Prince Harry’s book

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m just about done with the book and what strikes me is a) how much he resents William and b)how little grace he accords to Kate, as he doesn’t seem to see that she’s also in defensive/abuse survivor mode after she was subject to the same things as Meghan and Diana. If she really complains that Meghan was out of line for mentioning her hormones because “we don’t know each other well enough to mention hormones” that poor woman is terrified of opening up to anyone in case someone finds out something. She’s insecure as well.

That's a really interesting idea. I think, no matter how you look at it, there's a lot of dysfunction going on. It'll be interesting to see how Kate's kids turn out. At first glance, they benefit from having 'normal' maternal family members. But, I have to wonder how normal they are if they're so supportive of Kate living in the environment she is and raising kids in it.

Kate is a grown woman who has loved William since she was a teen so what her family can do here? She didn't have an arranged marriage nor was ignorant of his family dynamics and clearly wants to be where she is.

So, then, you don't buy the 1st PPs take that Harry should have accorded Kate some grace since "she's also in defensive/abuse survivor mode after she was subject to the same things as Meghan and Diana"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Its almost stupid how much this family fascinates us ex-colonial subjects.

If you are not interested why are YOU here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is all down to Will and actually Kate. Deep seated resentment towards Meghan and it got out of hand.

The biggest reveal is their dinner where Meghan was told she was inappropriate to Kate when she said " It's fine, it is baby brain."

"We aren't close enough to talk about my hormones. "
(What?)

She didn't know how to compete with Meghan in the shared limelight. William really has a thing where he is pretty petty when it comes to Harry. He has to be in charge.

Secondly, Meghan encouraged Harry to get therapy which is really too much for this group. They accused her of brainwashing him.

Dp. What Meghan said was wrong and rude to Kate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is all down to Will and actually Kate. Deep seated resentment towards Meghan and it got out of hand.

The biggest reveal is their dinner where Meghan was told she was inappropriate to Kate when she said " It's fine, it is baby brain."

"We aren't close enough to talk about my hormones. "
(What?)

She didn't know how to compete with Meghan in the shared limelight. William really has a thing where he is pretty petty when it comes to Harry. He has to be in charge.

Secondly, Meghan encouraged Harry to get therapy which is really too much for this group. They accused her of brainwashing him.

Dp. What Meghan said was wrong and rude to Kate.

DDP: I disagree. I don’t think it was a rude thing to say. I do think it’s the kind of comforting thing that many Americans would say to a friend. And Kate made it clear that she didn’t view them as friends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its almost stupid how much this family fascinates us ex-colonial subjects.

If you are not interested why are YOU here?

I was talking about myself too, that's why I wrote "us", not "you".

[Anonymous]

Zeynep Tufekci wrote a piece in January about Harry’s book (and my apologies if this has already been posted). She eloquently proves the main point of Harry’s book: the royal family is in league with the tabloids and feeds them stories and lies in order to get clicks. I have not yet read Harry’s book so I don’t know if he makes the point that this trade off means that other negative stories about the royals (all of which, if you know the rumors, you know what I’m talking about) are kept out of the press.

Tufkeci is a professor at Columbia who makes the point that the organized press aggression against Harry and Meghan echoes other organized campaigns: for Brexit, the Obama birther story, etc. She, not a celebrity gossip hound, made the discovery in researching for this article that Meghan and Harry were ridiculously, relentlessly hounded. It may be in the comments but she talks about how many thousands of articles the British tabloid press wrote about Harry and Meghan after they had stepped away.

Anyway my takeaway is that she makes the point that our opinions are being managed in an organized campaign and many are swallowing the message without actual thought or consideration.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/25/opinion/harry-meghan-tabloids.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its almost stupid how much this family fascinates us ex-colonial subjects.

If you are not interested why are YOU here?

It doesn’t sound like they’re uninterested, just that they’re observing how the royals seem to fascinate Americans out of proportion to how much they matter to us. I’ve realized that it’s like a distant relation about whom a person can gossip and be shocked because they’re familiar but not really family. (And I feel like I have to say it explicitly: I do not feel like I am related to the British royal family in any sense of the word, I am using metaphor here).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Zeynep Tufekci wrote a piece in January about Harry’s book (and my apologies if this has already been posted). She eloquently proves the main point of Harry’s book: the royal family is in league with the tabloids and feeds them stories and lies in order to get clicks. I have not yet read Harry’s book so I don’t know if he makes the point that this trade off means that other negative stories about the royals (all of which, if you know the rumors, you know what I’m talking about) are kept out of the press.

Tufkeci is a professor at Columbia who makes the point that the organized press aggression against Harry and Meghan echoes other organized campaigns: for Brexit, the Obama birther story, etc. She, not a celebrity gossip hound, made the discovery in researching for this article that Meghan and Harry were ridiculously, relentlessly hounded. It may be in the comments but she talks about how many thousands of articles the British tabloid press wrote about Harry and Meghan after they had stepped away.

