sarah, did little. The most involved was Diana’s sister, Jane, who was a lady in waiting to the Queen. It was she who arranged the after school visits to the Queen and Prince Philip when William and Harry were at Eton.

You are seeing one side of the family through Harry’s book, but Americans tend to follow the victim mentality, so I am not surprised at your reaction

He specifically called out his mom’s siblings to thank in the acknowledgments but I was surprised there was little to no mention of the roles they played in his life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm still on the library's waitlist, but in an interview, Harry said that for many years, he didn't really believe (or maybe accept?) that his mother was dead. If his coping mechanism was denial for so long, it would make sense to resist therapy. In therapy, he would have been forced to acknowledge the truth, and it sounds like that was too painful for a long.

It also makes sense that Harry would feel this way and not William. They were different ages. There is interesting research on the impact of major events on siblings-- how much it varies based on age and stage of development.

He was denial throughout his teens but neither of them had therapy then. Harry did later and became a big advocate for it. Not clear of William ever did. He certainly hasn’t opened up about it like Harry.

dp And why would William feel the need to open up to you? He was taught to keep his chin up and his thoughts private. We aren't owed anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Their royal connection is the base of their brand so even if book and interviews say no contact without an apology, they'll not miss once in a lifetime event like coronation to highlight their brand. We may read about that in his book's sequel or her upcoming book.

In this case, mostly twice in a lifetime— if the monarchy holds.

Father's coronation would highlight them more than brother's so being a son of person getting coronated is once a lifetime opportunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Their royal connection is the base of their brand so even if book and interviews say no contact without an apology, they'll not miss once in a lifetime event like coronation to highlight their brand. We may read about that in his book's sequel or her upcoming book.

In this case, mostly twice in a lifetime— if the monarchy holds.

Then what will Harry and Meghan do? Their only currency is association with the royal family.

This^.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You say that you’ve followed the royal family for years. Has it ever occurred to you — for this, or, indeed any family — that the reality might be more complex than what you might see in carefully curated photographs that, for the most part, are intended for public scrutiny?
Again, a general comment: Many people who present themselves as doing “fine” are not.

In contrast to your perceptions, I didn’t find “animosity” in the book — as much as deep pain. I’d guess from what’s NOT in the book that the family might be even more “fractured” than the book suggests. While it may have happened, there’s little mention of extended family members providing buffers and support. It’s hard for me to imagine boarding school for quite young kids and nannies as a norm, with parents in a disintegrating marriage. It’s impossible for me to imagine growing up in the glare of media and public interest on top of that. I hope that Harry and William were whisked away by aunts and uncles and family friends out of the public eye more than we now know.

Why that has occurred to me, but your condescension is noted. Based on your finding of deep pain in a book ghostwritten for a troubled man, you would not have known that the people who did most to alleviate the pain of William and Harry were their paternal grandparents rather than tge aunts, uncles, and family friends you like to imagine. Despite the Earl of Spencer’s claim at Diana Spencer’s funeral that his family would support his nephews, he and his sister, Sarah, did little. The most involved was Diana’s sister, Jane, who was a lady in waiting to the Queen. It was she who arranged the after school visits to the Queen and Prince Philip when William and Harry were at Eton.

You are seeing one side of the family through Harry’s book, but Americans tend to follow the victim mentality, so I am not surprised at your reaction

Strange, I didn’t read any of that in the book. Sounds like you must know the family personally. I wonder why you are here on DCUM then. Very odd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Their royal connection is the base of their brand so even if book and interviews say no contact without an apology, they'll not miss once in a lifetime event like coronation to highlight their brand. We may read about that in his book's sequel or her upcoming book.

In this case, mostly twice in a lifetime— if the monarchy holds.

Then what will Harry and Meghan do? Their only currency is association with the royal family.

Even if they are disowned and cut off from the family, they are still part of it. You can’t change the circumstances of your birth. It wouldn’t make one jot of difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Their royal connection is the base of their brand so even if book and interviews say no contact without an apology, they'll not miss once in a lifetime event like coronation to highlight their brand. We may read about that in his book's sequel or her upcoming book.

In this case, mostly twice in a lifetime— if the monarchy holds.

Then what will Harry and Meghan do? Their only currency is association with the royal family.

Even if they are disowned and cut off from the family, they are still part of it. You can’t change the circumstances of your birth. It wouldn’t make one jot of difference.

Yes but attending would bring more media interest which can bring more business deals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Their royal connection is the base of their brand so even if book and interviews say no contact without an apology, they'll not miss once in a lifetime event like coronation to highlight their brand. We may read about that in his book's sequel or her upcoming book.

In this case, mostly twice in a lifetime— if the monarchy holds.

Then what will Harry and Meghan do? Their only currency is association with the royal family.

Even if they are disowned and cut off from the family, they are still part of it. You can’t change the circumstances of your birth. It wouldn’t make one jot of difference.

Yes but attending would bring more media interest which can bring more business deals.

There will be plenty of media attention if they don't attend, also.