Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

I'm feeling a bit sorry for Harry

1000 replies

ssd · 06/01/2023 12:21

I feel like he needs his mum more than ever. To put an arm round him and say "enough son".

He needs guidance, he's never had maternal guidance. Its well documented that Williams life has been really enhanced by Kates parents. Harry has never had that and i feel sorry for him.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
36
LadyEloise1 · 09/05/2023 15:10

kirinm · 09/05/2023 13:44

@Janiie so take away all responsibility from Charles and Camilla for having an ongoing affair and blame the Spencer family. I'm pretty sure most kids wouldn't see it that way.

This.

LadyEloise1 · 09/05/2023 15:10

AnnunciataZ · 09/05/2023 13:49

Diana was fragile but I'm pretty sure she was made more fragile by her husband being obsessed with another woman from day 1 of their marriage and the rest of the royal family looking the other way!

And this.

LadyMuckingabout · 10/05/2023 09:31

I simply don’t understand “my truth”. Well, yes, it is mine but not the which quite a few posters refuse to acknowledge.

I remember reading an interview with an actor/comedian - oh, he was a complete family man, slippers, staying in watching tv….. however a few months before in a hotel bar he had suggested that a friend and I join him upstairs for some cocaine fun (we declined).

WinnieTheW0rm · 10/05/2023 10:15

JoyPeaceHealth · 08/05/2023 20:57

So Harry thinks Piers' best buddy Camilla fed Piers stories.

It's all confusing though. Why would Eugenie be friends with Meghan and Piers. I need to lie down.

I think Harry is confused on this.

What has happened is that the Palace continue to do what it has always done, which is to publicise what the RF are up to, in as positive light as possible and with a certain amount of co-ordination between the households, so the things they see as most important aren't overshadowed by something trivial but eye-catching. And of course to minimise coverage of fuck ups.

Harry is of course no longer part of this. So of course they do nothing to manage his reputation any more. They're not briefing "against" him, or considering him when putting out nice stories about the Royals they are responsible for.

There are just the co-ordinated statements, one the Sussexes have made their wishes known (eg invitation response, parents' choice to adopt royal styles for the DC). But no attempt to manage the public reaction to what Harry does now, and it looks as if it'll be "no comment" all the way.

I don't really believe that most off the "sources close to the RF" or "a friend of X" are likely to be reliable - some of them are clearly pure invention, and the rest are iffy.

WinnieTheW0rm · 10/05/2023 10:27

Whaeanui · 09/05/2023 10:02

So you’re not going to concede you were wrong and it was, as I’ve just shown, media who mentioned William’s penis and Harry mentioned the story and his own. Not William’s. Seems about right then. Just deflect to something else.

This isn't quite right:

a) Harry said both brothers were circumcised, so yes he was breaching William's privacy
b) the media haven't mentioned circumcision since the boys were infants, and even then it was slight (and totally forgotten over the decades since). It was never a matter in the public domain (remember that "public interest" refers to things which are the the public's best interests to know about, not those things about which there was once prurient curiosity)

The media mention all sorts of crap - doesn't make it remotely right to respond, at the time or (like this) over 30 years on.

KattyJo · 10/05/2023 10:32

Response to the Moehringer piece by Hilary Rose in the Times:

So now we know. If we are to believe Prince Harry’s ghostwriter, JR Moehringer, the five-year ginger whinge fest is because people thought he was a bit thick and his mum died. So to be clear, the Oprah interview, the hours of Netflix, the 400-page book, the endless swipes and grotesque indiscretions and freelance royal nonsense, it isn’t about making millions and building Brand Harry. It definitely isn’t because he’s one of those people who want to have the last word, all the time, everywhere. It isn’t because he’s spent too much time staring at his navel while the rest of us go to work. No, the whinge fest was because people “belittled his intellectual capabilities” and his mum died. Thirty years and living happily ever after in California evidently isn’t enough to get over it and move on.
Moehringer's account in The New Yorker of how he tackled the writing of Spare gives us an insight into quite how tedious it would have been if Harry had written it himself. This is a grown man whose specialist subject is apparently Moana “and his favourite scene is when Heihei the silly chicken gets lost at sea”. What Harry wants isn’t to tell the truth, as Moehringer claims, it’s revenge. Think about it: slagging off his family is a funny way of proving how clever he is and it definitely won’t bring his mum back.

“Even at the most peripheral moments of his life, his central tragedy intrudes,” Moehringer writes about Diana’s death. Harry wanted Spare to be “a rebuttal to every lie ever published about him . . . he dreams of endless retractions”. For the love of God, man, don’t read it! Lots of people have grim childhoods with divorced or dead parents. Very few of them have the privileges Harry had.