Anyway my takeaway is that she makes the point that our opinions are being managed in an organized campaign and many are swallowing the message without actual thought or consideration.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/25/opinion/harry-meghan-tabloids.html

JD Moehringer, the ghostwriter for “Spare,” was chosen because of his troubled relationship with his father

Anderson Cooper was selected for his interview with Harry because he writes od being greatly affected by his brother’s suicide at a young age.

Dr Gabor Mate was selected for his intimate conversation with Harry because of his trauma caused by his mother leaving him as a baby with a relative so that he would not be killed in the Holocaust

Zeynep Tufecki was selected to write the NYT fluff piece because she was raised in poverty by a single mother who deserted her

The common theme is the trauma caused by families.

I suppose it is nice that Americans focus attention on someone of Harry’s sort

As for me, I awaiting for the description of the damage caused to Harry’s family members, friends, and employees whom he has trashed in the last four years. No need for Meghan to write about the harm done to her family. Naming her daughter after two white aristocratic women from families that she claimed oppressed her kinfolk rather than the many women in her black and white family clearly means the merchandising opportunities are more important than either her family or Harry’s family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is all down to Will and actually Kate. Deep seated resentment towards Meghan and it got out of hand.

The biggest reveal is their dinner where Meghan was told she was inappropriate to Kate when she said " It's fine, it is baby brain."

"We aren't close enough to talk about my hormones. "
(What?)

She didn't know how to compete with Meghan in the shared limelight. William really has a thing where he is pretty petty when it comes to Harry. He has to be in charge.

Secondly, Meghan encouraged Harry to get therapy which is really too much for this group. They accused her of brainwashing him.

Dp. What Meghan said was wrong and rude to Kate.

DDP: I disagree. I don’t think it was a rude thing to say. I do think it’s the kind of comforting thing that many Americans would say to a friend. And Kate made it clear that she didn’t view them as friends.

I think it's super rude. It's offensive to moms. Especially coming from someone without kids yet. It's the kind of thing I would say about myself but would not want others saying about me. Esp if they were not a very close friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zeynep Tufekci wrote a piece in January about Harry’s book (and my apologies if this has already been posted). She eloquently proves the main point of Harry’s book: the royal family is in league with the tabloids and feeds them stories and lies in order to get clicks. I have not yet read Harry’s book so I don’t know if he makes the point that this trade off means that other negative stories about the royals (all of which, if you know the rumors, you know what I’m talking about) are kept out of the press.

Tufkeci is a professor at Columbia who makes the point that the organized press aggression against Harry and Meghan echoes other organized campaigns: for Brexit, the Obama birther story, etc. She, not a celebrity gossip hound, made the discovery in researching for this article that Meghan and Harry were ridiculously, relentlessly hounded. It may be in the comments but she talks about how many thousands of articles the British tabloid press wrote about Harry and Meghan after they had stepped away.

Anyway my takeaway is that she makes the point that our opinions are being managed in an organized campaign and many are swallowing the message without actual thought or consideration.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/25/opinion/harry-meghan-tabloids.html

JD Moehringer, the ghostwriter for “Spare,” was chosen because of his troubled relationship with his father

Anderson Cooper was selected for his interview with Harry because he writes od being greatly affected by his brother’s suicide at a young age.

Dr Gabor Mate was selected for his intimate conversation with Harry because of his trauma caused by his mother leaving him as a baby with a relative so that he would not be killed in the Holocaust

Zeynep Tufecki was selected to write the NYT fluff piece because she was raised in poverty by a single mother who deserted her

The common theme is the trauma caused by families.

I suppose it is nice that Americans focus attention on someone of Harry’s sort

As for me, I awaiting for the description of the damage caused to Harry’s family members, friends, and employees whom he has trashed in the last four years. No need for Meghan to write about the harm done to her family. Naming her daughter after two white aristocratic women from families that she claimed oppressed her kinfolk rather than the many women in her black and white family clearly means the merchandising opportunities are more important than either her family or Harry’s family.

Sounds like you have your own trauma.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Zeynep Tufekci wrote a piece in January about Harry’s book (and my apologies if this has already been posted). She eloquently proves the main point of Harry’s book: the royal family is in league with the tabloids and feeds them stories and lies in order to get clicks. I have not yet read Harry’s book so I don’t know if he makes the point that this trade off means that other negative stories about the royals (all of which, if you know the rumors, you know what I’m talking about) are kept out of the press.

Tufkeci is a professor at Columbia who makes the point that the organized press aggression against Harry and Meghan echoes other organized campaigns: for Brexit, the Obama birther story, etc. She, not a celebrity gossip hound, made the discovery in researching for this article that Meghan and Harry were ridiculously, relentlessly hounded. It may be in the comments but she talks about how many thousands of articles the British tabloid press wrote about Harry and Meghan after they had stepped away.

Anyway my takeaway is that she makes the point that our opinions are being managed in an organized campaign and many are swallowing the message without actual thought or consideration.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/25/opinion/harry-meghan-tabloids.html

This theme is echoed in the book as well. I think all of us can identify at least several other examples - Pizzagate, Benghazi, Hunter Biden's laptop, The Big Steal, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zeynep Tufekci wrote a piece in January about Harry’s book (and my apologies if this has already been posted). She eloquently proves the main point of Harry’s book: the royal family is in league with the tabloids and feeds them stories and lies in order to get clicks. I have not yet read Harry’s book so I don’t know if he makes the point that this trade off means that other negative stories about the royals (all of which, if you know the rumors, you know what I’m talking about) are kept out of the press.

