General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"Spare" beats the press at its own game: excellent review of the book & US culture...
Los Angeles Times, January 11, 2023. Calendar section, page 1
‘Spare’ beats the press at its own game
MARY MCNAMARA
Revenge is a dish best served cold, over many courses and paid for by someone else.
I come to you having actually read Harry Windsor’s much-anticipated and intentionally controversial memoir, “Spare.” Not the lists of “Top Five Bombshells” or “Key Takeaways” but the book itself, from start to finish. It is a quick read, more sad than sensational, ringing with exactly the sort of loneliness, frustration and rebellion one would expect from a still-young, motherless prince whose royal bubble of a life has been narrated through the emotional whipsaw of tabloid headlines. An earnest, almost childlike attempt to explain what that life felt like to the boy and man inside the bubble.
More important, it is the capstone of a personal disclosure campaign that puts Lena Dunham to shame. That the royal family is a chilly, oppressive and internally competitive institution that will eat its young to survive can come as no surprise to anyone with knowledge of Princess Diana’s life and death or Peter Morgan’s highly regarded royal multiverse of “The Queen” and “The Crown.”
That many in the U.K. will also defend the royal family is also well known. (Has anyone checked in with Dame Judi Dench about her thoughts on “Spare”?)
The British tabloids have built a media ecosystem on covering, creating and then defending House of Windsor drama.
Since Harry’s marriage to Meghan Markle and their subsequent break with the royal family, however, the two have decided to seize the means of production; they have nothing to lose but their titles.
Mary McNamara gives an insightful commentary on Harry’s life — in which she notes he was literally born to be media fodder and had no choice in the matter — but also on the tabloids and the insatiable appetite for same in both the UK and the US. Among other things, she points out more than once that he and Meghan have “seized the means of production,” and that wanting privacy is beside the point when their silence is 100% guaranteed to be filled with the noise of the media making things up. Thus, they will tell it themselves.
Thanks to this columnist, I plan to get on the waiting list for the book at the Library.
Much more at link — and yet again, I don’t have an archive link. I am always grateful when someone more knowledgable posts one in the thread.
https://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/latimes/default.aspx?token=42e23962a5d74614be16bae3d62d13e7&utm_id=82655&sfmc_id=1778350&edid=5d0eb9da-b477-4f66-a9c5-64e694476736
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
mopinko
(73,659 posts)just how distorted a view the media can give. esp w that dirtbag murdoch in the mix.
wonder how many will pick up that angle.
Hekate
(100,133 posts)We certainly have our share of them on this board, and while I don’t want to tussle with them any more, I thought this article was too good to pass up. McNamara writes very well.
mopinko
(73,659 posts)sorta fascinated. but totally in favor of the actual, complete truth about those in power anywhere coming out.
IbogaProject
(5,852 posts)But I can feel compassion for him as a human. And if he can help tear that monstrosity down then have at it.
Trailrider1951
(3,580 posts)Harry didn't choose this life, but decided to be true to himself no matter what.
NNadir
(37,935 posts)I was surprised. I'm not a fan of British royalty, but I never understood how difficult might be to escape it.
beaglelover
(4,464 posts)
BlueCheeseAgain
(1,983 posts)And yet, I wonder how much of them he'd trade for a mother who lived past his 13th birthday and a family that loves him as much as they love his brother...
pnwmom
(110,253 posts)Having lots of STUFF doesn't make up for losing your mother and having a father who just doesn't seem to care.
CatWoman
(80,288 posts)the first chapters deal exclusively with Diana's death.
absolutely heart broken. took me down memory lane and made me cry.
the thing that stood out most was him just wanting a hug. his mom was a hugger and I guess he grew to expect that from others.
pnwmom
(110,253 posts)It doesn't matter to a child how fancy their life is; they just want to feel loved.
Cha
(318,734 posts)what I want to do.. get the Audio version.
cab67
(3,733 posts)his most important role before either of Diana's sons had children, in the eyes of many Britons (and others around the world), would have been to reign in the event of his brother's death.
gldstwmn
(4,575 posts)I'm sure he's receiving all sorts of crackpot threats. And he's expected to provide for his own security. It's cruel. I do wonder what he wouldn't give to just live in obscurity.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,096 posts)He is so angry and vindictive he wants to destroy his brother. He is jealous that his brother looks like his mother and actually is glad when he went bald that he looks less like her. He sounds so immature as if he stopped maturing when she died. And does not consider that his brother also lost his mother. He wants to hurt him.
He and Meghan called the Royal family racist and for two years let the story grow...and now says he does not believe they are racist and he never said that. It reminds me of a two year old covered in chocolate denying that he ate the chocolate. His hypocrisy is gargantuan. If indeed he did not mean to accuse the family of racism, he only had to correct it. And, of course refuse the award.
What got me most is the way he sleeps with his mother's hair at his bedside. And that he found Meghan at her grave with hands on the gravestone trying to communicate with Diana, manipulating Harry.
He has never taken responsibility for anything--everything, including his own behavior is someone else's fault. His inconsistencies are blamed on the interpretation of his statements. He needs to grow up, take reasonability for his actions.
Ya know, some people sleep in their cars...and he complains that he got the small room in the castle. Perhaps the millions he is making at the expense of the Queen's legacy, he could give to the poor so they can sleep in a small room in a castle.
I think he is an awful person.
Coventina
(29,650 posts)Anybody else would have.
I'll never forgive him for that.
Demovictory9
(37,113 posts)Coventina
(29,650 posts)hen harrier hawks at one of the royal estates, as they were seen at the scene of the shooting.
