Prince Harry’s book

[Anonymous]

I'm sure other royals were aware of how Sussexs were taking notes, pics, voice recordings and videos to use in their books, documentaries, interviews, podcasts etc. and felt uncomfortable and kept their guards up as precaution. Time proved them right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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"?

He should've but he only seems to understand problems of his mom and wife. He can't relate to what media scrutiny and humiliation young Kate endured since she met William. Only reason she came out strong is her model behavior since she joined royal family.

[Anonymous]

It's condescending AF to tell someone you aren't that close with, who is as much a co-worker as anything else, that they have "baby brain". It's not some cutesy American thing women all say to each other. Especially from someone who doesn't even have kids. A friend might say it to another friend, who are both mothers, when one can't decide what to eat for dinner or some other trivial thing. Otherwise, it's rude and inappropriate.

[Anonymous]

To be fair, royal firm probably choreographs and uses their connections to highlight Kate's positives (its beneficial for the business)but in this day and age, hiding obvious flaws and mistakes wouldn't be so easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's condescending AF to tell someone you aren't that close with, who is as much a co-worker as anything else, that they have "baby brain". It's not some cutesy American thing women all say to each other. Especially from someone who doesn't even have kids. A friend might say it to another friend, who are both mothers, when one can't decide what to eat for dinner or some other trivial thing. Otherwise, it's rude and inappropriate.

It is reasonable to assume that your relationship with your soon-to-be SIL is on a different level than a coworker. Yet, even with co-workers, it wouldn't be unreasonable, condescending or rude to excuse a lapse by attributing it to baby-brain. Presumabley, there is some friendliness and goodwill between coworkers. What the incident highlighted is how very wrong that assumption was for the family Meghan was joining.

[Anonymous]

I guess anyone would feel upset if its your fault and they are only apologizing because they are polite and don't want to be blamed for upsetting the bridezella.

[Anonymous]

In some ways royal lives are like never ending day time soap operas, we assume many things and see characters in that light.

[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.

Not sure why you responded to my post as nothing you wrote has anything to do with what I wrote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's condescending AF to tell someone you aren't that close with, who is as much a co-worker as anything else, that they have "baby brain". It's not some cutesy American thing women all say to each other. Especially from someone who doesn't even have kids. A friend might say it to another friend, who are both mothers, when one can't decide what to eat for dinner or some other trivial thing. Otherwise, it's rude and inappropriate.

It is reasonable to assume that your relationship with your soon-to-be SIL is on a different level than a coworker. Yet, even with co-workers, it wouldn't be unreasonable, condescending or rude to excuse a lapse by attributing it to baby-brain. Presumabley, there is some friendliness and goodwill between coworkers. What the incident highlighted is how very wrong that assumption was for the family Meghan was joining.

They weren't friends, that was well established earlier. Go on and try saying that BS to someone at work, see what happens. You're aren't going to get high five when you say that to your boss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This was an analysis I read in Hello magazine. I am not as clever as you in diagnosing someone from a comment made on an anonymous mommy forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure other royals were aware of how Sussexs were taking notes, pics, voice recordings and videos to use in their books, documentaries, interviews, podcasts etc. and felt uncomfortable and kept their guards up as precaution. Time proved them right.

+1 And I would continue to keep my guard up. Smile, nod, engage in friendly unimportant conversation. Move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not sure why you responded to my post as nothing you wrote has anything to do with what I wrote.

Apologies. I thought you were referencing the Zeynep Tufecki piece in the NYT about Meghan Markle and Prince Harry being hounded by the British press and their resulting trauma.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems fairly obvious that he was regarded as a satellite of Wm & Kate and when he got his own wife he wanted to be center of gravity in his new family, and wanted to level up to a level of respect and adulting that he’d never had. There was resistance but the royals treated the couple amazingly well w jewelry, trips, special engagements, big budgets, and a new house with renovations all to make them feel not less than. But they just could not take being suborn in any way, so the split and have been throwing a look-at-me tantrum ever since.

As demonstrated by Prince Harry's needless trip to London this week to test the waters for the Coronation. He has managed to survive for three days without the Met special protection unit and staying in a hotel. No one has accosted him nor has he caused much of a stir the two days he appeared at the Courts. If they wish to do so, Harry and Meghan should be able to attend the Coronation in the same manner as the Jubilee and the Queen's mother. In and out of the country in a day or two with no special consideration and attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imho moving away was the right move. It opened up lots of opportunities and they no longer have to abide by royal constraints while still able to use their royal status to their advantage. Wealthy and influential people in Hollywood tripped over each other to give them favors. I think there is some truth to some powers hoping for them to run for White House.

You believe in a lot of conspiracy theories also, don't you?

This one makes some sense.

That a foreign born prince can run for president? Ok.

His wife can, he'll make a great First Princely Gentleman with lots of global connections. Power duo.

It has to be Meghan. The only people of color who have risen to national office are not fully African Americans: Obama had a black African father and a white American mother; Harris has a black Jamaican father, and a brown Indian mother; Meghan has a white American father and a black American mother. With the Hispanic population tracking to be the majority in the US by the middle of the Century, there are only a few more chances for Meghan to be elected to the presidency. During the eight years following Biden, she will continue to position herself for national office. I suspect she will win a congressional seat in two years and then spring that into a run for the presidency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is intelligent, educated, has confidence and social skills, active in environmental, social justice and non-profit scenes. Being biracial is a positive as well.

And loved by all...

Especially the people in her duchy.

If she runs for political office, she will have to give up being the duchess of the duchy. And a big fat income from her loyal subjects.