Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the book. Harry’s ideas were not workable for the royal family. That doesn’t mean they were unwilling to use his ideas. It means they considered his ideas and rejected them because it is not how the royal family works. They encouraged Haz to forge his own path and pay his own way, and he is having his revenge. It’s beyond sad and spiteful.

No. I think you’re lying. You did not read the book. Had you actually read the book you would know that it was workable, as others had done it before. Did you also consider Charles’ book sad and spiteful when he lambasted his mom and others?

I haven't posted since the beginning of this thread and just finished the audible book today. Harry presented 5 options, from nothing to changing to complete cut-off. Apparently he wanted a middle ground, the palace chose the middle ground. I really don't understand why he presented options that were unacceptable to him.

I'm trying to get through the book on Audible during my commute. It's really bad - I've been very tempted to give up since the counter indicates I'm only halfway through it. But I hate quitting books halfway through so I'll probably persevere. But my God he is self-absorbed and full of hyperbole. Everything is so over-the-top -- like he or his ghost writer were aiming for the language of the tabloids. They don't leave, they flee. He doesn't have a headache, his head explodes. Learning to fly is a "Jedi mind trick." It's absurd. I do have sympathy for him or anyone who loses a parent at a young age. But many people face childhood tragedy. He seems so utterly ungrateful for the good things in his life, and the innumerable advantages that he has come by, through absolutely no effort of his own. He brings up his mother so frequently and in such weirdly inappropriate moments that it does seem pathological. Also his obsession with referring to himself as "Spare" throughout the book seems an entirely self-inflicted wound. He criticizes the media ruthlessly, as villains, enemies, but then shares the most intimate and unnecessary details of his own life and other people's lives - to sell a book? It is all so bizarre. He anthropomorphizes any sort of challenge - the challenge piloting was due to "hover monkeys", the challenges he faced with focus were due to "head squirrels." Not quite anthropomorphic but weird also was his description of his own anger as a recurring "red mist" that descends on him. He is overall a deeply troubled not-very-young man at this point, also weirdly lacking in perspective and gratitude. He says he hates his life as a royal, why would anyone want it? But he jets off to Africa with a girlfriend time and again, flies half way round the world to try to "clear his head" on the savanah, seems to spend his spare time at pubs drinking and goofing off with plans only of maybe being a ski instructor. In the real world, where people aren't royal and don't have millions of unearned wealth at their disposal, people with his sort of drive and inclinations don't live in mansions in Santa Barbara, they may become ski instructors, but they're not jetting on private planes around the world and living the way he evidently enjoys living. 2/10 stars. And to those who say he seems smarter or a better writer than they expect, I wager that's all the ghost writer. For example, despite using the famous Faulkner quote "The past is never dead. It isn't even past." as the intro to his book, he right away admits that he only found that quote on Brainyquote.com and had "no idea" who Faulkner was.

Its difficult to separate the book from the protagonist's interviews and media stories about him. Its all very intertwined. Whoever is interested in reading his book, is more than likely to consume media stories from him, his wife, his PR teams, tabloids and other PR teams.

Spare’s ghostwriter, J.R. Moehringer is a Pulitzer prize winning gifted author and master of this craft. Harry has a good voice and an easy style, probably was coached well by publisher's team. Obviously, there is an interesting human story with juicy details to capture reader's attention and empathy. As a memoire, its a well written hit.

That being said, his insecurities and complaining are exhausting and we already had kore than enough of that through all sort of media. He needs to focus on moving on and be content but he feels entitled to apologies of royal family, royal firm and tabloids and want them to keep funding his bank account and princely status so he can do fun/lucrative projects and token philanthropy to do/look good.

As readers, we empathize with his character and buy his version of his world but as critics and realists, we see him as a traumatized and spoiled nepotism baby who severely undermines his privileges and lives in his own world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think both Harry and Meghan have serious mental health issues and on top of that she comes across as an opportunist and he comes across as a spoiled nepotism baby. That's my interpretation, yours and theirs mileage may vary.

What portions of the book do you believe supports this?

The entire thing.

The entire thing you didn’t read?

It’s really frustrating that so many people think they can join in this contain and spout their own biases when they haven’t read the book!

Yes, I share the frustration. I actually wouldn’t mind if people commenting acknowledged that they haven’t read the book — but are basing their opinions on seeing one or more interviews or whatever. Then we not only have an identifiable reference, but can talk reasonably about different sources of information. Those who just blurt out unsupported opinions should start a separate soon.to.be.closed thread in the entertainment forum or the politics forum, or in whatever forum fits the issues or the trolling best.

Absolutely agree! I’d be happy to discuss disagreements or impressions of different parts of the book but not just these tired old tropes.

Add me to the list of people who would be happy to have a book-focused discussion. There are certain portions I would really like to discuss, but I know if I try to the crazies will swoop in to ruin any constructive discussion.