And besides, he doesn’t want to rebut all the “lies”. He wants to edit out his own lack of judgment in playing strip billiards with strangers in Vegas, or wearing a Nazi uniform to a fancy dress party. Spare, Moehringer writes, was “Harry’s comeback” but he at first “wasn’t sure how much he wanted to say”. He seems to have got over that pretty well. There were tears in his eyes at the publication party, apparently because it felt incredible to have the “truth” out there. There were probably tears in his father’s eyes as well, and his grandmother would have turned in her grave, but hey-ho, eh?

“The way he’d been treated by both strangers and intimates was grotesque,” Moehringer writes, but Harry’s self-obsession is epic. We’ve all been let down and traduced. That’s life. He’s also being a tad disingenuous when he adds that a memoir is “a particular series of events chosen because they have the greatest resonance for the widest range of people”. Come on. Not many people will resonate with being thumped by a prince in a palace and smashing a dog bowl.

But what I find odd is this. Harry goes on and on about the living hell that is being royal, the sheer unrelenting intolerable awfulness of it, but William and Kate seem to live very nice lives. By and large, nobody bothers them when they’re not on duty. Contrary to what Meghan once claimed, there are no banks of paparazzi waiting in the bushes of rural Berkshire to ambush them on their way to school every day. They brush up well for high days and holidays, then they go back to normal life. They spent the weekend in robes and jewels and on Tuesday they took the kids to school. They stand on the touchline at sports matches. They go on nice holidays. They dress up for film premieres and wear jewels and tiaras but, for the most part, they spend their days bringing up their children and doing interesting things with interesting people, talking about subjects that interest them.

“Telling is how we cement details, preserve continuity, stay sane,” Moehringer writes, defending Harry’s score-settling. Oh, please. No, it is not. Most of us don’t have a publishing deal or a slot with Oprah, or a streaming giant paying to “tell our story” and “stay sane”. For most of us, cracking on is how we do it. You should try it, Harry. You might like it. But it won’t sell many books, so I guess you won’t.

Whaeanui · 10/05/2023 10:46

WinnieTheW0rm · 10/05/2023 10:27

This isn't quite right:

a) Harry said both brothers were circumcised, so yes he was breaching William's privacy
b) the media haven't mentioned circumcision since the boys were infants, and even then it was slight (and totally forgotten over the decades since). It was never a matter in the public domain (remember that "public interest" refers to things which are the the public's best interests to know about, not those things about which there was once prurient curiosity)

The media mention all sorts of crap - doesn't make it remotely right to respond, at the time or (like this) over 30 years on.

He said: I was snipped as a baby.

I.

Whaeanui · 10/05/2023 10:50

The Times are revolting and racist even when writing about sport. I’m not sure why we should care about their twisted interpretation. They’re owned by Murdoch. It’s no surprise they attack his ghost writer.

KattyJo · 10/05/2023 10:55

I'm sure some will disagree, but I think the writer makes some good points about Harry's real motivations and the flimsiness of Moehringer's response.

kirinm · 10/05/2023 11:37

What an unpleasant response. You can almost see the writer spitting the words out.

LaMarschallin · 10/05/2023 12:01

I did wonder if Harry's riposte had something of l'esprit de l'escalier about it.
I suspect we've all thought of devastating retorts some time after the moment has passed. I certainly have and if I was collaborating with a ghost writer on an autobiography (pause for scathing lols) I'd be sorely tempted to re-write history a little and add them.

Maybe Moehringer thought it sounded too good to be true and wouldn't sound believable.

Obviously, I don't know and this is just a guess. Harry may well have come up with a biting reply.

the80sweregreat · 10/05/2023 12:10

The daily mail and others have forgotten that the King and other Royals also wrote books ( of had ghost writers) and they also criticized the Royal ' firm ' and the King wasn't always complimentary about the Queen and his own upbringing

KattyJo · 10/05/2023 12:25

It's not just the book though, is it? It's the book, interviews, tv shows, leaks and plenty of other embarassing drivel over 3 years. No-one else has done anything like that.

polkadotdalmation · 10/05/2023 12:36

KattyJo · 10/05/2023 10:32

Response to the Moehringer piece by Hilary Rose in the Times:

