Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I read a lot of memoirs and biographies (my favorite genre) and I was really excited about this one after learning it was the same ghostwriter who wrote Andre Agassi’s memoir. Some of my takeaways:
The opening scene with Harry, his father, and William was a bit cringe, but the book gets much better from there. I guess what bothers me is how Harry often approaches his brother so openly and then gets treated with derision time after time, but comes back for more. When he knocked on William’s door to introduce Meghan, I knew that wouldn’t go well at all and I was embarrassed for him. William was so dismissive and standoffish to his little brother wanting to share and be open about his life and have a real connection with the people in his family.
The parts about flying an Apache helicopter were fascinating to me and that’s why I read memoirs - the varied life experiences people have and you never know what information is going to pop up. Same with all of the travel adventures and discovering a new way of seeing the world through his time spent in Africa.
It’s a great memoir - insightful, touching, honest - deals with childhood memories, grief, relationships, work, travel. I believe the book has been slandered in the press so much because they don’t want people to read it and come away with a different perspective than the media has carefully curated.
I agree with all of this, except that I think clearly people don’t believe the Palace spin because it has become a huge bestseller.
I hope he writes a sequel.
I am very close to getting this book from the library so I have not read it yet. But since I am so close, obviously, I have been interested for a while. But I will confess that I was completely put off by the frostbite/Elizabeth Arden disclosure. I assume it's better contextualized in the book and not utterly oedipal and TMI?
If you heard the description of that bit in his interview with Colbert, you’ve heard it all, and Colbert humorously took it a bit farther than Harry did in the book. It IS Oedipal and a bit TMI, but, for me, it read more as goofy-jock-has-an-adventure with unanticipated and extremely inconvenient consequences, rather than as something salacious. And I giggled at learning a new word. I think an editor wanted a funny story to balance out quite a lot of content that’s far from funny. DP
Literally nothing happened to Camilla that has happened to Meghan.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
For a minute. That's it.
Sounds like you missed most of the 1990s.
I was living in England and the age of Diana in the 1990s. I didn't miss anything. Literally nothing happened to Camilla that has happened to Meghan. Nothing. And you can see there's nothing happening now. Nothing about Andrew. Nothing about Anne's adult kids and their respective spouses, nothing about Phillip who went unscathed for his entire marriage, but everything is piled on Meghan.
I thought the leak tapes about Charles wanted to be Camilla’s tampon sure were something. So we’ll have to disagree here.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that so many readers here are taking him at his word.
While I find it interesting that so many people don’t understand what a memoir is — as opposed to a biography. I also find it interesting that so many people are criticizing the book — without having actually read the book. I’m fine with taking Harry at his word. He’s describing his own impressions and experiences, with quite a lot of supporting context, and that’s what I expect from a memoir.
The book is very critical — in an understandable, straightforward, and detailed way — of the British tabloid press. Basing one’s opinion on cherry-picked bits and pieces from the book, particularly if those bits are being manipulated by the tabloids, is doing the book a great disservice.
Very well said.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
For a minute. That's it.
Sounds like you missed most of the 1990s.
I was living in England and the age of Diana in the 1990s. I didn't miss anything. Literally nothing happened to Camilla that has happened to Meghan. Nothing. And you can see there's nothing happening now. Nothing about Andrew. Nothing about Anne's adult kids and their respective spouses, nothing about Phillip who went unscathed for his entire marriage, but everything is piled on Meghan.
Philip certainly didn’t go unscathed - he famously made many gaffes, frequently racist ones. I am British, lived in the UK during the 90s and Camilla was HATED! Zara got a lot of negativity for marrying a rugby player. Anne and her kids for being horsey. Charles for being dumb. Kate was “wait-y Katie”. Chelsy was hounded. Fergie got hate after hate (and don’t forget toe-gate, and Charles “I want to be your tampon”. Meghan is different because of the racism and because it’s now solely on them - perhaps because of a deal or collusion by the Royal press offices . I have no idea why Andrew, a pedophile allegedly has got off so lightly.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:For me, using a ghost writer means a person can't write and express information well.
For me, using a ghostwriter means a busy person chooses to outsource the work to someone else. No judgment.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
For a minute. That's it.
Sounds like you missed most of the 1990s.