Honestly, I would just ignore the crazies and discuss what I want to discuss. Please go ahead and bring up the parts you’d like people to engage in discussion about, maybe include specific sentences or short paragraphs for reference. I believe that there’s plenty of people here who would enjoy a true conversation. Just didn’t respond to crazy responses and the discussion can be kept sane.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think both Harry and Meghan have serious mental health issues and on top of that she comes across as an opportunist and he comes across as a spoiled nepotism baby. That's my interpretation, yours and theirs mileage may vary.

What portions of the book do you believe supports this?

The entire thing.

The entire thing you didn’t read?

It’s really frustrating that so many people think they can join in this contain and spout their own biases when they haven’t read the book!

Yes, I share the frustration. I actually wouldn’t mind if people commenting acknowledged that they haven’t read the book — but are basing their opinions on seeing one or more interviews or whatever. Then we not only have an identifiable reference, but can talk reasonably about different sources of information. Those who just blurt out unsupported opinions should start a separate soon.to.be.closed thread in the entertainment forum or the politics forum, or in whatever forum fits the issues or the trolling best.

Absolutely agree! I’d be happy to discuss disagreements or impressions of different parts of the book but not just these tired old tropes.

Add me to the list of people who would be happy to have a book-focused discussion. There are certain portions I would really like to discuss, but I know if I try to the crazies will swoop in to ruin any constructive discussion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think both Harry and Meghan have serious mental health issues and on top of that she comes across as an opportunist and he comes across as a spoiled nepotism baby. That's my interpretation, yours and theirs mileage may vary.

What portions of the book do you believe supports this?

The entire thing.

The entire thing you didn’t read?

It’s really frustrating that so many people think they can join in this contain and spout their own biases when they haven’t read the book!

Yes, I share the frustration. I actually wouldn’t mind if people commenting acknowledged that they haven’t read the book — but are basing their opinions on seeing one or more interviews or whatever. Then we not only have an identifiable reference, but can talk reasonably about different sources of information. Those who just blurt out unsupported opinions should start a separate soon.to.be.closed thread in the entertainment forum or the politics forum, or in whatever forum fits the issues or the trolling best.

Absolutely agree! I’d be happy to discuss disagreements or impressions of different parts of the book but not just these tired old tropes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think both Harry and Meghan have serious mental health issues and on top of that she comes across as an opportunist and he comes across as a spoiled nepotism baby. That's my interpretation, yours and theirs mileage may vary.

What portions of the book do you believe supports this?

The entire thing.

The entire thing you didn’t read?

It’s really frustrating that so many people think they can join in this contain and spout their own biases when they haven’t read the book!

Yes, I share the frustration. I actually wouldn’t mind if people commenting acknowledged that they haven’t read the book — but are basing their opinions on seeing one or more interviews or whatever. Then we not only have an identifiable reference, but can talk reasonably about different sources of information. Those who just blurt out unsupported opinions should start a separate soon.to.be.closed thread in the entertainment forum or the politics forum, or in whatever forum fits the issues or the trolling best.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is really unfortunate that normal people cannot discuss this book without deranged Harry-haters ruining it.

There are two types, deranged haters and deranged lovers, neutral posts are sprinkled here and there.

What posts here do you believe are from “deranged lovers”?

I am firmly anti-royalist and it’s clear to me the haters are far more deranged, speaking as someone who is not a fan of any of the royals, including Harry. I don’t see many deranged fans in here, but the haters are next-level crazy.

Anyhow, I just finished the audiobook and thought it was well-done. He has a good reading voice, that’s for sure.

But Harry himself seems anti-royal.

I disagree. I’d be interested in learning what passages from Harry’s book led you to this conclusion. DP

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't quite get the argument that everything that has been in the press that isn't positive was made up by the press.

Sure trash tabloids make things up. But in the says after the Spanish book release, there were countless journalists who actually had their hands on copies of the book and reported similar stories. It would have had to be a massive coordinated effort for all journalists during that time period to agree and come up with all the fake stories and fake quotes. Jounralists like a scoop, why would they agree to wait until other agencies created a fake story when they had a copy of the book?

For example, the conversation between Kate and Meghan about the dresses. If that was just made up by the press and wasn't in the book, there would have been some journos refuse to pretend to read a fake story from the book just to stick to the party line. There just isn't that kind of mass collaboration and camaraderie across all press sources for it all to have been an orchestrated fake campaign.

Part of the issue after the Spanish version released early was that journalists were sticking passages into translation apps and then reporting the translations as accurate, when in fact they mischaracterized the book in certain respects. It doesn’t take a lot of mistranslation to totally change the tone of an anecdote.

The stories I saw were about

Harry losing his virginity

Harry being pushed onto a dog food bowl by his brother

Harry talking to his dad to get him to not marry Camilla

Harry getting mad William didn't come away with him before his wedding and a story about his penis freezing before William's wedding

Stories of Meghan wearing jeans and to being hugged by Kate, a conversation between Kate and Meghan about flowergirl dresses, and William and Kate being awed by Meghan being in Suits

Harry now having found Meghan on instagram and started dating that way and Meghan knowing nothing about the RF

Harry talking about Meghan being magical and him swimming with seals.

