Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ portraying her as pure perfection

Well, may be he has rose colored glasses on or may be she is perfect in his eyes or may be he is emotionally dependent on her and can't criticize her, just like kids who think of their parents as angels after losing them and block all bad memories.

Or maybe he's just not going to criticize her because she already gets tons of it unfairly. Or maybe he's just being a normal husband who keeps criticism of one's spouse private.

Goodness, some of you aren’t understanding we’re not looking for criticism. No one on earth would think he would criticize his wife in this book. Everyone knows they’ve been through the wringer. But he does betray her and INo one on earth, but think he’d criticize his wife in this book. Everyone knows they’ve been through the ringer. But he does portray her in a very unrealistic light of angelic perfection… she always says the right thing thinks the right thing, it’s just unrealistic.

I kinda get what you are saying. Perhaps he could have said (if correct): “Meg may not have been thinking clearly at the time because of wedding stress” or “maybe she misread the situation..”

DP. I think you’re misunderstanding what the book is about. This book isn’t about Harry’s marriage to Meghan. The book is about Harry’s experience of being the “spare” in the royal family. Random anecdotes about Meghan doing something wrong aren’t relevant to that. What is relevant is how he experienced his family’s reactions to Meghan. There are positive and negative anecdotes along those lines in the book - it’s not nearly so one-dimensional as the Harry and Meghan haters are making it out to be. But ultimately the book is about Harry’s evolution as a person and his place in his family, not about Meghan’s faults as a human being.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ portraying her as pure perfection

Well, may be he has rose colored glasses on or may be she is perfect in his eyes or may be he is emotionally dependent on her and can't criticize her, just like kids who think of their parents as angels after losing them and block all bad memories.

Or maybe he's just not going to criticize her because she already gets tons of it unfairly. Or maybe he's just being a normal husband who keeps criticism of one's spouse private.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ portraying her as pure perfection

Well, may be he has rose colored glasses on or may be she is perfect in his eyes or may be he is emotionally dependent on her and can't criticize her, just like kids who think of their parents as angels after losing them and block all bad memories.

Or maybe he's just not going to criticize her because she already gets tons of it unfairly. Or maybe he's just being a normal husband who keeps criticism of one's spouse private.

Goodness, some of you aren’t understanding we’re not looking for criticism. No one on earth would think he would criticize his wife in this book. Everyone knows they’ve been through the wringer. But he does betray her and INo one on earth, but think he’d criticize his wife in this book. Everyone knows they’ve been through the ringer. But he does portray her in a very unrealistic light of angelic perfection… she always says the right thing thinks the right thing, it’s just unrealistic.

I kinda get what you are saying. Perhaps he could have said (if correct): “Meg may not have been thinking clearly at the time because of wedding stress” or “maybe she misread the situation..”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ portraying her as pure perfection

Well, may be he has rose colored glasses on or may be she is perfect in his eyes or may be he is emotionally dependent on her and can't criticize her, just like kids who think of their parents as angels after losing them and block all bad memories.

Or maybe he's just not going to criticize her because she already gets tons of it unfairly. Or maybe he's just being a normal husband who keeps criticism of one's spouse private.

Goodness, some of you aren’t understanding we’re not looking for criticism. No one on earth would think he would criticize his wife in this book. Everyone knows they’ve been through the wringer. But he does betray her and INo one on earth, but think he’d criticize his wife in this book. Everyone knows they’ve been through the ringer. But he does portray her in a very unrealistic light of angelic perfection… she always says the right thing thinks the right thing, it’s just unrealistic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ portraying her as pure perfection

Well, may be he has rose colored glasses on or may be she is perfect in his eyes or may be he is emotionally dependent on her and can't criticize her, just like kids who think of their parents as angels after losing them and block all bad memories.

Or maybe he's just not going to criticize her because she already gets tons of it unfairly. Or maybe he's just being a normal husband who keeps criticism of one's spouse private.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ portraying her as pure perfection

Well, may be he has rose colored glasses on or may be she is perfect in his eyes or may be he is emotionally dependent on her and can't criticize her, just like kids who think of their parents as angels after losing them and block all bad memories.

Or maybe he's just not going to criticize her because she already gets tons of it unfairly. Or maybe he's just being a normal husband who keeps criticism of one's spouse private.