Killing them on the sly is a common practice of "sportsmen" because they eat grouse, which "sportsmen" like to hunt.
All evidence pointed to Harry / his pal but the investigation was dropped.
Can't touch the royals, you know.
Demovictory9
(37,113 posts)pnwmom
(110,253 posts)on a large estate where bird hunting was allowed.
You don't even know that either he or his companion did it, OR THAT ANY BIRDS DIED, since no bird bodies were found. But you're assuming the worst -- that it was Harry himself, and that he shot a protected bird on purpose.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/aug/01/prince-harry-should-settle-bird-shooting-mystery-in-memoirs-say-campaigners
The prince had been out shooting on the estate on the evening of 24 October, with family friend William van Cutsem, then 28, when the incident occurred. At the time the Queen was a patron of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Witnesses said they saw two hen harriers in flight being shot, an offence under wildlife protection legislation which carries a prison sentence of up to six months or a fine.
SNIP
At the time the Crown Prosecution Service said: “The bodies of the hen harriers have not been found and there is no forensic or ballistic evidence. Witnesses also heard unexplained shooting in the area before the three suspects said they were present at the scene, so other people cannot be ruled out. The three suspects, who were interviewed by police, all denied that the birds were killed by them.”
mopinko
(73,659 posts)when did that happen?
Cha
(318,734 posts)they were like at 23.. I know I did.
Of course not everyone does.. they get worse... I'm betting Harry is the former.
pnwmom
(110,253 posts)much less that Harry had done it.
Cha
(318,734 posts)Thank you for that. 
Sounds like rumors taken as facts. 
inthewind21
(4,616 posts)a bit of jealousy.
Cha
(318,734 posts)Yow! smh
It was rather unhinged! 
Evergreen Emerald
(13,096 posts)and attack me? Call me unhinged? Is that you Harry?
BuddhaGirl
(3,706 posts)Your posts are full of Daily Mail worthy b.s. and when asked for sources, you don't offer any.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,096 posts)I will let you know that at first, I love Meghan. I watched the wedding and fully supported her. I then slowly saw things that bugged me, and statements she made that were contradictory. And now, attacking his family...not a good quality in a person.
Have a nice evening.
pnwmom
(110,253 posts)in 1995?
Saying that his mother neglected him, his father was a bully, and his wife was hysterical?
Some people think it's shocking that Harry would air his family's "dirty laundry," but both of his parents aired lots of dirty laundry during their very public divorce.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,096 posts)What do you think about Harry and Meghan saying that the royal family is racist. For two years reinforcing their belief. Accepting an award for exposing racism in the royal institution. ..and now he says he never said they were racist and does not believe that are racist.
1. If what is says is true, he could have at anytime corrected the record...denied that he believed they are racist, turned down the award. But, instead he let the Queen die knowing he shouted to the world that his family was racist. Silence when it suits him.
pnwmom
(110,253 posts)on the potential darkness of their baby's skin.
It was the tabloids who used the term "racist," not Harry -- though I think it probably applies to some of the family members, just as it does to many white Americans.
https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-denies-calling-royal-family-racist-heres-what-was-said-12782957
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex previously told the US chat show host about a conversation with an unnamed member of the Royal Family about how dark their unborn baby Archie's skin would be while Meghan was pregnant.
Now, in his latest round of TV interviews, to coincide with the release autobiography Spare, Prince Harry has denied calling the Royal Family racist.
Instead, he said the word "racist" was used by the British tabloid press in the aftermath of the couple's comments.
CatWoman
(80,288 posts)as an aside, I'm wondering how much Charles' coronation will cost the UK taxpayers?
I would have stayed up for QE2's coronation, I did stay up for Diana's wedding, but I have zero interest in watching Charles.
Maraya1969
(23,491 posts)"He is so angry and vindictive he wants to destroy his brother. He is jealous that his brother looks like his mother and actually is glad when he went bald that he looks less like her. He sounds so immature as if he stopped maturing when she died."
Seriously where did you find this?
Cha
(318,734 posts)British Tabloids version.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,096 posts)That sounds like someone who looks past the facts.
I wish they had not attempted to destroy their family. It is ugly. And sad. And disingenuous. That is all.
Cha
(318,734 posts)Evergreen Emerald
(13,096 posts)Or choose to just believe the distortions and lies. And hope that they will have the best life ever, after of course they complete the destruction of their family.
I wish you the best.
Dorian Gray
(13,850 posts)tear the whole stupid monarchy down. It's all stupid. They're not better than anybody else, and the messy family drama is better than what happened around our christmas table. #teamtrainwreck
mgardener
(2,345 posts)William, IMHO, looks exactly like his father and Harry looks like Diana.
Strange analysis.
Cha
(318,734 posts)
And, that's Not all they have in common..
Upon closer inspection, the two royals are extremely alike — a lot more than most realize. Take a look at the mannerisms, passions, and personality traits that the two share:
10 Ways Prince Harry Is Strikingly Similar to Princess Diana
One snip//
4.. Charity is Remarkable..
https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/g23131191/prince-harry-birthday-princess-diana/#:~:text=Upon%20closer%20inspection%2C%20the%20two%20royals%20are%20extremely,as%20a%20rebel%20%E2%80%94%20just%20like%20Diana%20was.
"Both Rebels"!
sheshe2
(97,358 posts)Both are described as great people to this day.
Prince Harry Visits RFU Community Rugby Programme
As if his charitable efforts and acts of kindness don't already give you a sense of the type of person Harry is, a royal correspondent told Cosmopolitan UK that the prince is "very down-to-earth" and extremely "honest." When giving a speech on the 10th anniversary of his mother's passing, Prince Harry himself used a few similar words to describe Diana. "What is far more important to us now is how she is remembered as she was: fun-loving, generous, down-to-earth, entirely genuine."