William and Kate laughing / supporting the Nazi outfit

Harry killing 25 Taliban

I have a hard time believing that none of that was actually in the book and that it was all made up by journalists. I haven't read the book but the BBC and reuters and others were commenting on these stories so when people on here say it was all lies and if you read he book you would know that none of that is even in it...I find that hard to believe.

You can’t understand why an approximately 14 yo Harry and 16 yo Williams might not have wanted their father to marry his mistress less than two years after their mother’s death given how much a marriage would stir up the media rehashing Charles and Diana’s marriage and Diana’s death? The boys gave their blessing to the relationship, they just asked not to bring the media onslaught of a wedding upon them.

He is their father but he is also an adult, he once sacrificed his wishes for how mom and his royal career, it failed horribly. Why would he let two teens decide if he can marry or not?

Charles was entitled to make his own decision, and he did. His children were entitled to their own feelings about it. You’re really going to fault grieving teenagers for not wanting to Sun next themselves to a brutal media campaign? That shows a striking absence of empathy and compassion for understandable human emotions.

When someone is a middle age father them self , they tend to have a more sympathetic view of their father's relationships than they had as a grieving teen.

Actually, it could easily go the other way. As a middle aged father, one could more easily recognize not just the vulnerability and needs of children, but the painful difficulties of grieving and even of adolescence. One might also have a different perspective of time, perhaps, and recognize that in about 6 years or less, both kids will be young adults — possibly a better time to attract even more press attention, and to formally change the structure of the family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think both Harry and Meghan have serious mental health issues and on top of that she comes across as an opportunist and he comes across as a spoiled nepotism baby. That's my interpretation, yours and theirs mileage may vary.

What portions of the book do you believe supports this?

The entire thing.

The entire thing you didn’t read?

It’s really frustrating that so many people think they can join in this contain and spout their own biases when they haven’t read the book!

Anonymous wrote:I deployed twice to Iraq, including one tour supporting SOF. No one talks about their kill count, unless they want to be viewed as a psychopath.

What I found even more disturbing was when Harry referred to enemy combatants as “chess pieces”. I disagree with any attempt to equate acts of war with game playing. It denies the cold, dark truth of war. War destroys human lives. I understand a soldier wanting to separate himself from that truth in the moment, but after so many years away from the battle field, I would hope he would have the maturity by now to see how his mindset was wrong.

Have you read the book? Really interested in your perspective not just from what’s been reported in the media but about the context where this is actually discussed. I’m guessing you haven’t read it, so I’d like to know if your view changes if you read the whole section.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't quite get the argument that everything that has been in the press that isn't positive was made up by the press.

Sure trash tabloids make things up. But in the says after the Spanish book release, there were countless journalists who actually had their hands on copies of the book and reported similar stories. It would have had to be a massive coordinated effort for all journalists during that time period to agree and come up with all the fake stories and fake quotes. Jounralists like a scoop, why would they agree to wait until other agencies created a fake story when they had a copy of the book?

For example, the conversation between Kate and Meghan about the dresses. If that was just made up by the press and wasn't in the book, there would have been some journos refuse to pretend to read a fake story from the book just to stick to the party line. There just isn't that kind of mass collaboration and camaraderie across all press sources for it all to have been an orchestrated fake campaign.

If you’d read the book or paid any attention you’d know that the bigger issue isn’t about things in the press being false it’s about the Royal sources feeding negative stories to the press and then pretending they are above reproach. Yes, sometimes they get it wrong. But more often it’s the spin that’s out on out the lack of context.

That is Harry's belief and issue. And there is no way prove or disprove. I do not believe Charles would leak bad things about his kids. That is ridiculous and paranoia fed by Meghan, who WAS doing her fair share (and more) of story planting since 2016.

There is no way to prove your contention and I’ve never even heard it seriously contended. However, this type of quid pro quo with the tabloids is very common in the UK as those of us who have worked with them know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I deployed twice to Iraq, including one tour supporting SOF. No one talks about their kill count, unless they want to be viewed as a psychopath.

What I found even more disturbing was when Harry referred to enemy combatants as “chess pieces”. I disagree with any attempt to equate acts of war with game playing. It denies the cold, dark truth of war. War destroys human lives. I understand a soldier wanting to separate himself from that truth in the moment, but after so many years away from the battle field, I would hope he would have the maturity by now to see how his mindset was wrong.

Did you read the book? If so, I think you misunderstood that passage, because he essentially agrees with you in many respects.

DP. Except for the respect of not keeping count...

What is your understanding of why he kept a count?

Silence = they have no understanding because they didn’t read the book

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is really unfortunate that normal people cannot discuss this book without deranged Harry-haters ruining it.

There are two types, deranged haters and deranged lovers, neutral posts are sprinkled here and there.

What posts here do you believe are from “deranged lovers”?

I am firmly anti-royalist and it’s clear to me the haters are far more deranged, speaking as someone who is not a fan of any of the royals, including Harry. I don’t see many deranged fans in here, but the haters are next-level crazy.

Anyhow, I just finished the audiobook and thought it was well-done. He has a good reading voice, that’s for sure.

But Harry himself seems anti-royal.

That is a gross oversimplification of a complex issue.