Goodness, some of you aren’t understanding we’re not looking for criticism. No one on earth would think he would criticize his wife in this book. Everyone knows they’ve been through the wringer. But he does betray her and INo one on earth, but think he’d criticize his wife in this book. Everyone knows they’ve been through the ringer. But he does portray her in a very unrealistic light of angelic perfection… she always says the right thing thinks the right thing, it’s just unrealistic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ portraying her as pure perfection

Well, may be he has rose colored glasses on or may be she is perfect in his eyes or may be he is emotionally dependent on her and can't criticize her, just like kids who think of their parents as angels after losing them and block all bad memories.

Or maybe he's just not going to criticize her because she already gets tons of it unfairly. Or maybe he's just being a normal husband who keeps criticism of one's spouse private.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ portraying her as pure perfection

Well, may be he has rose colored glasses on or may be she is perfect in his eyes or may be he is emotionally dependent on her and can't criticize her, just like kids who think of their parents as angels after losing them and block all bad memories.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:5. I thought he showed quite a lack of empathy to his brother. Like, could he really not understand the reaction to the wedding beard? It's so important to Harry but silly for William to be jealous of the same thing? There were so many scenes like this scattered throughout the book - Harry's emotions are proper and well contextualized but he failed to allow the other's emotions and humanity.

This is astute. I think this lack of empathy and myopic thinking reflects immature emotional development (which I don't really 'blame' him for) and is what is leading him to make some poor choices when it comes to his family and other public actions/words.

+1

Also no concern over his niece Charlotte when she cried over the dress at age 3. No it was all about Meghan!

You mean when Meghan told Kate repeatedly the tailor was already there and waiting to alter the dress and Kate was demanding it be fully remade four days before the wedding?

But did she ever express sadness that Charlotte cried? Or was it all business...perhaps a little sympathy for a three year old wouldn't be that difficult!

The American wasn't being emotional enough for the Brit? What?

You don't have to be overly emotional to say I'm sorry this upset Charlotte. Remember harry found her "sobbing uncontrollably on the floor" pretty emotional to me except only to their feelings. Who cares about anyone else!

This whole story about Charlotte crying over the dress seems a little odd to me. For a three-year-old, a dress is pretty much a dress. She isn't thinking about what the paps will say about her ill-fitting dress. And if Kate had just said, "oh look, it's a little long, we'll get it hemmed" then the three-year-old would have been fine. Seems like there's something missing there?

You must not know many 3 year Olds. I didn't say she was upset about the paps..you did which is a very odd response. You are still defending meghan over the fe elings over a 3 year old. Plus Kate could have said that and Charlotte could have still be unhappy . Were you there? Meghan? Harry? No.

I'm not a Meghan defender--this is my first post on this thread, or on the subject of Meghan or Kate EVER. I've read this topic brings out the crazies, and you proved the point. Also, learn to punctuate.

Yes, I know multiple three-year-old girls. And no, they don't care much about their dresses except if they love it if a dress involves lots of pink tulle and sparkles. Dress fit is pretty much irrelevant. My only point was that Charlotte was probably taking her cues from Kate...who was the one concerned about paps or something....

Did you understand what I was trying to say? I've noticed that when people critique silly things like spelling, punctuation then I realize they don't have a good reply.

This is DCUM not the Washington post or Harvard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:5. I thought he showed quite a lack of empathy to his brother. Like, could he really not understand the reaction to the wedding beard? It's so important to Harry but silly for William to be jealous of the same thing? There were so many scenes like this scattered throughout the book - Harry's emotions are proper and well contextualized but he failed to allow the other's emotions and humanity.

This is astute. I think this lack of empathy and myopic thinking reflects immature emotional development (which I don't really 'blame' him for) and is what is leading him to make some poor choices when it comes to his family and other public actions/words.

+1

Also no concern over his niece Charlotte when she cried over the dress at age 3. No it was all about Meghan!

You mean when Meghan told Kate repeatedly the tailor was already there and waiting to alter the dress and Kate was demanding it be fully remade four days before the wedding?

But did she ever express sadness that Charlotte cried? Or was it all business...perhaps a little sympathy for a three year old wouldn't be that difficult!

The American wasn't being emotional enough for the Brit? What?

You don't have to be overly emotional to say I'm sorry this upset Charlotte. Remember harry found her "sobbing uncontrollably on the floor" pretty emotional to me except only to their feelings. Who cares about anyone else!

This whole story about Charlotte crying over the dress seems a little odd to me. For a three-year-old, a dress is pretty much a dress. She isn't thinking about what the paps will say about her ill-fitting dress. And if Kate had just said, "oh look, it's a little long, we'll get it hemmed" then the three-year-old would have been fine. Seems like there's something missing there?

