Spare: By Prince Harry

[CuriousParker]

Any and all discussion re: the book Spare by Prince Harry.

[gingerella]

So I finally got this from the library the other day, it's only taken how many months? There are apparently still over a thousand people waiting currently at my library for this book so I'm supposed to read it in two weeks but I can already tell it's going to be overdue because I only read a few of these mini chapters per night!

Anyway, so far I'm at the part where Harry visits Botswana for the first time, and I have an overall feeling of deep sadness reading this so far. Some of it I don't get why it was put into the book - like the part about how they bathed as boys at school, all lined up each in their own bathtub and the matrons would come by and wash their hair for them. It's so freaking odd, but then again I suppose it IS freaking odd, and it is how he was raised so I guess it adds to how weird an environment he was brought up in.

The level of anxiety and loss and grief that he talks about is mind boggling. That nobody got him a therapist is beyond me. It feels like child abuse if I'm being honest. And Wills being so cold to him also is a big WTF?!? The press has always marketed them as super close and if they were not, then it was just more of the BRF fantasy being sold to the public, always at the expense of the kids. So it's one more thing to learn was not true vis a vis what the tabs were making up. I get the part about William not wanting Harry to hang out with him at school, that's a normal sibling thing IMO, and I was the same way when my sister and I went to sleep away camp so I get it. But it's sad that Harry didn't really have anyone to lean on 100% through the grieving process. I hope we learn more about Tiggy being there for him as I get more into the book.

I am really liking Harry's reaction to Botswana's Okavango Delta though, because I worked there as a development worker and that part of the country is magical and I love seeing it through his eyes!

Edited March 28 by gingerella

[oliviabenson]

I’m still waiting for my library copy. I’m number 23.

[gingerella]

On 3/28/2023 at 8:29 AM, oliviabenson said:

I’m still waiting for my library copy. I’m number 23.

Did you get your copy yet Olivia?

I'm now about halfway through Spare and what I have noticed is that all the 'salacious bits' that people were salivating over before Spare was released - How Harry speaks about war, his frostbitten penis, how he talks about William, the people he hung out with in Botswana - I remember everyone being up in arms over at the time, but I'm reading this now and there is nothing in there that seems to be so over the top, IMO.

War:

When he talks about his time servicing his country in the warzones, it is clear that being in a war zone was preferable to being in the war zone of his usual life, battling the press intrusions. It is sad that someone would find solace in war, but I understand why he did. Also, and not for nothing, he's no dope, as some like to portray him. You don't get to pilot Apache helicopters if you're not highly intelligent! I admire him for doing what was needed to get himself back there a second time. And I get the feeling that William was very jealous of Harry's ability to do what he might have wanted to do, but wasn't allowed to do because he's the heir.

Frostbite:

I mean, he mentions it because he had no idea it was something that could happen to him, and he thought he might have done permanent damage to it. I get that. If a woman got frostbite on her nipples and thought they might have to be amputated, no doubt she'd be freaked out too. It was a few mentions, not the big deal some made it out to be before the book's release.

William and Charles:

He clearly loves them both dearly, but needed a more open relationship with both and neither was either able or willing to give him that. He needed what I would call 'normal' love from his family, just like his mother needed, and they simply were incapable of giving that to him, which is so sad.

His Botswana Friends:

I remember a furor before publication, about him hanging out with ne'er do wells, partying his ass off in Botswana. I didn't get that at all. He had a couple that were like parents to him, who were able to give him the love and attention that he would have liked from his father and brother. And he hung out there with Chelsey because they could escape the press there. I used to live there too, and there is nothing to but drink beer and have braais when you live in the bush. He wasn't doing anything out of the ordinary, mostly appreciating nature and learning about the wildlife there. And then there were his trips to Lesotho, next door, where he was doing his early Sentebale work. So I see nothing odd about his time there either.

Basically all the hullabaloo over that Spain leak of the advance copies seems like typical press blowing nothing into something so they can get more eyes on their craptastic websites and (fake)newspapers. The overarching theme I get from this book halfway through, is that Harry never received the love, care, and attention that he needed after his mother died so tragically, and his family has been unable to give him much in the way of comfort, so he has sought that comfort out in the form of surrogate parents, girlfriends, etc. I come away more and more appalled at the BRF and their coldness, even when one of their own is begging for help. It didn't and doesn't need to be that way.