I was living in England and the age of Diana in the 1990s. I didn't miss anything. Literally nothing happened to Camilla that has happened to Meghan. Nothing. And you can see there's nothing happening now. Nothing about Andrew. Nothing about Anne's adult kids and their respective spouses, nothing about Phillip who went unscathed for his entire marriage, but everything is piled on Meghan.
Yeah, you definitely missed stuff, honey.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
For a minute. That's it.
Sounds like you missed most of the 1990s.
I was living in England and the age of Diana in the 1990s. I didn't miss anything. Literally nothing happened to Camilla that has happened to Meghan. Nothing. And you can see there's nothing happening now. Nothing about Andrew. Nothing about Anne's adult kids and their respective spouses, nothing about Phillip who went unscathed for his entire marriage, but everything is piled on Meghan.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that so many readers here are taking him at his word.
While I find it interesting that so many people don’t understand what a memoir is — as opposed to a biography. I also find it interesting that so many people are criticizing the book — without having actually read the book. I’m fine with taking Harry at his word. He’s describing his own impressions and experiences, with quite a lot of supporting context, and that’s what I expect from a memoir.
The book is very critical — in an understandable, straightforward, and detailed way — of the British tabloid press. Basing one’s opinion on cherry-picked bits and pieces from the book, particularly if those bits are being manipulated by the tabloids, is doing the book a great disservice.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
For a minute. That's it.
Sounds like you missed most of the 1990s.
I was living in England and the age of Diana in the 1990s. I didn't miss anything. Literally nothing happened to Camilla that has happened to Meghan. Nothing. And you can see there's nothing happening now. Nothing about Andrew. Nothing about Anne's adult kids and their respective spouses, nothing about Phillip who went unscathed for his entire marriage, but everything is piled on Meghan.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I read a lot of memoirs and biographies (my favorite genre) and I was really excited about this one after learning it was the same ghostwriter who wrote Andre Agassi’s memoir. Some of my takeaways:
The opening scene with Harry, his father, and William was a bit cringe, but the book gets much better from there. I guess what bothers me is how Harry often approaches his brother so openly and then gets treated with derision time after time, but comes back for more. When he knocked on William’s door to introduce Meghan, I knew that wouldn’t go well at all and I was embarrassed for him. William was so dismissive and standoffish to his little brother wanting to share and be open about his life and have a real connection with the people in his family.
The parts about flying an Apache helicopter were fascinating to me and that’s why I read memoirs - the varied life experiences people have and you never know what information is going to pop up. Same with all of the travel adventures and discovering a new way of seeing the world through his time spent in Africa.
It’s a great memoir - insightful, touching, honest - deals with childhood memories, grief, relationships, work, travel. I believe the book has been slandered in the press so much because they don’t want people to read it and come away with a different perspective than the media has carefully curated.
I agree with all of this, except that I think clearly people don’t believe the Palace spin because it has become a huge bestseller.
I hope he writes a sequel.
Meghan needs to have her turn first, then he will do a second.
Setting aside all the interesting things that they might do in the future, are there really two more books worth of stuff already left unsaid?
Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that so many readers here are taking him at his word.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I read a lot of memoirs and biographies (my favorite genre) and I was really excited about this one after learning it was the same ghostwriter who wrote Andre Agassi’s memoir. Some of my takeaways:
The opening scene with Harry, his father, and William was a bit cringe, but the book gets much better from there. I guess what bothers me is how Harry often approaches his brother so openly and then gets treated with derision time after time, but comes back for more. When he knocked on William’s door to introduce Meghan, I knew that wouldn’t go well at all and I was embarrassed for him. William was so dismissive and standoffish to his little brother wanting to share and be open about his life and have a real connection with the people in his family.
The parts about flying an Apache helicopter were fascinating to me and that’s why I read memoirs - the varied life experiences people have and you never know what information is going to pop up. Same with all of the travel adventures and discovering a new way of seeing the world through his time spent in Africa.
It’s a great memoir - insightful, touching, honest - deals with childhood memories, grief, relationships, work, travel. I believe the book has been slandered in the press so much because they don’t want people to read it and come away with a different perspective than the media has carefully curated.
I agree with all of this, except that I think clearly people don’t believe the Palace spin because it has become a huge bestseller.
I hope he writes a sequel.
I am very close to getting this book from the library so I have not read it yet. But since I am so close, obviously, I have been interested for a while. But I will confess that I was completely put off by the frostbite/Elizabeth Arden disclosure. I assume it's better contextualized in the book and not utterly oedipal and TMI?