TY
Cha
(318,734 posts)anyone can hate that except the British Tabloids.
Thank you so much for the quotes from the Royal Correspondent and Harry about his Mum, Diana. 
Thank You!
Hekate
(100,133 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 12, 2023, 02:40 PM - Edit history (1)
CatWoman
(80,288 posts)you sound just like the tabloids. exactly like them.
you keep calling Harry vindictive, but that's all I get out of your posts. They are dripping with it.
Cha
(318,734 posts)
keopeli
(3,582 posts)Thanks for sharing.
pnwmom
(110,253 posts)I'm glad he escaped The Firm, and all its narcissistic demands on him to project the proper image, no matter the personal cost.
obamanut2012
(29,335 posts)And William like his father and the Windsors, like you said!
Hekate
(100,133 posts)McNamara
I loved his memories of his grandparents.
He had such affinity for Philip.
milestogo
(23,045 posts)CatWoman
(80,288 posts)
?crop=1.00xw:1.00xh;0,0&resize=980
milestogo
(23,045 posts)And red hair is a Spencer trait.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)NameAlreadyTaken
(2,297 posts)Thank you for your post.
edhopper
(37,313 posts)Piers?
Evergreen Emerald
(13,096 posts)Just someone who does not believe the intended hype.
pnwmom
(110,253 posts)LetMyPeopleVote
(179,226 posts)
SYFROYH
(34,214 posts)Hekate
(100,133 posts) SYFROYH
(34,214 posts)It just looks like someone is doing what he can to get paid.
gldstwmn
(4,575 posts)He has to earn a living somehow. His skillset is somewhat unique and comes with its own set of challenges.
Cha
(318,734 posts)
Violet_Crumble
(36,385 posts)Harry's a content creator. His special skillset is making a whole lot of money spilling private family conversations and gripes with his family. I wish someone would pay me millions to do that, though I probs wouldn't want to make my family stuff public. Once Harry is drained of private stuff to share, he'll be dropped like a hot potato.
I feel sorry for Harry. I always had a soft spot for him. What he's said about the death of his mother and his struggle to deal with it is heartbreaking. With some of the other stuff, I wish he was surrounded by people who cared about him more than they cared about attention and making money. I just think while some in this thread are very black & white on things, I see a lot of nuance there. It's possible to be someone like me, who sees the racist tendencies of some of the British press and how they treated Meghan, but gradually grew not to like her because she bullied Palace staff, has been less than honest about some important stuff, and appears to be a bit narcissistic. I had a narcissist sister-in-law who succeeded in destroying my relationship with my brother, and I can see some similarities in Meghan.
I hope that Harry eventually gets what he needs, which is a quiet life out of the spotlight. Because until he gets that, his relationship with the tabloid press will continue to be a symbiotic one and he will continue to look like a hypocrite railing against the thing that gives him the attention he seems to want.
sheshe2
(97,358 posts)Some people write books and then buy houses. 
SYFROYH
(34,214 posts)Why not mention he got paid well?
sheshe2
(97,358 posts)
betsuni
(29,033 posts)SYFROYH
(34,214 posts)But its good to see that you're still salty.
pnwmom
(110,253 posts)when he gave interviews disparaging Diana, and helped the author of his official biography?
The biography said that his mother had neglected him, his father had been a bully, and that his wife had been hysterical -- also, that Charles wished he could have been Camilla's tampon.
Yuk.
SYFROYH
(34,214 posts)...and "controlling the means of production."
pnwmom
(110,253 posts)when Charles and the Palace were attacking her.
The same dynamic appears to be at play now, with the addition of the racism directed at Meghan.
(And no, Harry didn't use the word racist. But he said that someone in the family was concerned about the darkness of a potential baby's skin, which seems racist to me -- along with other stories in the British media. "Straight outa Compton" for example.)
pnwmom
(110,253 posts)There's a reason he needed to be paid well. The UK cut him off when he went to Canada, even though it's part of the Commonwealth.
Tree-Hugger
(3,379 posts)If someone wants to pay me millions for my story then bring me a typewriter. Good for him.
pnwmom
(110,253 posts)The housing. The "allowance."
SYFROYH
(34,214 posts)It appears that stating that he’s in it for the big dollars really bothers some people given their defensive responses.
pnwmom
(110,253 posts)he wants to tell his side of the story.
SYFROYH
(34,214 posts)pnwmom
(110,253 posts)certain practices of the Firm even if he had donated all profits somewhere.
betsuni
(29,033 posts)"This is one of several donations I plan to make to charitable organizations, and I'm grateful to be able to give back in this way for the children and communities who gravely need it."
Cha
(318,734 posts)Harry & Meghan the best in their lives.. and their children.
Demovictory9
(37,113 posts)Hekate
(100,133 posts)On a slightly humorous note, back when America was a bunch of colonies, it provided a viable opportunity for a slew of “second sons” who were fated to inherit none of their wealthy fathers’ lands or wealth.
Harry Windsor is a second son. Welcome to the land of second chances.
Cha
(318,734 posts)their lives that found them here in America and Los Angeles, CA!
They're both strong people on their own.. standing up for themselves. The Gaslighting Hate and the Racism of the British Tabloids started this Shit.. and Harry and Meghan didn't back down.
Big Second Chances.. I want to read his book some day.
pnwmom
(110,253 posts)in the family estates in England.
BumRushDaShow
(169,160 posts)triggered me to respond - "second sons".