Edited April 9 by gingerella

[AgentRXS]

I agree @gingerella. I have just gotten to the part where Harry and Meg started dating, and came away with the same thoughts about the book as you. I felt that the frostbite bit was included to add a bit of levity after he just got done discussing the realities of war. 
It is really too bad that Harry and Margaret were too far apart in age to get each other because I really feel they are the only ones who would really understand each other. I do hope the William and Harry can reconcile one day, as I am sure Louie and Charlotte will need advise on how to handle being the spare.
If not for any other reason than it is what their mom would have wanted. It breaks my heart for her that the machine that is royal life tore her babies apart from each other. 

[deaja]

On 4/8/2023 at 9:59 PM, gingerella said:

Basically all the hullabaloo over that Spain leak of the advance copies seems like typical press blowing nothing into something so they can get more eyes on their craptastic websites and (fake)newspapers.

I think it was also just how it was done-  it is my understanding that because only a Spanish version was available and the press wanted to be able to be the first to report on bits, the translating was being done very ad hoc. Like, the book was written in English, translated to Spanish by trained translators, but then being re-translated to English by reporters in a rush and using google translate, sending individual pages to people they knew who spoke Spanish, etc.  So where a trained translator will look for context and choose the best word that fits the context of the book, Google Translate (or similar) is more literal so idioms don't always come across as clearly.  There were a few parts that when I read the actual book didn't really match with the original stories reported.

[Roseanna]

On 4/9/2023 at 4:59 AM, gingerella said:

Frostbite:

I mean, he mentions it because he had no idea it was something that could happen to him, and he thought he might have done permanent damage to it. I get that. If a woman got frostbite on her nipples and thought they might have to be amputated, no doubt she'd be freaked out too. It was a few mentions, not the big deal some made it out to be before the book's release.

I just can't understand why any person of sense would reveal such intimate details in public. 

Harry's ghost writer is a professional, so he surely knows that in a book you chose to include only those details that belong the themes of the book and leave others away.

Harry told, first, that his dad wanted his penis to circumcised as as baby whereas his mom was against it and his dad's opinion was won, second, that because his penis was circumcised, it was more easily frostbitten (not mentioning that by consulting experienced people he would have had right clothes in Antartica), and third that he treated his penis by putting Diana's favorite cream on it.

All in all, a story is real weird, and I can't blame those who have interpreted the last part as yet an one sign of his obsession on his mom.

[Roseanna]

On 4/9/2023 at 4:59 AM, gingerella said:

William and Charles:

 

He clearly loves them both dearly, but needed a more open relationship with both and neither was either able or willing to give him that. He needed what I would call 'normal' love from his family, just like his mother needed, and they simply were incapable of giving that to him, which is so sad.

I think that, whereas in some cases in-laws become as almost as close as one's parents and siblings, it's also quite common that when a sibling has his/her own family, he/she will concentrate on them. Both professionally and privately William was in the different phase in life than Harry and in addition he was evidently "adopted" by Kate's family.

Harry's wish that once he married, things would change was based on the illusion. Meghan and Kate had evidently nothing in common, except that they married brothers. If he had married his former girlfriend who W&K liked, it could perhaps been different.

In any case, unlike Harry, most thirtysomething have an independent life of their own.  

     

[Bethany]

On 4/14/2023 at 11:00 AM, deaja said:

There were a few parts that when I read the actual book didn't really match with the original stories reported.

I found this particularly striking with regard to Harry's military service.

[Brn2bwild]

One thing neither Spare nor Harry's other media appearances (H&M and interviews) ever really explain is what is the "Institution"?  I know that on one level, it is the bureaucracy surrounding the Crown that helps keep everything running.  But who really runs it?  It wasn't the Queen.  Does King Charles really run the "Institution"?  If not, then is it the courtiers?  If so, why do they have so much power?    

[gingerella]

31 minutes ago, Brn2bwild said:

One thing neither Spare nor Harry's other media appearances (H&M and interviews) ever really explain is what is the "Institution"?  I know that on one level, it is the bureaucracy surrounding the Crown that helps keep everything running.  But who really runs it?  It wasn't the Queen.  Does King Charles really run the "Institution"?  If not, then is it the courtiers?  If so, why do they have so much power?    

Great question! I've always understood the Firm = BRF and the Institution = Courtiers/Palace staff. One would have thought that the Queen was 'in charge' of the monarchy but based on what I am just reading in Spare, it seems like she was, fir lack of a better phrase, cock blocked by her own staff. Harry talks about the Bee, the Fly, and the Wasp as the three men closet to The Queen, and how she will tell them to do something - like go meet with H& M re: the racist stories, and while he does meet with them he does nothing afterwards. I haven't yet gotten to see if Harry goes to The Queen again about this but it seems like he can't just ring up his grandmother and talk to her. He has to.go through the people blocking him from her. So it feels like the monarchy might not be as in control as us outsiders always assumed they were. 

