Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did he have to tarnish his brothers wedding making it about him putting Elizabeth Arden on his thingy and thinking of his mum doing it. So much to unpack there. Can't a bride and groom have their day. Reminds me of their pregnancy announcement clouding Princess Eugenie's wedding.

and, this made me wonder why a single autobiography about a royal figure needed this kind of filler. aren't there so many other bits to tell

Because this has nothing to do with the wedding. And it makes his story human, like a funny anecdote that anyone would laugh at by any one else. You can't have it both ways- having him apart from the royal pageantry but certsinlt not human like anyone else (?)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is such a whining attention seeker

Funny. no one says that about Diana. She is, instead, a martyr.
Secondly, there's no bad press about the other royals. Not Anne who left her husband, not her kids, and really low key reporting on Andrew with the Epstein case, nothing about Camilla, nothing about Beatrice's husband and his divorce- just passing references. They've been after Meghan like swarms of bees.

Throw in Charles who spent quite a bit of time collaborating with Dimbleby on his biography— and was quite critical of his parents and his upbringing. Nope. No whining or attention seeking there …. apparently.

True. And apparently he can throw temper tantrums in public and still it's Harry that's whiney?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is such a whining attention seeker

Funny. no one says that about Diana. She is, instead, a martyr.
Secondly, there's no bad press about the other royals. Not Anne who left her husband, not her kids, and really low key reporting on Andrew with the Epstein case, nothing about Camilla, nothing about Beatrice's husband and his divorce- just passing references. They've been after Meghan like swarms of bees.

The ours used to say that about Diana all the time. And Camilla was roped to pieces for being a horse face marriage wrecker.

For a minute. That's it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is such a whining attention seeker

Funny. no one says that about Diana. She is, instead, a martyr.
Secondly, there's no bad press about the other royals. Not Anne who left her husband, not her kids, and really low key reporting on Andrew with the Epstein case, nothing about Camilla, nothing about Beatrice's husband and his divorce- just passing references. They've been after Meghan like swarms of bees.

The ours used to say that about Diana all the time. And Camilla was roped to pieces for being a horse face marriage wrecker.

Sorry for the typos. Was meant to say “press” not “ours”. And ripped not roped.

Yes, you see until it had no merit and the truth about what she said about the situation became clear. Camilla's ragging stopped immediately upon the marriage. Diana is now the martyr and Camilla is now the "true love." So, Harry is correct. It's all an internal algorithm of sorts. He and Meghan are the scapegoats, and interestingly enough it all happened while Andrew was going through his Epstein issues, which got " some" play but not nearly to what H and M are getting. Andrew never had to go to court,he settled with monarchy $$, and now, watch, he'll be back in royal line within a year. It's a zero sum game.

Anonymous wrote:Writing a book about your family, for anyone, is always a horrible idea. The end of all your relationships. Accolades from readers/reviews will not matter, will never matter enough. Not compared to what the author has lost. By publishing, they have done the most intense, self destructive act possible.

Eh. Depends on the family. If your family is abusive, neglectful, or otherwise dysfunctional, ending some relationships, and shining light on your experiences might, if nothing else, provide critical support for the next generation. “What the author has lost” might well be the healthiest of the available options out there.

On the other side, the Obamas and their books seem to be doing fine. My guess is that it’s not about the accolades for many, as much as it is shining the light of day on their experiences.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is such a whining attention seeker

Funny. no one says that about Diana. She is, instead, a martyr.
Secondly, there's no bad press about the other royals. Not Anne who left her husband, not her kids, and really low key reporting on Andrew with the Epstein case, nothing about Camilla, nothing about Beatrice's husband and his divorce- just passing references. They've been after Meghan like swarms of bees.

The ours used to say that about Diana all the time. And Camilla was roped to pieces for being a horse face marriage wrecker.

Sorry for the typos. Was meant to say “press” not “ours”. And ripped not roped.

Writing a book about your family, for anyone, is always a horrible idea. The end of all your relationships. Accolades from readers/reviews will not matter, will never matter enough. Not compared to what the author has lost. By publishing, they have done the most intense, self destructive act possible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is such a whining attention seeker

Funny. no one says that about Diana. She is, instead, a martyr.
Secondly, there's no bad press about the other royals. Not Anne who left her husband, not her kids, and really low key reporting on Andrew with the Epstein case, nothing about Camilla, nothing about Beatrice's husband and his divorce- just passing references. They've been after Meghan like swarms of bees.

The “no bad press about other royals” is the reason I don’t believe Harry’s claim that other members of the family place stories about each other in the press to make themselves look better.

If you believe there is no bad press about the other royals then you’ve been asleep. Or are unfamiliar with the British press.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is such a whining attention seeker

Funny. no one says that about Diana. She is, instead, a martyr.
Secondly, there's no bad press about the other royals. Not Anne who left her husband, not her kids, and really low key reporting on Andrew with the Epstein case, nothing about Camilla, nothing about Beatrice's husband and his divorce- just passing references. They've been after Meghan like swarms of bees.

The ours used to say that about Diana all the time. And Camilla was roped to pieces for being a horse face marriage wrecker.

If nothing else, I appreciate Harry and Meghan the same way I appreciate the Kardashians. I can point to someone I DON'T want my children to be like

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did he have to tarnish his brothers wedding making it about him putting Elizabeth Arden on his thingy and thinking of his mum doing it. So much to unpack there. Can't a bride and groom have their day. Reminds me of their pregnancy announcement clouding Princess Eugenie's wedding.

and, this made me wonder why a single autobiography about a royal figure needed this kind of filler. aren't there so many other bits to tell

William will have to write his own memoirs!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is such a whining attention seeker

Funny. no one says that about Diana. She is, instead, a martyr.
Secondly, there's no bad press about the other royals. Not Anne who left her husband, not her kids, and really low key reporting on Andrew with the Epstein case, nothing about Camilla, nothing about Beatrice's husband and his divorce- just passing references. They've been after Meghan like swarms of bees.

Throw in Charles who spent quite a bit of time collaborating with Dimbleby on his biography— and was quite critical of his parents and his upbringing. Nope. No whining or attention seeking there …. apparently.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did he have to tarnish his brothers wedding making it about him putting Elizabeth Arden on his thingy and thinking of his mum doing it. So much to unpack there. Can't a bride and groom have their day. Reminds me of their pregnancy announcement clouding Princess Eugenie's wedding.

and, this made me wonder why a single autobiography about a royal figure needed this kind of filler. aren't there so many other bits to tell

Of course there are. Harry deliberately focused on his own experiences and his own development and growth — not the history of the British Royal Family, and not events that primarily involved other people, even as they impacted him. The 400 pages that he chose not to include in the book, as well as the stuff that he discussed with Moehringer for context and background are probably quite powerful.

I don’t think the book has a lot of filler — at least based on my quick reading of it. There was too much military stuff for my taste, just as I’m sure that the descriptions of palace decor that I enjoyed might have not been what other readers enjoyed. I think there are aspects of the book that will appeal to many readers, especially those who are psychology-minded.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the first book I’ve read in a long time (maybe years). I really enjoyed it and read it in two days.

That's sad. So many amazing books out there.

No it’s not. I’m quite happy, thanks. And have read many thousands of books in my life.

Anonymous wrote:It’s the first book I’ve read in a long time (maybe years). I really enjoyed it and read it in two days.

That's sad. So many amazing books out there.