And first one to come to mind was Prince Andrew, who I don't believe was mentioned here. He was a textbook description of a "second son" and his travails continue to this day.
Even if one completely removes the overlay of a monarchy, the human condition of sibling preferences by parents (real or perceived) is an old old practice that can cause all sorts of angst for all the siblings.
Watching Harry growing up in the spotlight, from birth to current, I saw a feisty, carefree, partying, often wild free spirit who had so much potential if only someone could "rope him in". Seems he obviously needed a level and type of attention that he was not getting after his mother died.
Hopefully this book is cathartic for him and now that he is a parent, he will further resolve his internal demons.
I did listen to an excerpt of the audio book version that he narrated and it was intriguing to say the least.
Ilsa
(64,312 posts)are willing to sacrifice the lives of family members to maintain the worldview that they are special, chosen by God, to morally, ethically, lead the Commonwealth.
Cha
(318,734 posts)happened.. Monarchy Over Family.. Hate Over Love.. Racism Over Humanity.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)AnrothElf
(923 posts)Not me. Fuck all the royal scum and the moronic Americans lapping it up, too.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)That they're "royal family" is why I've heard of them. It's not why, when I become aware of the pain of tragic family estrangement, I wish better for them. I'd feel the same if they were neighbors I barely knew.
AnrothElf
(923 posts)Why would I give a fuck about gossip of the royals? Fuck them all. There's 8 billion people on earth. I care more about homeless strangers than royal fuckups and squatbags.
It's pathetic how so many Americans worship celebrity
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)I don't even know that sounds a lot like hate. I'm not consumed with resentment against anyone. My anger against those who threw the nation to the Republicans in 2016 is the longest of my life, but it's because of real fear, still ongoing, that won't let me forget all about them and what they might do next.
I don't know what would really "take" all kinds, but we certainly are part of them anyway.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)I don't even know that sounds a lot like hate. I'm not consumed with resentment against anyone, not even if they're wealthy or famous -- or because they don't even know I exist or do and don't like me?
Whatever. I don't know what "it" is that would really "take" all kinds, probably a good thing not to encounter that, but we certainly are them anyway.
obamanut2012
(29,335 posts)Good lord.
I am a british royal enthusiast. From William the Conquerer to Charles 3. I love British/UK history, so I give a lot of fucks.
If you don't why are you wasting everyone's time posting?
AnrothElf
(923 posts)I can be obnoxious as fuck, too. Fair's fair
Hekate
(100,133 posts)You’ll be so much happier. Trash the threads on the subject — you won’t even see them on the page.
I for one will rejoice on your behalf.
Judi Lynn
(164,122 posts)Why chase threads around you don't like when you could drop it and move on, anyway?
It only takes a little self-control, doesn't hurt at all!
Thanks!
Hekate
(100,133 posts) obamanut2012
(29,335 posts)Quit attacking everyone.
LittleGirl
(8,999 posts)I lost a parent at 15 and it changes your DNA.
The grief is so intense that you have to suppress it to survive. But, it comes back to haunt you and you make all kinds of decisions to cope that are not usually accepted by society or your family. It completely fractures relationships. Growing up a Royal must have been awful. I went through stages just like Harry.
I believe Meghan came into his life to rescue him. They made a family and since he cut off the family had to make decisions about their safety and future for their sake. He begged them to stop the feeding frenzy of moving to the states and the tabloids were cut off. Even Tyler Perry couldn’t believe what the paps did when they rented his house for a few months. They had to put up 12 foot fences!
Joinfortmill
(21,041 posts)CottonBear
(21,615 posts)You have expressed exactly what happened to me after my father died.
Nothing is ever the same. Relationships are completely fractured. The things one does to cope are unimaginable. I made terrible decisions for decades as a coping mechanism.
I am so sorry you lost your parent. You never stop missing them.
liberal_mama
(1,495 posts)night. I'm going to start reading Spare tonight.
MOMFUDSKI
(7,080 posts)his mother's son. And good for him.
pnwmom
(110,253 posts)he's just following the example set by his parents.
This is a 1995 review of The Prince of Wales, a biography, released with Charles' full cooperation in the year after he split with Diana.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-01-22-bk-22744-story.html
In the preface the author states, “I have experienced a wide range of emotions in writing this book; boredom has never been one of them,” but the reader will beg to differ. Dimbleby was given full access to the Prince, as well as his friends, diaries, archives and letters, so he can hardly be expected to be hard-eyed and independent, even so, nothing prepares the reader for toadying quite like this.
SNIP
Dimbleby was also responsible for the ITV television documentary, “Charles: The Private Man, The Public Role,” in which the Prince publicly confessed that he had committed adultery, and he depicts the heir to the throne as a piteous victim of fate: ignored by his mother, the Queen, bullied by his father, Prince Philip, abused by his schoolmates, and tortured by his publicity-mad, hysterical wife, Diana, whom he never loved and only married because his father put pressure on him to make a decision.
SNIP
For instance, we learn that Charles always loved Camilla Parker Bowles and was intimate with her up until his wedding and that he was jealous of his own wife’s astounding popularity. Yet the author puts all the blame for the marital disaster on the bulimic Princess and discreetly passes over the Prince’s tape-recorded phone conversation in which he wished to be reincarnated as Mrs. Bowles’ tampon (if this is his idea of romance, you can forgive the Princess for feeling nauseated).
sheshe2
(97,358 posts)
pnwmom
(110,253 posts)-- in an official biography -- how he was bullied by Prince Philip, ignored by the Queen, and how he wished he could have been his adulterous companion's "tampon."
But Harry has somehow crossed some invisible line.
Cha
(318,734 posts)Thankyou!