[ancslove]

Most likely (allegedly), the Bee is the Queen's Private Secretary Edward Young, the Wasp is Charles' Private Secretary (at least during his last maybe decade or so as PoW) Clive Alderton, and the Fly is William's Private Secretary Simon Case.  Private Secretaries are a bit like Chief of Staff.

[Notabug]

9 hours ago, ancslove said:

Most likely (allegedly), the Bee is the Queen's Private Secretary Edward Young, the Wasp is Charles' Private Secretary (at least during his last maybe decade or so as PoW) Clive Alderton, and the Fly is William's Private Secretary Simon Case.  Private Secretaries are a bit like Chief of Staff.

I think it isn't so much that the Queen was powerless against these people as it was that she couldn't possibly know all the ins and outs of getting things done and she relied on her private secretary to carry out her wishes.  So, she referred Harry;s problems with the press to her secretary who essentially ignored most of them for whatever reason.  It seems like the family has essentially delegated all of these sorts of duties to the staff and provide very little input or oversight as they carry them out.  Once she told her Private Secretary to handle something, the Queen felt she had done her part and it seems there was and is very little supervision or follow up so the Private Secretaries do as they want for the most part.

It appears to be a poorly run organization which is not surprising since the CEO is chosen based on heredity, not skill and none of them seem to have any training or interest in business management.  The Queen excelled at some parts of her job but personnel management and supervision was not her thing nor do I think it is Charles'.  I don't think Harry has the least notion of how to fix it either, he just knows it didn't work for him.

Edited April 16 by Notabug

[Bethany]

10 hours ago, gingerella said:

So it feels like the monarchy might not be as in control as us outsiders always assumed they were. 

I think this is probably true in the same way it's true for any large organization.  The person at the top is overall "the boss" but a lot of levels are put in place and a lot of decision made at, for lack of a better word, the lower levels. 

I also believe very strongly that the Queen in her last years was not the powerhouse she may once have been.  Some may say she was being protected and that would be fair IMO but it also means she was putting on a facade in public and behind the scenes was able to be a 90ish yr old woman! 

It doesn't surprise me in the least that some of the more junior family members probably did not have access to her as readily as us plebes would assume they would with their own grandmother.  This was not at ordinary family and she was not an ordinary woman!

[Roseanna]

1 hour ago, Notabug said:

So, she referred Harry;s problems with the press to her secretary who essentially ignored most of them for whatever reason. 

We have only Harry's interpretation that nothing was done. Maybe they tried but failed and the reason was that Harry's demands were simply impossible to fulfill. 

[gingerella]

3 hours ago, Elizabeth Anne said:

I think this is probably true in the same way it's true for any large organization.  The person at the top is overall "the boss" but a lot of levels are put in place and a lot of decision made at, for lack of a better word, the lower levels. 

I also believe very strongly that the Queen in her last years was not the powerhouse she may once have been.  Some may say she was being protected and that would be fair IMO but it also means she was putting on a facade in public and behind the scenes was able to be a 90ish yr old woman! 

It doesn't surprise me in the least that some of the more junior family members probably did not have access to her as readily as us plebes would assume they would with their own grandmother.  This was not at ordinary family and she was not an ordinary woman!

I would agree with this based on what Harry's experience was. And it seems a bit like elder abuse, where those surrounding an elderly person are basically putting up a fortress around her to keep put those who would expose their scheming. It sounds like such things were going on for many years if not decades like this, but it's easier to perpetrate if the person at the center is elderly and frail. I wish someone could have fired the lot of these scheming assholes.

[ancslove]

Harry is the main one implying this, other sources paint a different picture.  Harry also knows that over the years, the Queen made a lot of exceptions for him whenever he went to her directly, so I think he took it extra hard when he wasn’t able to just drop in on her whenever he wanted.

Private Secretaries are part Chief of Staff, part PA, and look after the big business picture.  Harry has one, or at least he did as a senior royal.  (Now that he’s in America, he may be using more American terminology.). 

[realityplease]

In my experience, those at the top often & regularly use their staff as a buffer or to do their "dirty work." ("Tell him I'm not in."  Tell them I have a calendar conflict." "Tell him no.")  The staff takes the brunt.  It's their job, after all.  Even though the person at the top is the one actually calling the shots.