You must not know many 3 year Olds. I didn't say she was upset about the paps..you did which is a very odd response. You are still defending meghan over the fe elings over a 3 year old. Plus Kate could have said that and Charlotte could have still be unhappy . Were you there? Meghan? Harry? No.

I'm not a Meghan defender--this is my first post on this thread, or on the subject of Meghan or Kate EVER. I've read this topic brings out the crazies, and you proved the point. Also, learn to punctuate.

Yes, I know multiple three-year-old girls. And no, they don't care much about their dresses except if they love it if a dress involves lots of pink tulle and sparkles. Dress fit is pretty much irrelevant. My only point was that Charlotte was probably taking her cues from Kate...who was the one concerned about paps or something....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:5. I thought he showed quite a lack of empathy to his brother. Like, could he really not understand the reaction to the wedding beard? It's so important to Harry but silly for William to be jealous of the same thing? There were so many scenes like this scattered throughout the book - Harry's emotions are proper and well contextualized but he failed to allow the other's emotions and humanity.

This is astute. I think this lack of empathy and myopic thinking reflects immature emotional development (which I don't really 'blame' him for) and is what is leading him to make some poor choices when it comes to his family and other public actions/words.

+1

Also no concern over his niece Charlotte when she cried over the dress at age 3. No it was all about Meghan!

You mean when Meghan told Kate repeatedly the tailor was already there and waiting to alter the dress and Kate was demanding it be fully remade four days before the wedding?

But did she ever express sadness that Charlotte cried? Or was it all business...perhaps a little sympathy for a three year old wouldn't be that difficult!

If you had read the book, you would know Meghan was dealing with something a little more serious than a 3 yo fussing over a dress that could be fixed.

My point is she is always the victim. No concern for anyone else.

Anonymous wrote:^ portraying her as pure perfection

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really enjoyed the first 3/4 of this book, some good tea and good insights into how the royal family works. I went in not being on team harry or team anyone else. But what has struck me is how much Harry puts Megan on a pedestal. She never made one mistake, she was like mother freaking theresa. It was always everyone else's fault. Its like he is projecting the image people had of Diana on Megan. I hope he continues therapy because this is not sure to end well.

Megan is his wife. Why would you expect him to throw her under the bus for his family who in his opinion, threw him under the bus? You want him to be on the outs with everybody in his life? He's already chosen a side.

Certainly not. TBS, admitting someone made a mistake or accepting responsibility for misunderstandings is not throwing your wife under the bus - its being authentic and human. He describes her in a light that seems like he's full of BS or blinded. He was so authentic in the rest of the book, which is why it struck me as so odd.

He is blinded. That is William's issue with them.

It’s his wife! That’s who he is riding with now. Not his brother or father, who by the way, have happily screwed Harry over for their wives and in the name of the Crown, for years. Anyway, of course he is blinded. As he should be. All of you all who think they makes sense for him to lay out her mistakes in book and “accept responsibility” can’t be married.

Thats not quite what I meant - here's an example... when William pushed harry into the dog bowl and Meg finally found out about it he said she didn't even get mad, just sad. That's a load of crap. I'd be pissed as hell. I don't believe the way he characterizes her at all.

Goodness. Why the need to get mad? What would that have accomplished. She had probably already gone through the anger stage with that family and their antics. She was either at the depression or acceptance stage where it came to William and Harry’s relationship.

There is no "need" to get mad. But I have an entire Family Relationship subthread to tell me that people get mad at their in-laws for a whole lot less.

DP. It’s also possible that Meghan was angry but felt it wouldn’t be helpful to Harry for her to express that emotion rather than the sadness she felt for him. We wouldn’t necessarily know that from Harry’s book.

Your brother-in-law pushes your husband so hard that he that he’s got scratches on his back and broke the dogs bowl? You’re not even slightly ticked, protective or annoyed? It’s just too much the way he tries to describe this. She’s a human freaking being. It’s like he’s overcompensating for the horrible things. The media says about her by betraying her as pure perfection. Nobody is that way.

I don’t know what to tell you. Sorry the book didn’t give you enough new fodder to fuel your Meghan-rage.

I mean, he also never says a negative word about Diana and treats her as a saint, but that doesn’t seem to draw nearly the same level of ire. Same goes for Chelsy, Cressida, Marko, etc. Does that make you angry too?

DP. I don't have any Meghan rage. The point is that it doesn't make Harry very believable.