Anonymous wrote:I have no dog in the fight and could care less about the royals but bought the book because I work with survivors of abuse and from the tidbits I knew, I really felt empathy for Harry. It’s clear to me that Harry was emotionally abused and gaslit his entire life, traumatized from the loss of his mother and his inability to have his own narrative .. and now he has taken his power back by using his voice. It may seem extreme to some, but when you’ve been silenced by a machine that is only about appearances your whole life then this is the repercussion of that. He says all he wants is accountability from the people that hurt him but all they did was call him paranoid and delusional. That’s not how you repair relationships and clearly the monarchy cares more about their image than anything else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m surprised he included the story about mocking the physically disabled matron at his school. He described her body type and said she didn’t make the boys “horny”.

Disgusting. Did I miss any context or nuance or is he really just a run-of-the-mill misogynist?

Yes, you missed the point of the anecdote. It acknowledges the unkindness in retrospect but said that as a kid he didn’t really think of it in terms of its impact on Pat, that he was trying to make his friends laugh and find a reason himself to laugh when he was still so deep in grief about his mothers death. At the end of the anecdote he notes that even Pat would laugh at him when she turned around and caught him, which he said made him feel good that he could even make the other humorless (in his estimation) Pat laugh. It also acknowledges that, for as strict and harsh as she was with the boys generally, Pat actually was probably a pretty compassionate and empathetic person because she seemed to understand what Harry was going through and laugh with him rather than punishing him, even though she would have been fully within her rights to do so.

I have not yet read the book (DP here) but I wonder if Harry acknowledges the weird power dynamics of his interactions with adults outside the royal family when he was a child, though? Like sure, normally a school official would be within her rights to punish a student for this behavior. And while I'm sure the school was full of extremely privileged students with powerful parents, Harry (and William) would be on an entirely different level.

It would be a weird thing to experience and no one would blame Harry for not really understanding it at that age, especially given what he was going through personally at the time. But I'm wondering if he understands now, on some level, the degree to which his position affords him power when dealing with people outside his family, whether he wants that power or not. Even in the military with chains of command, there is an unusual power dynamic when it comes to him.

I do wonder if that is a huge part of the appeal of Meghan, actually. As a foreigner and someone who was very secure in her own career and life before meeting him, she may be the rare person he's encountered who never offered him that subliminal deference he's likely become accustomed to. Yet unlike his family, she also seemed to like him and care about his feelings and well being. That's a healthy and normal relationship dynamic, but possibly one he's never experienced in his life, even with very close friends or other girlfriends. I can see how it would cause a crisis of sorts. Like oh, I can just interact with someone as a true equal, and it can be mutually respectful AND supportive, and actually that feels great? Then what the heck are we doing?

At least that's my read. But I wonder if Harry understands that his royal status, that the existence of royal status, is the problem, not just for him, but for everyone he's ever interacted with outside the royal family. I would assume he is too fearful to contemplate what it would mean to just say "the concept of royalty is a morally bankrupt one and while it affords me a lot of privilege, it's actually a prison we'd all benefit from being free of." Which is too bad, if understandable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You gave the 1 or 15 minute examples of criticism of each of the above, but it was not world wide condemnation for any. Kate is chronicalled as perfect on a daily basis, her family beyond reproach, Fergie still lives with Andrew, she is beloved by Brits. No mention of Anne's son's divorce to speak of other than a day's worth. Phillip's affairs have never been brought to the papers, only alluded to in various documentations. He nearly killed someone driving around a few years before he was too sick. His gaffes were only the butt of jokes. Charles and Camilla are King and Queen now. Andrew is ever present and will return to royal standing. Why wasn't he raked over the coals? That was the information trade off... that Harry implied.
Harry and Meghan-called narcissistic, whiney, attention seeking, ungrateful, unhinged, power seeking, dangerous- for years. One doesn't even need to read the book to understand.

As I actually lived through this in the UK and understand the tabloids, I could give many more examples but there isn’t time. No Fergie is not beloved, far from it. No Phillips gaffes were not only jokes. Yes, things have changed now. They generally get more positive coverage and Megan doesn’t. But you must have been asleep if you missed all the anger and negativity directed at Kate, for example.