Also, no matter how highly situated, people can be loathe to confront family members.  Maybe the Queen felt Harry was abusing his relationship with her by trying to get her to intervene with Charles.  Maybe, she didn't want to be in the middle.  Or pressured by Harry.  Or a "soft touch" for him.  And stopped taking his calls and had her staff put him off.  That was the result - even by his telling in "The Spare."  But as to the reason - we will never truly know - whether she was simply a family member who tired of being involved in this tussle - or there was a "palace intrigue" against him involving staff.

People are quick to believe old tropes that anyone elderly must be doddering or diminished in some way.  Yes, Queen Elizabeth was, near the very end, physically diminished a bit (the cane, some back pain, etc.)  But still mentally sharp & making appearances until very late in the game, & meeting with the Prime Minister just days before the end.  I think Harry needs that old trope to explain his worry about whether "granny had the right people around her" and to justify why she stopped taking calls from him.  Forfend that he might actually think he was "bugging" her!

"Granny" seemed quite able to participate in the meeting Harry describes in The Spare, where Harry was told that half-in & half-out of the royalty wasn't an option.  (That Harry wasn't advised of the potential or actual conflicts of interest in that proposition before proposing it, still astounds me. ) It appears that The Queen continued to take his calls after that meeting, & might have continued to take his calls or to serve as his intermediary - if she wanted to do so.  But to me, that she didn't, signals that she didn't want to - not because she didn't love him, but because it was a drain on her strength.  Harry would rather place blame, not on himself for being an annoying gnat, but on the staffers who did her bidding.  I don't buy that. 

[Notabug]

On 4/16/2023 at 11:19 AM, Roseanna said:

We have only Harry's interpretation that nothing was done. Maybe they tried but failed and the reason was that Harry's demands were simply impossible to fulfill. 

This is true.  Based on his book, Harry felt there was one solution and one solution only and was upset when the rest of the family didn't agree with his plan.  We have no way of knowing what happened behind the scenes and if it made any difference.

The fact that Harry left the family and moved to the US and has done things his way ever since and yet he and his wife are still constantly in the media and the tabloids are, if anything, even more virulent than they were when he was a working royal, indicates to me, anyway, that Harry's plans for handling the media were no better than anyone else' and possibly worse.

[Notabug]

23 hours ago, ancslove said:

Harry is the main one implying this, other sources paint a different picture.  Harry also knows that over the years, the Queen made a lot of exceptions for him whenever he went to her directly, so I think he took it extra hard when he wasn’t able to just drop in on her whenever he wanted.

Private Secretaries are part Chief of Staff, part PA, and look after the big business picture.  Harry has one, or at least he did as a senior royal.  (Now that he’s in America, he may be using more American terminology.). 

The impression I got was that the Queen as a grandmother had a very soft spot for Harry and he wasn't above using her affection to get what he wanted from her professionally.  It seems like his main issue with access to the Queen was at times when he wanted her to intervene in his issues as a working royal with the press, his engagments, his compensation, etc.  At no time does it seem he was denied access to family events.  The Queen was a very elderly woman who we suspect dropped back from managerial duties at 'The Firm' over the last few years of her life.  I don't blame her or anyone else if the decision was made that Harry was out of bounds trying to drag her into his problems and his access to her as his boss was restricted.  

[Notabug]

13 minutes ago, Oosala said:

There are mentions made that both KCIII and QEII stopped taking calls from Harry because he was constantly begging Charles for money, to the level of several times a day.  When his calls to Charles didn't go through, he would try to hit up his grandmother, asking her to intervene with Charles because Harry and Meghan really neeeeeeeeeeeeed the moneeeeeeeeeeeeeeey.  When the Queen asked Charles what he was doing about it because she was fielding so many calls, he told her, 'I'm not a bank."  You walked away so you can make your own damn money.

The story is that, when Harry complained that his father had hung up on him during a convo after they went to Canada; Harry forgot to mention that he was cursing and yelling at his father and demanding money. Chaz asked him to stop repeatedly. He didn't stop, Charles hung up.  That's the problem with a lot of what Harry has revealed, he seemingly remembers everything his family did that was wrong and none of what he did that was not so good, either.