BuddhaGirl
(3,706 posts)Thanks for posting 
Dorian Gray
(13,850 posts)Harry married a black american and said "fuck it all." So of course they're more critical of him than Charles who grabbed hard onto the system.
pnwmom
(110,253 posts)is why a number of progressives HERE are so critical of Harry and Meghan.
Dorian Gray
(13,850 posts)either a hero or a villain. He's a flawed human being with good and bad qualities, just like the rest of us.
Though the Irish Catholic part of me does admire how much he's making the British press freak out. lol.
As for progressives on this board.... are there that many going hard at him? I've seen a few voices, but you'll get them anywhere. It seems the majority are kind of enjoying the thorn in the side he is to the crown.
obamanut2012
(29,335 posts)In a way that reflects the worst of the British tabloids.
Violet_Crumble
(36,385 posts)I stand by what I said to you in another thread. You're way too emotionally invested in this soap-opera. Now you're trying to turn it into some sort of political litmus test. I'm a socialist politically and the only divide I see on the whole Harry/Meghan thing is Americans/UK and commonwealth countries. Americans worship the ground Harry and Meghan walk on. There's no deviation from blindly agreeing with everything they say or do lest another person turn up to accuse you of racism for daring to question whether Harry talking about his dick with Colbert was a good idea or not. In the UK and some Commonwealth countries, people just don't really care that much. Here in Australia we've got far more weighty things to deal with, like the upcoming referendum for the Indigenous voice.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/12/28/australia-to-hold-referendum-on-indigenous-voice-next-year
Maybe in the US things are that bizarrely weird that Harry & Meghan are a political issue. It wouldn't surprise me because the US is a very weird place right now. But that's not how it is most other places. I hope Harry sorts himself out and finds a life for himself where his value is far more than being fodder for entertainment news and Americans who thrive on the British monarchy even though their ancestors held the equivalent of a referendum and voted for a republic.
Speaking of which, I'm one of the very few in this thread who has a say about the monarchy. Sorry to say, but Harry's ghostwritten book hasn't swayed my opinion on how I'll vote on any referendum we have about the monarchy. I'll be voting against us becoming a republic because I'd rather have a vanilla ceremonial head of state than some stupid but dangerous fuckwit like Trump...
pnwmom
(110,253 posts)But we're clear-eyed about the Monarchy, and the hereditary peerage, and their pretentious claim to be superior to other British citizens based on the accident of their birth.
Harry and Meghan are speaking out about that narcissistic system, where everything is about the Royal Family maintaining a proper image -- no matter what the cost to a family member's well being. And they're speaking out about systemic racism, which is as ingrained in England as it is here.
Good for them.
Violet_Crumble
(36,385 posts)You've been posting over and over again defending everything they do and say. You've tried to turn criticism of them into some not-pprogressive thing. It's worship of celebrity.
You don't understand what narcissism is and despite yr attempts in this and other threads, yr no expert on constitutional monarchy. Just the fact that in another thread you tried to argue why Harry shouldn't give up his title tells me your words on monarchy are pretty shallow at best.
Unlike you, I admire people who earn the spotlight because they've actually done something to deserve it like Greta Thurnberg. Harry & Meghan are just entitled and privileged people who are only admired by people like you because of the family he was born into.
pnwmom
(110,253 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 14, 2023, 02:27 PM - Edit history (8)
And I do understand what narcissism is. But maybe you don't, if you don't understand how growing up in the narcissistic Monarchy is like growing up with a narcissistic parent.
How the Monarchy is a narcissistic system:
Grandiosity -- check!
The Royals believe themselves to be superior to everyone else. Inferiors -- which includes all UK citizens, including the Prime Minister -- are expected to bow or curtsy to them.
Link to tweet
Lack of empathy -- check!
Two hours after learning of their mother's death, the young princes were made to attend Mass -- where no one acknowledged that their mother had died, by order of the Queen.
The Royals require their children to perform on command -- check!
Days later, after their mother's funeral, when they were still reeling, the young princes were expected to smile at the crowds who waited along the road, to shake the onlookers' hands and and to comfort THEM.
The Royals have a most favored child. Check!
The Royals favor one child -- the Heir to the Throne. They not only have a favored child, they formally RANK all their children, from #1 on down the line. When a new child is born, that child is automatically ranked lower than his older siblings(s) - but if he's the son of a King, or a future king, then that baby automatically ranks higher than the King's own second child.
(Within a heavily narcissistic family system this all makes sense.)
The Royals refuse to accept a child's charting their own path -- check!
When Harry moved to Canada, thinking he could work from another part of the Commonwealth, he was told that if he didn't return, all financial support would be cut off, including funds needed for his security.
The Royals expect all family members to reflect well on the Monarchy -- image is everything! Check!
The Royal Family has its own press office (communications office) specifically designated to manage their image in the media. How many non-narcissistic families have that?
And, yes, there is a thing as healthy narcissism. It's the difference between a parent telling their child that, if they worked hard, they might be able to be President some day -- versus a parent telling a child: you were born a Prince, and your father is the King, and someday you'll be King. (Or: Someday your brother will be King, because he was first born. Your only job is to support him and the monarchy for the rest of your life.)
obamanut2012
(29,335 posts)Violet_Crumble
(36,385 posts)This Guardian article from Arwa Mahdawi sums up exactly how I feel about the entire circus...