Tufkeci is a professor at Columbia who makes the point that the organized press aggression against Harry and Meghan echoes other organized campaigns: for Brexit, the Obama birther story, etc. She, not a celebrity gossip hound, made the discovery in researching for this article that Meghan and Harry were ridiculously, relentlessly hounded. It may be in the comments but she talks about how many thousands of articles the British tabloid press wrote about Harry and Meghan after they had stepped away.

Anyway my takeaway is that she makes the point that our opinions are being managed in an organized campaign and many are swallowing the message without actual thought or consideration.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/25/opinion/harry-meghan-tabloids.html

JD Moehringer, the ghostwriter for “Spare,” was chosen because of his troubled relationship with his father

Anderson Cooper was selected for his interview with Harry because he writes od being greatly affected by his brother’s suicide at a young age.

Dr Gabor Mate was selected for his intimate conversation with Harry because of his trauma caused by his mother leaving him as a baby with a relative so that he would not be killed in the Holocaust

Zeynep Tufecki was selected to write the NYT fluff piece because she was raised in poverty by a single mother who deserted her

The common theme is the trauma caused by families.

I suppose it is nice that Americans focus attention on someone of Harry’s sort

As for me, I awaiting for the description of the damage caused to Harry’s family members, friends, and employees whom he has trashed in the last four years. No need for Meghan to write about the harm done to her family. Naming her daughter after two white aristocratic women from families that she claimed oppressed her kinfolk rather than the many women in her black and white family clearly means the merchandising opportunities are more important than either her family or Harry’s family.

I’m genuinely curious— since that’s not my take on the book — what exactly do you view as damage and trash? Do you view Charles’s book with Dimbleby similarly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is all down to Will and actually Kate. Deep seated resentment towards Meghan and it got out of hand.

The biggest reveal is their dinner where Meghan was told she was inappropriate to Kate when she said " It's fine, it is baby brain."

"We aren't close enough to talk about my hormones. "
(What?)

She didn't know how to compete with Meghan in the shared limelight. William really has a thing where he is pretty petty when it comes to Harry. He has to be in charge.

Secondly, Meghan encouraged Harry to get therapy which is really too much for this group. They accused her of brainwashing him.

Dp. What Meghan said was wrong and rude to Kate.

Different strokes for different folks. I know I e told someone “don’t worry about it. You have baby mush brain right now. Don’t be so hard on yourself.” Frankly I don’t think I was being rude, but comforting. I was making an excuse for their behavior under strenuous circumstances. Dealing with a newborn is strenuous mentally and emotionally. And IMO, we as women act differently and our brains are full of fog during this period in our lives. Meghan was too American and too open, too familiar when Kate the Brit was having none of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is all down to Will and actually Kate. Deep seated resentment towards Meghan and it got out of hand.

The biggest reveal is their dinner where Meghan was told she was inappropriate to Kate when she said " It's fine, it is baby brain."

"We aren't close enough to talk about my hormones. "
(What?)

She didn't know how to compete with Meghan in the shared limelight. William really has a thing where he is pretty petty when it comes to Harry. He has to be in charge.

Secondly, Meghan encouraged Harry to get therapy which is really too much for this group. They accused her of brainwashing him.

Dp. What Meghan said was wrong and rude to Kate.

DDP: I disagree. I don’t think it was a rude thing to say. I do think it’s the kind of comforting thing that many Americans would say to a friend. And Kate made it clear that she didn’t view them as friends.

I think it's super rude. It's offensive to moms. Especially coming from someone without kids yet. It's the kind of thing I would say about myself but would not want others saying about me. Esp if they were not a very close friend.

Super! Are you 12.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is all down to Will and actually Kate. Deep seated resentment towards Meghan and it got out of hand.

The biggest reveal is their dinner where Meghan was told she was inappropriate to Kate when she said " It's fine, it is baby brain."

"We aren't close enough to talk about my hormones. "
(What?)

She didn't know how to compete with Meghan in the shared limelight. William really has a thing where he is pretty petty when it comes to Harry. He has to be in charge.

Secondly, Meghan encouraged Harry to get therapy which is really too much for this group. They accused her of brainwashing him.

Dp. What Meghan said was wrong and rude to Kate.

Different strokes for different folks. I know I e told someone “don’t worry about it. You have baby mush brain right now. Don’t be so hard on yourself.” Frankly I don’t think I was being rude, but comforting. I was making an excuse for their behavior under strenuous circumstances. Dealing with a newborn is strenuous mentally and emotionally. And IMO, we as women act differently and our brains are full of fog during this period in our lives. Meghan was too American and too open, too familiar when Kate the Brit was having none of it.

It means every interaction with Kate had to be uncomfortable. As much as people say Meghan should have known what she was getting in to, she probably never expected Kate to attack her.