Duchess of Pork, Kate’s middle class background. The Brits pay taxes for a family to live in opulence. There are a lot of feelings about that including, from some, hateful resentment. If Harry took the stance of wanting to abolish the monarchy he may get more support than wanting to keep it but improve the experience of the siblings living within it

Again, those were temporary and not all encompassing. There was never hatred toward Kate. A couple of shots about her college modeling outfit, really nothing. The family's aspirations were in some question, she was called " waity Katy"...they didn't even continue in a deep dive about sketchy uncle. Her parents were literally flight crew employees before opening an online store, and got relatively no harraasment. Come on.

They were one off comments, all remediated by the time these folks were solidly in their position. They were and are still going for Meghan's jugular. Reading comprehension is still an issue here, I see. It was nothing like what happened to Meghan- not comparable at all.

You seem to be falling prey to a strong cognitive bias. There has been a ton of positive press about Meghan and a ton of negative press about Kate - you dismiss all of that because it doesn't fit your narrative and perspective. Just because you have decided to ignore and minimize the positive press about Meghan and the negative press about Kate, it doesn't change the reality. Just like if you disagreed / ignored all the positive benefits of the vaccine and only focused on possible adverse events - again as many people do because it fits their bias. Everyone is a bit biased but when you start to get as lopsided as you are, it is time to reconsider and find out facts.

You'll have to provide actual sources. I only saw the most benign silly stuff out of any British tabloid about Kate. Meghan? Lies, lies and more lies. Interviews with her half siblings, setting her father up, unbelievable amount of racism.
Go ahead and give examples of how Kate experienced the same.
.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I did say there was nothing at all. I said it wasn't eventful enough or long lasting enough to change anything or make a difference. I said the comparison of their treatment paled in comparison to Harry and Meghan. And, we know that the monarchy puts the kabosh on anything going to far in the press. Hence, the problem Harry is writing about. There was nothing happening like that for them. They were not protected.

I don’t disagree with what you say about Harry but it is absolutely false to say it wasn’t eventful. Most of the 90s was full of negative coverage of the Royal family. The tampon stuff wasn’t a blip. It was massive news. For months or years. As was all of the speciation about Charles and Diana’s relationship king before they actually split.

By 1990s, you mean pre internet. And that's a biiig difference. No, it wasn't comparable at all. They were sent up in sketches, etc. , pictures of them with captions. Really. It's like a bow and arrows compared to a nuclear bomb.

You don’t understand the British tabloids. The 90s were their heyday. You know they literally hacked phones don’t you? Tracked cars? Bribed police? It’s all proven.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You gave the 1 or 15 minute examples of criticism of each of the above, but it was not world wide condemnation for any. Kate is chronicalled as perfect on a daily basis, her family beyond reproach, Fergie still lives with Andrew, she is beloved by Brits. No mention of Anne's son's divorce to speak of other than a day's worth. Phillip's affairs have never been brought to the papers, only alluded to in various documentations. He nearly killed someone driving around a few years before he was too sick. His gaffes were only the butt of jokes. Charles and Camilla are King and Queen now. Andrew is ever present and will return to royal standing. Why wasn't he raked over the coals? That was the information trade off... that Harry implied.
Harry and Meghan-called narcissistic, whiney, attention seeking, ungrateful, unhinged, power seeking, dangerous- for years. One doesn't even need to read the book to understand.

As I actually lived through this in the UK and understand the tabloids, I could give many more examples but there isn’t time. No Fergie is not beloved, far from it. No Phillips gaffes were not only jokes. Yes, things have changed now. They generally get more positive coverage and Megan doesn’t. But you must have been asleep if you missed all the anger and negativity directed at Kate, for example.

Duchess of Pork, Kate’s middle class background. The Brits pay taxes for a family to live in opulence. There are a lot of feelings about that including, from some, hateful resentment. If Harry took the stance of wanting to abolish the monarchy he may get more support than wanting to keep it but improve the experience of the siblings living within it

Again, those were temporary and not all encompassing. There was never hatred toward Kate. A couple of shots about her college modeling outfit, really nothing. The family's aspirations were in some question, she was called " waity Katy"...they didn't even continue in a deep dive about sketchy uncle. Her parents were literally flight crew employees before opening an online store, and got relatively no harraasment. Come on.

They were one off comments, all remediated by the time these folks were solidly in their position. They were and are still going for Meghan's jugular. Reading comprehension is still an issue here, I see. It was nothing like what happened to Meghan- not comparable at all.