There is also a story out there that Harry had an appointment to see the Queen that was then cancelled.  Harry reports this in his book.  Others said that the Queen allowed the appointment to be made because, once again, she loved Harry and he was really insistent.  When she later expressed dismay because her other recent discussions with him turned into Harry complaining that his father was not giving him enough money and wanting her to fix that and that, anytime she tried to change the subject, Harry headed right back to his multimillion dollar annual allowance and how it was not enough.  Even before they left, Harry wanted a larger allowance.  Why did he want to subject his grandmother to that?  As far as I am concerned, anyone who decided to shield her from diatribes like that was doing the right thing.

Edited April 17 by Notabug

[Oosala]

12 minutes ago, Notabug said:

The story is that, when Harry complained that his father had hung up on him during a convo after they went to Canada; Harry forgot to mention that he was cursing and yelling at his father and demanding money.

Holy hell.  I think many of us normal people can actually relate to this.  How many of us have had relatives ask us for money?  Repeatedly?  Then when told NO, they get all pissed off and angry because we somehow owe it to them and we refuse to solve their life.  [Oosala raises her hand.]  So toxic.  So entitled.  So wrong.

 

12 minutes ago, Notabug said:

Why did he want to subject his grandmother to that?

Because, in the words of Edina:  "I'm sorry if that sounds selfish, darling, but it's me, me, me.

Edited April 17 by Oosala

[Bethany]

57 minutes ago, Oosala said:

Holy hell.  I think many of us normal people can actually relate to this.  How many of us have had relatives ask us for money?  Repeatedly?  Then when told NO, they get all pissed off and angry because we somehow owe it to them and we refuse to solve their life.  [Oosala raises her hand.]  So toxic.  So entitled.  So wrong.

I think most of us normal people can also relate to toxic people in our lives who deliberately lie about us to make themselves look better. 

And as we've all been reminded in other threads a "story" that is a "some people are saying" story should probably not be taken as gospel truth. 

However if there is a grain of truth in Harry begging for money and being turned down it must be a relief all round that his purported need for money has been more then met, not least by the stellar sales of Spare - which is still on the best seller list.

[gingerella]

2 minutes ago, Elizabeth Anne said:

I think most of us normal people can also relate to toxic people in our lives who deliberately lie about us to make themselves look better. 

And as we've all been reminded in other threads a "story" that is a "some people are saying" story should probably not be taken as gospel truth. 

However if there is a grain of truth in Harry begging for money and being turned down it must be a relief all round that his purported need for money has been more then met, not least by the stellar sales of Spare - which is still on the best seller list.

Here, here to the above! And speaking of, I just finally finished Spare last night. I need to gather my thoughts before I post in detail but suffice to say as I closed the book last night for the last time, I felt very sad. Sad for Harry. Sad for Meghan. Sad fir Wiliam and Charles even. These people didn't aks for this trapping, they were Bron into it. And it seems anyone who decided to break away is vilified. It's all just sad. I'll post more later. 

[PepSinger]

Question: was the cursing and yelling mentioned in Spare?

Edited April 17 by PepSinger

[bluegirl147]

13 minutes ago, gingerella said:

I felt very sad. Sad for Harry. Sad for Meghan.

I feel hopeful for them.  They are in a much friendlier environment.  The people in their life now are there because Harry & Meghan want them to be.  I think all of us have had to work with people and have family members we didn't like and that is not easy to do.   

I wonder if the paperback edition of Spare will include a chapter about everything that has happened since the release of the hardcover edition.

[Bethany]

22 minutes ago, gingerella said:

Sad fir Wiliam and Charles even.

Upthread we talked a bit about how parts of the book didn't match the original media coverage and this was another aspect of the book that I noticed.  Harry is clearly angry with his family, no question, but there is still love there, and particularly with his father there is sympathy for him.  I didn't see hatred which is what the initial stories led me to expect.  And I  too came away feeling sorry for Charles and even for William.   Now Camilla....

Edited April 17 by Elizabeth Anne

[gingerella]

29 minutes ago, PepSinger said:

Question: was the cursing and yelling mentioned in Spare?

I don't think so. I think that's only from 'I heard' or 'someone told me' or 'an insider reported' sort of tabloid fodder. You know, the usual 'unnamed sources', which is code for 'the tabs and courtiers made it up' IMO.

Of course, if it was me in Harry's shoes, I would have been swearing up a storm TBH. To suddenly have your security pulled without any means to immediately replace it is just vicious and reeks of courtiers angry that their whipping posts had the nerve to up and walk away from their abuse.

Edited April 17 by gingerella

[Bethany]

3 minutes ago, gingerella said:

I would have been swearing up a storm TBH.

Also, having lived in England for a number of years, I would say that swearing, lots of swearing, is a pretty normal way to conduct a conversation even when you're not angry.  My kids learned a lot of words they'd never heard before 😵!