I don’t think anyone should be going around calling themselves Duke or Duchess in 2023. Unless they are a stripper or a dog
I’m afraid it’s the law now, OK? I’ve valiantly resisted for as long as I could, but the time has come: I simply have to write about Harry and Meghan. It is basically illegal not to have at least one opinion about the royals who apparently hate being royals but are still milking their royal connections for all they’re worth. And don’t roll your eyes, you’re a glutton for this stuff too. Everyone loves to see obscenely privileged people airing their dirty laundry. There is a reason that Harry’s memoir has become the UK’s fastest-selling nonfiction book and that reason is not the quality of the writing.
Don’t worry, I’m not going to pull a Piers Morgan or Jeremy Clarkson here and start seething with unhinged rage about Harry and Meghan. I’m not the Sussexes’ biggest fan but the only royal I can muster up enough energy to get really outraged about is Prince Andrew. You remember him? He hasn’t been in the news very much lately since Harry’s been hogging all the headlines but he’s the guy that got stripped of royal duties over his relationship with the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. He’s the guy that Ghislaine Maxwell recently called her “dear friend”. He’s a nasty piece of work and yet Britain is now so caught up in Harry hatred that a recent YouGov poll has found that Brits over the age of 65 dislike the Sussexes more than disgraced Prince Andrew.
**snip**
I’m not the only person who is a bit miffed that Harry and Meghan seem to want to have their royal cake and eat it too. According to a YouGov survey conducted in December 2022 nearly half of the British public reckon Prince Harry should have his title removed. Anderson Cooper brought up the issue in Harry’s recent interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes. “[C]ritics say the duke and duchess are cashing in on their royal titles while they still can,” Cooper said. “Why not renounce your titles as duke and duchess?”
Harry didn’t have a particularly eloquent answer. “And what difference would that make?” he replied.
It would make a lot of difference, Harry! You can’t complain about an antiquated institution while insisting that people call you duke. Well, I mean, technically you can. Technically that’s exactly what Harry and Meghan are doing. But it makes you look just a little bit like a hypocrite. It makes it seem like that only real problem you have with hereditary privilege is that you didn’t get as much as you’d have liked.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/commentisfree/2023/jan/13/prince-harry-title-duke-duchess-sussex-spare
Dorian Gray
(13,850 posts)First I'd like to write a disclaimer: I'm an american who doesn't side with any of them, really. I've said publicly that I enjoy watching the train wreck and I like that Harry/Meg are a thorn in the crown's side. So I guess I have a slight bias.
In American media, there are lines being drawn here, and those lines are really weird. Republican media really and truly is pro monarchy. THey're anti-Harry and Meghan in a way that is oddly off-putting. There is a tendency to really despise them in those media circles, and I don't understand it other than an appeal to authority and authoritarian leadership.
In general, the black media circles (And to be fair, others, as well) are very pro Harry and Meghan. Which probably comes from the opposite side of the same card. Anti Authoritarian leadership of a monarchy that made it's fortune through colonialism, slavery and subjugating various indigenous groups around the world to minimized power in their own lands.
Then there is the gossip media circles. Mixed bag here, often depending on the background of the intended viewer. But this circle plays up the most dramatic revelations and perpetuates rumors.
So where to american progressive media circles land? A lot of them celebrate Harry and Meghan bc their conservative counterparts react against them. But there is more nuanced response in this circle in general, and many progressive/liberal people are open to more varied views.
betsuni
(29,033 posts)There are these rules:
All problems are economic. Populist Them vs Us. Money is the only motivation for the enemy, Them, who are evil and corrupt.
It is impossible for a wealthy person (Them) to understand economic inequality. Only The Working Class/The People can -- why the projection that anyone who doesn't hate Harry & Meghan thinks they're "saints" and "worships" them.
Therefore Harry & Meghan are the enemy and evil, lying to The People while raking in money, gigging over champagne and swanky canapes about their diabolical plot that fooled everybody (except the Us who cannot be fooled because not corrupt and like, capitalists and stuff).
I think I'm correct! Never mind that Harry has donated profits from the book to his African children affected by HIV organization and has announced more donations in the future. Ignore both of their activism and charitable work and plans for future work.
Same thing demonizing Hillary because she was paid for speeches. Ignore that she donated profits to the Clinton Foundation, ignore her whole career actually getting things done for the American people. She was also put in the "Them" category and her character must be attacked.
Sympthsical
(10,954 posts)I'm often critical of people lazily saying, "I dislike this opinion, so it's right-wing."
But what is laid out there actually is.
So . . . that happened.
And in defense of two celebrities. Tilty.
betsuni
(29,033 posts)pnwmom
(110,253 posts)Your opinion is not supported by any facts. There is nothing right-wing about the idea that very wealthy people have little understanding of
the struggles of ordinary people, suffering the effects of economic inequality.
And you criticize people for supporting 2 "celebrities." You're supporting a whole family of them -- a family that claims to have achieved their exalted status in life by the will of God.
No one can logically disparage Harry and Meghan for being celebrities while supporting the Royal Family -- the ultimate celebrity family.
Sympthsical
(10,954 posts)Twice can be misunderstanding or mistake.
This is the third time you're claiming I support the royal family after being told twice directly in reply to you that I do not support them nor do I even particularly like them. Twice we've had this conversation.
Third time is starting to feel like willful mischaracterization with intent to mislead, and I genuinely cannot fathom to what purpose. Others have noted the strange emotional investment, and I'm going to amplify that here. Repeated dishonesty about others' positions in service to defend wealthy celebrities is weird no matter who is being discussed.
Three times you've replied to me with this Manichean view of the situation that dislike of the Netflix people means like and support for the royal family.
So, for the third time, let me explain: I can dislike them both. I do dislike both sides of it. I can hold both thoughts in my head at the same time. Harry and Meghan are grubbing for money and fame when what he honestly needs is new friends and lots of therapy. The royal family have the moral authority of dirt, except at least dirt can be productive with seeds and water.
