SPARE - Harry’s book release announced

[Rinoachicken]

So he’s called it ‘Spare’ and it’s being released on 23rd Jan.

He needs to take some inspiration from the guys in the Invictus Games and learn how to move on from bad experiences not wallow in them

I think taking his wife and child and moving as far as possible from the UK and position of working royal was quite a big statement that they are Moving on. I think this is largely a problem for the critics who are still insulted by that decision. But Just because you don't like what they do or say doesn't mean that they have not moved on.

A PP mentioned that they are not coming for Xmas. Why is that still of interest to the British? - would any of us take our young children to spend Christmas at a place we feel unhappy?

'But Just because you don't like what they do or say doesn't mean that they have not moved on.'

He's written a book called Spare. He has not moved on! He wants revenge for the fact he wasn't allowed to do as he pleased and that was be some kind of special royal envoy in the US.

Well. because it is a part of our culture to get together for Christmas. It is generally not because everybody loves each other.

Often, it is about providing the children with the opportunity to learn about other ways of life (definitely the case here) and form their own relationships rather than their parents (or one of their parents) biased views dictating this to them on their behalf. All the indications are that these two children will be denied the opportunity to do this in a meaningful, uncontrolled way. It is a loss for them.

In this instance however, the slow poison of Netflix documentaries and a scathing book due out weeks after Christmas means that it is hard to envisage this. The worship of the $ makes for a meaningless (but probably loaded) lifestyle but comes at an unquantifiable human cost.

The funeral ended up being a circus and a spectacle for the benefit of the masses

Much the same as any big royal event then.

Late to this party but among the big reveals promised I'm also hoping for the answers to questions like what really happened when protected birds of prey were shot at Sandringham, how Harry squares his enthusiasm for conservation with his previous enthusiasm for big game hunting and why he ever thought comparing the killing of people on the ground to a video game was a good idea.

But the Queen wanted to stay and Balmoral
with her dgcs, which was the right thing for them. The press and public were out of order.

"Unquantifiable human cost ??

Get a grip .This is the monarchy you are talking about . How do you think they got there ? Asking nicely ?
Do you know anything about the history of the empire ?
And before you say the current lot had nothing to with all that - if you continue to benefit from the spoils , then you are answerable

if you continue to benefit from the spoils

Could you elaborate?

@Croque
Set aside the huge issue of the 'royal' family's unearned riches .

Speaking only of the crimes and injustices perpetuated by the empire in the name of the king / queen - they are answerable for those .
I'm afraid ' reflecting ' won't cut it .

There is your 'unquantifiable human cost' not a bloody book / tv show

Quite.

But this was the funeral of a young mother that died unexpectedly and had two young sons that were paraded for the whole country to see.

A coronation, Trooping the Colour or the Jubilee are shows for the masses but they are festive. Totally different. Even the Queen's funeral didn't have the same tragic connotations for her children.

@Pinkcadillac

If the boys were paraded it was to protect Chalres from heckling and worse from the crowd .

The queen did nothing and more importantly said little after Diana died . A bit like Aberfan . Too little too late .

Charles was always going to have to walk .
The royals were hated by a large section of society when Diana died

"The royals were hated by a large section of society when Diana died"

Do you have stats to back that up? Only it sounds like made-up bollocks that only Republicans would believe.

I was speaking specifically about the opportunities lost for the children to know their extended family?
Or is it right to cut out everybody British (half of their heritage) upon the basis stated and create this artificial famalam of guilt-free, sjw, preachy products of therapy who (curiously) happen to be loaded? That is what the vision seems to be for them as a family. If that is the case, then why should they be actively benefiting from the spoils? Start by paying back the £30m for the wedding and the multi million pound clothes budget. Promote yourself upon the basis of your own talents (if you have any), not off the back of those awful plunderers who have done you wrong.

I'm no royalist ( obvious lol) but I'm the rift is not 100% Harrys fault

The royals have a playbook- use the spare to distract from / protect the heir .
They have a history and they are repeating it

@BlueRidge
Do you remember it ?
Or have you read about it ?

The queens response caused outrage .
They didn't even lower the flag as Diana had been stripped of her HRH . Protocol don't you know !

Look it up .

www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2017/06/03/how-princess-dianas-death-changed-the-royals-for-the-better/amp/

@BlueRidge

www.google.com/amp/s/www.thenews.com.pk/amp/709025-queen-elizabeth-was-globally-criticized-over-her-initial-response-to-dianas-death

I remember it very well @Novella4 and yes, there was a lot of hatred for the RF.

Use the spare to protect the heir. I like it, very apt. I always wondered what Harry thought about William's affair. Wonder if that will be in the book 🤔

I remember Diana's death and funeral pretty well. I remember friends and family having conversations about how astounded we were at the utter bonkers response from the great British public, hysterical keening and wailing for a woman they didn't know, who had probably died because of a decision not to wear a seatbelt, Tony Blair behaving like some kind of Messiah with his people's princess speech including rehearsed hand movements, and the televising if her funeral. Madness.

Some quarters might have wanted the Queen to flagellate and weep and wail - why, I don't know. I think she just wanted to protect her grandsons, keep them out of the public eye as long as possible. The tabloids and the public baying for 'their princes' was unedifying in the extreme. Any form of quiet dignity appears to be a thing of the past.

And I didn't know anyone who hated the royal family at the time either.

@pumpkinscoop
You are describing the most extreme behaviour- and yes there was hysteria .
However try to explain away the queen's coldness all you like .
'Protecting ' the children had nothing to do with the refusal to flag the flag at half mast . NOTHING.

Most universities lower their flag when a student dies -and the queen refused because Diana had had her HRH removed .

That sort of coldness caused the outrage .
She was forced to back track .

It's a problem of now though, isn't it - this claim it was 'coldness', when it's obviously just following protocol and nothing more. An issue with late 20th and early 21st century sensibilities where everything has to be done in the public eye, emotions spilling over, everyone emoting all over the place. It probably goes a long way to explaining why Meghan and Harry are popular in some quarters. Just because some people don't display their hearts on their sleeves doesn't mean they don't feel things.

It is suggested that displaying emotions and talking about mental health is helpful but tbh, taking a look at the world, particularly the western world, I don't think we've ever been more profoundly mentally unwell, despite all the candour, the discussion etc.

What affair? Do you mean the rumours and speculation? It’s not fact you know.

@pumpkinscoop

The feeling was 'protocol ' was used as an excuse .
The protocol was quickly changed once they saw the public reaction . As anyone with a whit of intelligence knows, protocol is bulshit made up as and when.

As for your comments on mental health - lies, cover up and deceit are the enemies of mental health .
The royals could learn from Harry - but they seem to prefer cover ups ...

'Charles was always going to have to walk .The royals were hated by a large section of society when Diana died'

Why was he always going to have to walk? Does anyone have any idea why the Spencer family didn't take control and put a stop to the hysteria, announce there would be a private family funeral but no weird gun carriage and all that palaver. Who actually ok'd the whole thing?

'The royals could learn from Harry'

Oh I think they've learnt from Harry. They've learnt that he has his own money grabbing, victim playing Hollywood tragic role to play and facts don't seem to factor in his made up version of events.