Edited April 17 by Elizabeth Anne

[film noire]

45 minutes ago, PepSinger said:

Question: was the cursing and yelling mentioned in Spare?

No, it's nowhere in Spare - this particular anti-Harry rumour is from  "Our King" by subhuman shit extraordinare, Robert Jobson. There's a thread for that very book elsewhere in the royals forum

 

eta: removed link, as it wouldn't paste as just a link.

Edited April 17 by film noire

[Bethany]

1 minute ago, film noire said:

No, it's nowhere in Spare - this particular anti-Harry rumour is from  "Our King" by Robert Jobson

Isn't Jobson the one who "joked" about dangling Prince Archie from the Buckingham Palace balcony?

[Ohiopirate02]

1 minute ago, Elizabeth Anne said:

Isn't Jobson the one who "joked" about dangling Prince Archie from the Buckingham Palace balcony?

Yes.

[Notabug]

53 minutes ago, PepSinger said:

Question: was the cursing and yelling mentioned in Spare?

No Harry left that part out.  It was all about how he tried to speak to his father, to reason with him, to heal the rift and that his father eventually hung up on him and stopped taking his calls.

Now, it could be that Harry was absolutely charming, thoughtful and kind during these calls and presented his issues in the most dignified and respectful way possible and still his father harshly cut off all communication; but it doesn't seem likely, does it?  Most of us have been involved in familial conflicts and it just doesn't work that way.

If you've read Spare, you'll notice that Harry is completely and entirely consistent. In every single instance, both he and Meghan behaved with complete civility and diplomacy and, yet, were met with unreasonable anger and hostility from the family.  Every single time.  Never put a foot wrong, ever, either one of them.  And, yet, the entire family turned on them like a pack of wild dogs.  Same for Harry's mum, a saint here on earth, she was.

Every single complaint or concern that anyone had about Harry or Meghan was completely false, an utter fabrication, a scurrilous slander against them.  Just ask Harry, he'll tell you.

Jobson may not be unbiased, but neither is Harry.  And Jobson's version is way more believable than Harry's in this particular instance.

Edited April 17 by Notabug

[film noire]

12 minutes ago, Elizabeth Anne said:

Isn't Jobson the one who "joked" about dangling Prince Archie from the Buckingham Palace balcony?

One and the same. The idea of endangering Archie on his birthday just delighted the man; he laughed as he demonstrated dangling Archie over the balcony.  If there is a follow-up chapter added to Spare , I hope Harry addresses the subhuman triumvirate of Jobson, Piers Morgan, and Jeremy Clarkson.

Edited April 17 by film noire

[Bethany]

13 minutes ago, film noire said:

The idea of endangering Archie on his birthday just delighted the man; he laughed as he demonstrated dangling Archie over the balcony. 

No racism there.  Clearly the concerns Harry raises in Spare in this regard were misplaced.

[realityplease]

1 hour ago, film noire said:

One and the same. The idea of endangering Archie on his birthday just delighted the man; he laughed as he demonstrated dangling Archie over the balcony.  If there is a follow-up chapter added to Spare , I hope Harry addresses the subhuman triumvirate of Jobson, Piers Morgan, and Jeremy Clarkson.

48 minutes ago, Elizabeth Anne said:

No racism there.  Clearly the concerns Harry raises in Spare in this regard were misplaced.

Seems like a horrifyingly cruel, stupid, unfunny "joke" to demonstrate dangling Archie (or any child or anyone for that matter) over a balcony.  Not acceptable.  But I'm not seeing the "racism" in it.  Maybe I'm missing something.   Quite right if Harry calls out the press when they publish or demonstrate something like this.  I can't envision any proper motivation behind it or any interpretation that makes it any less offensive than it is. But just because he can, doesn't mean he should.

Harry's nearly blanket condemnation of the press & the feeding of "facts" to the press that he describes in "Spare" - ignores the fact that he also uses the press for favorable publicity or to publicize his version of events. (Knowing the other side can't or won't be able to provide the other side to the story.) It's a double-edged sword. I think he would be best off ignoring the Jobson, Morgan & Clarksons of the world in any follow-up chapter.  The current press speculation is that a reconciliation with Charles could be in the works.  Ride the good wave - ignore the bad.  Unless there's something actionable that he intends to pursue - that is, that meets the legal definition of defamation - better to suck it up & let it go away without calling even more attention to it.  