I hope I do not have to lay down this very clear outlining of my views for a fourth time.
pnwmom
(110,253 posts)The post I was just responding to said this:
But what is laid out there actually is.
So . . . that happened.
And in defense of two celebrities. Tilty.
Without basis, you were accusing Betsuni's theory of being right-wing. It wasn't. But rather than explain what was rightwing about Betsuni's theory, you changed the subject and accused me of twisting your views.
I didn't deliberately twist anything. I merely responded to a particular post that only referred to Harry and Meghan, and referring to them as celebrities. When you write posts only criticizing two of the members of that celebrity family, it's hard to remember what you might previously have said about all of them.
betsuni
(29,033 posts)Pretty please explain? No? "And in defense of two celebrities" -- what does that mean?
Hekate
(100,133 posts)I never speak for the Brits, because their form of constitutional government is theirs to decide, and so is their monarchy. They have their troubles and we have ours, and we are in no position to judge — especially as Trump still walks free, as I hope others take my meaning.
TY, betsuni.
Sympthsical
(10,954 posts)That is a very, very odd standard to try holding people to.
I don't share the emotional investment in all this. However, I also understand we live in America where emotional attachment to celebrities is a weird thing we do - and these two are tailor made Oprahesque figures of the highest order. So some subset of the population will get invested like they were related or something. Fine.
But an ideological investment strikes me as just bizarre. If I don't care for two celebrities, do I suddenly not want health care for all? Many, many people have already told you dislike for these two does not translate to liking or excusing the royal family or the British tabloids.
It's possible to dislike two different things at the same time for different reasons. I assure you, I do it daily.
Counterpoint: I don't get why liberals or progressives are going to personal bat for two wealthy people who have enjoyed an enormous amount of privilege in all of this. To combat one privilege, we're going to defend another?
Doesn't scan. Like, at all. And that sort of thing seems far more illiberal than someone just not liking anyone involved.
pnwmom
(110,253 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 14, 2023, 02:12 PM - Edit history (2)
God didn't establish the monarchy.
The monarchy is a contradiction within a democracy, because a monarchy is founded on the idea that some people are superior to others, from birth; the idea that a King, who was born into the Royal Family, will always be superior to anyone else in the country, including the Prime Minister. This is why Theresa May is expected to curtsy to King Charles. It's a recognition of his superior position, from birth.
Harry and Meghan are exposing the rottenness at the core of the monarchy, and spread throughout the media empire of Murdoch. Good for them.
Dorian Gray
(13,850 posts)is that not liking harry and meghan doesn't mean they support the monarchy.
They can dislike both the couple who fled AND the institution that they fled from.
pnwmom
(110,253 posts)that their real objection is to the whole Royal Family of celebrities. Because that isn't clear when they focus diatribes on Harry and Meghan.
Jarqui
(10,904 posts)I'm also sure these things have not arrived without inconceivable prices or strings attached.
I have no doubt, in spite of the silver spoons, that he's lived a troubled existence. Always in the camera viewfinder.
I grew up in an affluent neighborhood. The overwhelming message to me was that money did not buy you happiness. You could pretend to be happy. And you could pay your bills. But real happiness eluded many of them. Sadly, that might be Harry's lot in life.
This site directs its attention to people getting a living wage or climate change or Black Lives Matter or _____________ (insert you favorite Democratic issues). They're so much bigger and can help so many more people than whatever poor Harry is going through. Relative to those issues, I'm sorry Harry has had a tough time but Harry isn't going to starve to death and is a relative waste of my time = a distraction for issues that can help so many more.
I'm sticking to fighting for MLK's Dream and climate change and voting rights, etc.
I know Harry will always be able to make his rent.
pnwmom
(110,253 posts)on behalf of the British monarchy. That seems odd to me.
The monarchy stands for the idea that some people -- because they took power by force more than a hundred years ago -- are by nature superior to others. Hence, Prime Minister Theresa May had to curtsy to the Queen. The unelected Queen was her superior.
We should all stand against that idea.
Jarqui
(10,904 posts)"The unelected Queen was her superior." in a bogus play for show.
But the reality was and is much different.
Dorian Gray
(13,850 posts)people who make heroes out of them, especially americans, are weird. I get royal watching bc you like the gossip and the fashion... to a certain extent, but don't make heroes out of any of those people. (That's mostly true of anybody, celebrity, politician, or anybody else of fame.)
Harry and Meghan are a good example. People either LOVE THEM OR HATE THEM! There is no middle ground. They're not heroes. They're messy. Bad planners. hard to work for. But they also are human beings with love for one another. They have every right to leave the family and tell their story.
The vitriol they receive makes no sense to me, just as the avid hero worship some others give them makes no sense to me.
Same with William and Kate.
Nobody has to be the villain or the hero. They're just all people. Flawed, warts and all.
sheshe2
(97,358 posts)The title alone is telling what life was like. "Spare"
He and Megan are here and speaking out to protect their own family since his family abandoned them.
They will have a far better life far away from the dysfunctional RF.
Xolodno
(7,347 posts)Confession can be good for the soul and I'm no where near Catholic/Orthodox.
With that said, he should not dwell on it any more. Move on and use the fame to help others and solid charities. Become the person every hater doesn't want you to be.
littlemissmartypants
(33,143 posts) betsuni
(29,033 posts)betsuni
(29,033 posts)No no no. Nothing is like Lena Dunham's personal disclosure campaign, nothing.