You seem to be falling prey to a strong cognitive bias. There has been a ton of positive press about Meghan and a ton of negative press about Kate - you dismiss all of that because it doesn't fit your narrative and perspective. Just because you have decided to ignore and minimize the positive press about Meghan and the negative press about Kate, it doesn't change the reality. Just like if you disagreed / ignored all the positive benefits of the vaccine and only focused on possible adverse events - again as many people do because it fits their bias. Everyone is a bit biased but when you start to get as lopsided as you are, it is time to reconsider and find out facts.

Anonymous wrote:I suspect most people's opinions are already set before reading the book and didn't change afterwards.

I did grow up in the 1990s. I remember extensive coverage of all royal scandals major and minor. It started in the late 1980s. Meghan's coverage when married to Harry was mild compared to the flak that a number of royals got. Fergie was devoured by the press. So was Diana. On the other hand, the royals weren't innocent themselves either. Nor is Meghan.

I find it intriguing Will is able to navigate life more easily than Harry despite facing the same set of pressures. Having a different kind of wife clearly helps. And Will is brighter. Harry is not bright. Harry had a hard time despite his privileges but he is not capable of balancing the two. Other royals found a way to slip into a quieter life. But Harry courts the press and fuels their fire in venting at them, so there's a symbiotic relationship going on and he's too dim to understand it. Announcing you're stepping down for privacy and your family's own well-being and then spending the subsequent three years giving toxic interviews and publishing explosive (or not so explosive) memoirs isn't the way to do it. And this, I daresay, is why most people are tired of the duo and he's lost a great deal of sympathy he might have had.

I guess there's one more "bombshell" to come in Meghan's memoir and then what's left? Hopefully Harry figures out the best way to the happiness he seeks is stop moaning, stop seeing spirits that don't exist, keep his mouth shut and getting on with life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m surprised he included the story about mocking the physically disabled matron at his school. He described her body type and said she didn’t make the boys “horny”.

Disgusting. Did I miss any context or nuance or is he really just a run-of-the-mill misogynist?

Yes, you missed the point of the anecdote. It acknowledges the unkindness in retrospect but said that as a kid he didn’t really think of it in terms of its impact on Pat, that he was trying to make his friends laugh and find a reason himself to laugh when he was still so deep in grief about his mothers death. At the end of the anecdote he notes that even Pat would laugh at him when she turned around and caught him, which he said made him feel good that he could even make the other humorless (in his estimation) Pat laugh. It also acknowledges that, for as strict and harsh as she was with the boys generally, Pat actually was probably a pretty compassionate and empathetic person because she seemed to understand what Harry was going through and laugh with him rather than punishing him, even though she would have been fully within her rights to do so.

I have not yet read the book (DP here) but I wonder if Harry acknowledges the weird power dynamics of his interactions with adults outside the royal family when he was a child, though? Like sure, normally a school official would be within her rights to punish a student for this behavior. And while I'm sure the school was full of extremely privileged students with powerful parents, Harry (and William) would be on an entirely different level.

It would be a weird thing to experience and no one would blame Harry for not really understanding it at that age, especially given what he was going through personally at the time. But I'm wondering if he understands now, on some level, the degree to which his position affords him power when dealing with people outside his family, whether he wants that power or not. Even in the military with chains of command, there is an unusual power dynamic when it comes to him.

I do wonder if that is a huge part of the appeal of Meghan, actually. As a foreigner and someone who was very secure in her own career and life before meeting him, she may be the rare person he's encountered who never offered him that subliminal deference he's likely become accustomed to. Yet unlike his family, she also seemed to like him and care about his feelings and well being. That's a healthy and normal relationship dynamic, but possibly one he's never experienced in his life, even with very close friends or other girlfriends. I can see how it would cause a crisis of sorts. Like oh, I can just interact with someone as a true equal, and it can be mutually respectful AND supportive, and actually that feels great? Then what the heck are we doing?

At least that's my read. But I wonder if Harry understands that his royal status, that the existence of royal status, is the problem, not just for him, but for everyone he's ever interacted with outside the royal family. I would assume he is too fearful to contemplate what it would mean to just say "the concept of royalty is a morally bankrupt one and while it affords me a lot of privilege, it's actually a prison we'd all benefit from being free of." Which is too bad, if understandable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m surprised he included the story about mocking the physically disabled matron at his school. He described her body type and said she didn’t make the boys “horny”.

Disgusting. Did I miss any context or nuance or is he really just a run-of-the-mill misogynist?