Edited April 17 by realityplease

[film noire]

1 hour ago, Elizabeth Anne said:

No racism there.  Clearly the concerns Harry raises in Spare in this regard were misplaced.

Clearly misplaced!  (Can you imagine Jobson daring to make the same sick "joke" about Anne's grandson, Lucas? And the absolute uproar if he did?)

Review of Spare  (written by an evolutionary & behavioural ecologist, ornithologist & science writer - not every day a reviewer has that background). Interesting take on family dynamics:

"...Harry presents a powerful and courageous look at the dynamics of an astonishingly dysfunctional family trapped in an emotional poverty they can’t understand, a socially crippled family that uses the press as a weapon against its enemies and against the world — and each other — by publicly or politically discrediting their rivals with falsehoods. In some ways, I viewed this book as a modernized retelling of, say, I Claudius, which was about another highly dysfunctional royal family where individual family members secretly plot and ruthlessly maneuver to increase their own personal power, usually by murdering-by-poisoning their relatives...Poisoning by paparazzi?"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/grrlscientist/2023/02/11/spare-by-prince-harry-the-duke-of-sussex---review/?sh=35f1e67971e4

"Emotional poverty" - perfect description of the family.

Edited April 17 by film noire

[LegalParrot81]

45 minutes ago, realityplease said:

Harry's nearly blanket condemnation of the press & the feeding of "facts" to the press that he describes in "Spare" - ignores the fact that he also uses the press for favorable publicity or to publicize his version of events.

He is his mother's son.  Diana used the press when it was to her advantage and condemn the press when it wasn't.   Just sayin'...

Edited April 17 by LegalParrot81

[Bethany]

1 hour ago, realityplease said:

Seems like a horrifyingly cruel, stupid, unfunny "joke" to demonstrate dangling Archie (or any child or anyone for that matter) over a balcony.  Not acceptable.  But I'm not seeing the "racism" in it.  Maybe I'm missing something.

Do you recall the incident with Michael Jackson and his son?  Jobson did.

1 hour ago, realityplease said:

Harry's nearly blanket condemnation of the press & the feeding of "facts" to the press that he describes in "Spare" - ignores the fact that he also uses the press for favorable publicity or to publicize his version of events.

If Harry's doing that he's not doing it very well.  Oh he has supporters and also unbiased reporters within the ranks of the press but they are a trickle compared to the river of negative attention (up to and including wire tapping and similar antics) he and Meghan receive on a daily basis.   Look no further than the sub topic here that is all things Sussex to find discussion of the insane amount of attention the press (especially the British press) devote to them.  It's, frankly, a little unhinged!

[deaja]

3 hours ago, Notabug said:

No Harry left that part out.  It was all about how he tried to speak to his father, to reason with him, to heal the rift and that his father eventually hung up on him and stopped taking his calls.

He left it out or it didn’t exist? I mean, the tabloids have claimed all kinds of fanciful things about royals over the years- good and bad. If the only source is a tabloid reporter claiming it, I don’t believe it anymore than I believe Meghan eating avocado toast is the sole cause of war in the world today. 

[Notabug]

30 minutes ago, deaja said:

He left it out or it didn’t exist? I mean, the tabloids have claimed all kinds of fanciful things about royals over the years- good and bad. If the only source is a tabloid reporter claiming it, I don’t believe it anymore than I believe Meghan eating avocado toast is the sole cause of war in the world today. 

Harry said nothing about his part of the conversation, just that Charles hung up on him and then ignored his calls.  As I've said, I personally find it unbelievable that this action on Charles' part was totally unprovoked by anything Harry said or did on that call or those preceding it.  YMMV.

I just don't believe that Harry is as calm and reasonable and diplomatic as he claims anymore than I think he is as psycho, greedy and mean as the media claims.

Edited April 18 by Notabug

[gingerella]

7 hours ago, deaja said:

He left it out or it didn’t exist? I mean, the tabloids have claimed all kinds of fanciful things about royals over the years- good and bad. If the only source is a tabloid reporter claiming it, I don’t believe it anymore than I believe Meghan eating avocado toast is the sole cause of war in the world today. 

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you! If we deleted all the made up tabloid bullshit that's been spewed since H&M went public, and none of that garbage had ever been out there, people wouldn't be rehashing and spreading these lies even today. After finishing Spare last night, I feel for Harry more than I ever thought I would. His family is so dysfunctional and there is veryittke emotional intelligence in that gene pool save what Diana gave Harry and Fergie gave Eugenie (despite Fergie being a hot mess). IMO family should always come before Firm, but that's not how they operate. And it seems to be a cancer that spreads from heir to heir because William seems to have become a right royal ass, to coin a phrase.