Her memoir "Not That Kind of Girl" is the worst thing I've ever read. I offended myself by reading it, tried to make it to the end but couldn't. What Dorothy Parker said: not a book to be tossed aside lightly but thrown with great force. It's bad enough when regular memoirs bore you with uninteresting childhoods and far too much information about youthful romances and dysfunctional relationships, but this is oblivious extreme narcissism and privilege on a different level.
At first I thought Lena trolling her audience by being naked all the time on her show "Girls" was interesting, then found out her artist mother as a young woman took daily naked photos of herself, and young Lena used to stand naked in front of a mirror admiring herself, so that was nothing new after all.
pnwmom
(110,253 posts)about his father's bullying, his mother's ignoring him, his wife Diana's hysteria, and his wish that he could have been Camilla's tampon -- puts Harry's disclosures to shame.
betsuni
(29,033 posts)Gross.
Hekate
(100,133 posts)I like Mary McNamara’s writing, but apparently even she can pen a clunker of a comment.
LetMyPeopleVote
(179,226 posts)betsuni
(29,033 posts)CatWoman
(80,288 posts)they were showing shots of empty book stores and mocking the "non selling" of Harry's book.
they prove everything he says about them each and every day.
pnwmom
(110,253 posts)Cha
(318,734 posts)"Spare".. "Heir & a Spare"..
Violet_Crumble
(36,385 posts)Hello from Australia. I can confirm that Harry's book really isn't news here and no-one I know is interested in it. So, what is that supposed to prove about us? Is it that unlike Americans we don't view the British royal family like it's an episode of the Bold & the Beautiful? They're all entitled and very privileged people. FFS, Harry was whining about his apartment at Kensington Palace only having three ceiling to floor windows! Meanwhile, here in the real world, people are living pay to pay and many low income earners are now living in tents because they can't afford to rent. Is it different in the US and there's no poverty or rental shortages? Because if there were, I'm not understanding why so many Americans are so invested in the whole Harry & Meghan saga...
CatWoman
(80,288 posts)and just reported on what I saw on you tube.
However, if no one there "cares", why the breathless, belittling reporting from the Aussie press?
Cha
(318,734 posts)tavernier
(14,430 posts)It’s very well written , interesting, a mixture of emotions from the author. He’s very likable IMO, perhaps too likable for the firm.
Peacetrain
(24,288 posts)I am pretty damned impressed with him.. Murdoch and his allies have almost taken down numerous Democracies.. and support the crazy right in many countries.. I am amazed at how some, even here, will take the side of the Tabloids..
HipChick
(25,611 posts)has his mother pay off his victim to make his paedophile case go away, and media swept it under the carpet
gldstwmn
(4,575 posts)to hound Meghan and Harry literally to death just like they did to his mother. I completely understand and applaud their decision to leave.
I watched him on Colbert and 60 minutes and found him to be real and somewhat vulnerable. I hope they can weather all of this. Their children are adorable.
littlemissmartypants
(33,143 posts)
Joinfortmill
(21,041 posts)
usajumpedtheshark
(673 posts)I don't pretend that hearing one side of the story allows me to determine who is in the right and who is in the wrong. And since my knowledge of the events is extremely limited, my own observations have limited validity.
1. This whole discussion seems very much like a MAGA discussion with individuals fanatically embracing one side or the other based on an incomplete understanding of the experience of both sides of the stories.
2. My parents taught me that the worst way to get ahead was by tearing down others.
3. My parents also taught me that family was more important than money.
4.You can't morally win a fight when you use the same tactics that you believe the other side is wrong to use.
5. It is delusional to think you can trash members of your family in a very public way and expect them to want to reconcile.
6. You shouldn't expect people to observe your privacy when you are violating theirs.
7. If something you have publicly stated has been misinterpreted, you should correct that misinterpretation if has the potential of causing harm to someone else. Silence is acquiescence.
8. It is obscene how much money is made off of gossip.
Finally, Harry can stop calling himself The Spare and start calling himself Redundant now that there is a niece and two nephews ahead of him in the line of succession.
Hekate
(100,133 posts)… whether you intended so or not.
The vicious gossips of the tabloids and tv have made money off Harry (and his family) his entire life, and were only too pleased to have caused his mother’s death because it made such good money for them.
But now that Harry Windsor and his wife Meghan have seized the means of production for themselves and are taking the money that the vicious gossips think belongs to them, well Good Gods Almighty, the world has turned upside down.
LetMyPeopleVote
(179,226 posts)Jedi Guy
(3,466 posts)When they stepped back from their duties as working royals, I seem to recall that one of their stated desires was to step out of the limelight and enjoy some privacy. Bit odd, then, that they've been constantly chasing the limelight ever since. Whenever the focus moves off of them, seems like they do something to yank it back onto them, whether that be an interview with Oprah, a Netflix series, or a book. It smacks a lot of, "I just want to be left alone except when I don't want to be left alone and I really don't want to be left alone right now pay attention to meeeeeeee."
Harry also knows full well that the royal family generally responds to any kind of shocking, salacious accusation with silence, or at most a tepid, "Nuh uh" press release. This knowledge allows him de facto control of the narrative. He can say whatever he likes, confident in the knowledge that the other side won't really do anything in response to his or Meghan's allegations.
It's also somewhat fascinating to watch people (here on DU and in wider society) pick sides in this conflict and treat their side's version of events as gospel truth, with all issues being the fault of the side not chosen. In most intrafamily disputes I've witnessed, there's generally plenty of fault to go around. I suspect the same is true for the British royals. I suppose it's more fun to pick one side and vilify the other, though.
SunSeeker
(58,237 posts)At least they're making money and supporting themselves, unlike the other royals.