Yes, you missed the point of the anecdote. It acknowledges the unkindness in retrospect but said that as a kid he didn’t really think of it in terms of its impact on Pat, that he was trying to make his friends laugh and find a reason himself to laugh when he was still so deep in grief about his mothers death. At the end of the anecdote he notes that even Pat would laugh at him when she turned around and caught him, which he said made him feel good that he could even make the other humorless (in his estimation) Pat laugh. It also acknowledges that, for as strict and harsh as she was with the boys generally, Pat actually was probably a pretty compassionate and empathetic person because she seemed to understand what Harry was going through and laugh with him rather than punishing him, even though she would have been fully within her rights to do so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I did say there was nothing at all. I said it wasn't eventful enough or long lasting enough to change anything or make a difference. I said the comparison of their treatment paled in comparison to Harry and Meghan. And, we know that the monarchy puts the kabosh on anything going to far in the press. Hence, the problem Harry is writing about. There was nothing happening like that for them. They were not protected.

I don’t disagree with what you say about Harry but it is absolutely false to say it wasn’t eventful. Most of the 90s was full of negative coverage of the Royal family. The tampon stuff wasn’t a blip. It was massive news. For months or years. As was all of the speciation about Charles and Diana’s relationship king before they actually split.

By 1990s, you mean pre internet. And that's a biiig difference. No, it wasn't comparable at all. They were sent up in sketches, etc. , pictures of them with captions. Really. It's like a bow and arrows compared to a nuclear bomb.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You gave the 1 or 15 minute examples of criticism of each of the above, but it was not world wide condemnation for any. Kate is chronicalled as perfect on a daily basis, her family beyond reproach, Fergie still lives with Andrew, she is beloved by Brits. No mention of Anne's son's divorce to speak of other than a day's worth. Phillip's affairs have never been brought to the papers, only alluded to in various documentations. He nearly killed someone driving around a few years before he was too sick. His gaffes were only the butt of jokes. Charles and Camilla are King and Queen now. Andrew is ever present and will return to royal standing. Why wasn't he raked over the coals? That was the information trade off... that Harry implied.
Harry and Meghan-called narcissistic, whiney, attention seeking, ungrateful, unhinged, power seeking, dangerous- for years. One doesn't even need to read the book to understand.

As I actually lived through this in the UK and understand the tabloids, I could give many more examples but there isn’t time. No Fergie is not beloved, far from it. No Phillips gaffes were not only jokes. Yes, things have changed now. They generally get more positive coverage and Megan doesn’t. But you must have been asleep if you missed all the anger and negativity directed at Kate, for example.

Duchess of Pork, Kate’s middle class background. The Brits pay taxes for a family to live in opulence. There are a lot of feelings about that including, from some, hateful resentment. If Harry took the stance of wanting to abolish the monarchy he may get more support than wanting to keep it but improve the experience of the siblings living within it

Again, those were temporary and not all encompassing. There was never hatred toward Kate. A couple of shots about her college modeling outfit, really nothing. The family's aspirations were in some question, she was called " waity Katy"...they didn't even continue in a deep dive about sketchy uncle. Her parents were literally flight crew employees before opening an online store, and got relatively no harraasment. Come on.

They were one off comments, all remediated by the time these folks were solidly in their position. They were and are still going for Meghan's jugular. Reading comprehension is still an issue here, I see. It was nothing like what happened to Meghan- not comparable at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m surprised he included the story about mocking the physically disabled matron at his school. He described her body type and said she didn’t make the boys “horny”.

Disgusting. Did I miss any context or nuance or is he really just a run-of-the-mill misogynist?

Is there a reason you’re asking other anonymous readers our opinions — vs reading the book, or at least what you deem to be relevant passages from the book and deciding for yourself? You’re “surprised” and find something “disgusting “ — but you’re apparently basing this solely on other people’s opinions? It’s hard to fathom this combination of interest and ignorance.

My reason for asking other readers their opinions is because this is a forum to discuss books and, you know, sharing opinions on books. I guess we could all just go buy the book and stay quiet about it, but then that’s not really the point of a book club forum, is it?

Anonymous wrote:I’m surprised he included the story about mocking the physically disabled matron at his school. He described her body type and said she didn’t make the boys “horny”.

Disgusting. Did I miss any context or nuance or is he really just a run-of-the-mill misogynist?