Edited April 18 by gingerella

[bluegirl147]

12 hours ago, gingerella said:

IMO family should always come before Firm, but that's not how they operate.

That is what hurt Harry the most I think.  He did truly feel like a spare.  Diana knew that was going to happen.  Although if she had lived I think she would have tried to make sure Harry always felt loved and appreciated.  Whether you believe Harry or not his disappointment and anger over the Firm not doing more to protect his wife is real.  

[Bethany]

1 hour ago, bluegirl147 said:

Whether you believe Harry or not his disappointment and anger over the Firm not doing more to protect his wife is real.  

This is where Spare failed somewhat IMO.  In trying to be relatable and to bring occasional moments of levity into the book what happened was the reviewers and the tabs focused their attention on those moments and more or less ignored the very valid points that Harry was raising. 

They might touch on it but in a "well so what" kind of way which was maddening.  And let's be realistic no matter how big a seller Spare is (and it is) way more people are reading the reviews and the cheap shots in the tabs than will ever read the book.

Of course, on the flip side, the tabloids and the more salacious reviewers, made Harry a gift really.  Pretty sure a significant number of sales were made because some people were led to expect things from the book that weren't really there.  So potato - potahto - and Harry is making money thanks to the nastiness, which is not a bad thing!

Edited April 18 by Elizabeth Anne

[Notabug]

Harry's valid points get mired in a lot of self pity, lack of introspection and anger at those he blames for his problems, IMO.  Had he written the book from a better place emotionally, rather than in the heat of his separation from the family; it would have better served his cause, IMO.  His lack of perspective is what turned the tide for me.  I went into it fairly open minded and prepared to like Harry and to sympathize with him on most issues.  It was his inability to understand his own flaws, to see his own part in the mess that is his family and even his inability to admit that the mother who loved him so very much was also a big part of the reason his core family was so dysfunctional that made me find him less than honest and made me feel like he left way too many details that were not completely flattering to him out of the narrative.  I've read a lot of autobiographies/memoirs and Harry's is right up there as one of the most slanted I've encountered.  It makes it hard to believe his 'truth'.

Edited April 18 by Notabug

[PepSinger]

Isn’t Spare a memoir and not an autobiography? I don’t expect an autobiography to be inaccurate; however, memoirs are not biographies.

Edited April 18 by PepSinger

[Bethany]

6 minutes ago, PepSinger said:

Isn’t Spare a memoir and not an autobiography? I don’t expect an autobiography to be inaccurate; however, memoirs are not biographies

Yes, this came up a few times in the original Spare thread.  Essentially:

Quote

 Memoirs are personal, whereas autobiographies are a formal account of one's life. 

Quote

Memoirs are typically

• less formal
• less encompassing
• more concerned with emotional truth toward a particular section of one’s life and how it makes you feel now
• less obsessed with factual events

 

 

Edited April 18 by Elizabeth Anne

[PepSinger]

4 minutes ago, Elizabeth Anne said:

Yes, this came up a few times in the original Spare thread.  Essentially:

 

Thanks, @Elizabeth Anne. This especially stands out:

 

5 minutes ago, Elizabeth Anne said:

• more concerned with emotional truth toward a particular section of one’s life and how it makes you feel now
• less obsessed with factual events

I expect a memoir to be emotionally truthful and for the subject to talk about their thoughts and feelings about a particular event. I don’t expect a play by play of every moment and a blistering defense of the “opposite” side.

[Bethany]

Just now, PepSinger said:

I don’t expect a play by play of every moment and a blistering defense of the “opposite” side.

Agreed.  I don't expect the defense of the "opposite" side in an autobiography either.  That's not why people, generally, write them in the first place!  If you don't want to read a biased account of someone's life or life experiences than memoirs or autobiographies are not for you!  Move on.  I'm sure you can find a biography or similar tell alls by those who are either claiming to be unbiased or are loudly proclaiming they are not (that ridiculous book by Samantha Markle comes to mind).

[Ohiopirate02]

13 minutes ago, PepSinger said:

I expect a memoir to be emotionally truthful and for the subject to talk about their thoughts and feelings about a particular event. I don’t expect a play by play of every moment and a blistering defense of the “opposite” side.

A play-by-play from birth to completion of the manuscript would be so boring and dry that it would end up being unreadable.  Very few individuals can sustain engaging prose while recounting every single detail.