So now we know. If we are to believe Prince Harry’s ghostwriter, JR Moehringer, the five-year ginger whinge fest is because people thought he was a bit thick and his mum died. So to be clear, the Oprah interview, the hours of Netflix, the 400-page book, the endless swipes and grotesque indiscretions and freelance royal nonsense, it isn’t about making millions and building Brand Harry. It definitely isn’t because he’s one of those people who want to have the last word, all the time, everywhere. It isn’t because he’s spent too much time staring at his navel while the rest of us go to work. No, the whinge fest was because people “belittled his intellectual capabilities” and his mum died. Thirty years and living happily ever after in California evidently isn’t enough to get over it and move on.
Moehringer's account in The New Yorker of how he tackled the writing of Spare gives us an insight into quite how tedious it would have been if Harry had written it himself. This is a grown man whose specialist subject is apparently Moana “and his favourite scene is when Heihei the silly chicken gets lost at sea”. What Harry wants isn’t to tell the truth, as Moehringer claims, it’s revenge. Think about it: slagging off his family is a funny way of proving how clever he is and it definitely won’t bring his mum back.

“Even at the most peripheral moments of his life, his central tragedy intrudes,” Moehringer writes about Diana’s death. Harry wanted Spare to be “a rebuttal to every lie ever published about him . . . he dreams of endless retractions”. For the love of God, man, don’t read it! Lots of people have grim childhoods with divorced or dead parents. Very few of them have the privileges Harry had.

And besides, he doesn’t want to rebut all the “lies”. He wants to edit out his own lack of judgment in playing strip billiards with strangers in Vegas, or wearing a Nazi uniform to a fancy dress party. Spare, Moehringer writes, was “Harry’s comeback” but he at first “wasn’t sure how much he wanted to say”. He seems to have got over that pretty well. There were tears in his eyes at the publication party, apparently because it felt incredible to have the “truth” out there. There were probably tears in his father’s eyes as well, and his grandmother would have turned in her grave, but hey-ho, eh?

“The way he’d been treated by both strangers and intimates was grotesque,” Moehringer writes, but Harry’s self-obsession is epic. We’ve all been let down and traduced. That’s life. He’s also being a tad disingenuous when he adds that a memoir is “a particular series of events chosen because they have the greatest resonance for the widest range of people”. Come on. Not many people will resonate with being thumped by a prince in a palace and smashing a dog bowl.

But what I find odd is this. Harry goes on and on about the living hell that is being royal, the sheer unrelenting intolerable awfulness of it, but William and Kate seem to live very nice lives. By and large, nobody bothers them when they’re not on duty. Contrary to what Meghan once claimed, there are no banks of paparazzi waiting in the bushes of rural Berkshire to ambush them on their way to school every day. They brush up well for high days and holidays, then they go back to normal life. They spent the weekend in robes and jewels and on Tuesday they took the kids to school. They stand on the touchline at sports matches. They go on nice holidays. They dress up for film premieres and wear jewels and tiaras but, for the most part, they spend their days bringing up their children and doing interesting things with interesting people, talking about subjects that interest them.

“Telling is how we cement details, preserve continuity, stay sane,” Moehringer writes, defending Harry’s score-settling. Oh, please. No, it is not. Most of us don’t have a publishing deal or a slot with Oprah, or a streaming giant paying to “tell our story” and “stay sane”. For most of us, cracking on is how we do it. You should try it, Harry. You might like it. But it won’t sell many books, so I guess you won’t.

This is worthy of a second printing! So true and what so many people think. Excellent, thank goodness for the freedom of the press, which harry is trying to stifle.

LadyEloise1 · 10/05/2023 17:42

I thought it was good too @polkadotdalmation.

I have a conflicted view of Harry. Sometimes I agree with him or can empathise and sometimes he really irritates me.

Whaeanui · 10/05/2023 18:28

Excellent, thank goodness for the freedom of the press, which harry is trying to stifle.

So you actually think Harry is just trying to stifle a free press? The mirror admits they engaged in unlawful information gathering against him this week. You think that stopping illegal activity, which is what the cases Harry is taking are about, is wrong and against a free press? That the thousands of ordinary citizens who have also been hacked and bugged and filed cases against the press for it, are also trying to stifle free press? Is Baroness Lawrence trying to stifle free press too? She’s involved in these cases too. What an absolutely strange position to take about these cases. You’d rather allow the press to invade all our privacy than say one good thing about Harry.

polkadotdalmation · 10/05/2023 18:57

LadyEloise1 · 10/05/2023 17:42

I thought it was good too @polkadotdalmation.

I have a conflicted view of Harry. Sometimes I agree with him or can empathise and sometimes he really irritates me.

Harry is so intent on his own campaign that he actually can't step back and see the wood for the trees. He called the american first amendment (freedom of speech) 'bonkers', which has upset quite a few amercans needless to say.

I agree much of the press in this country are vile and intrusive, but they have also done some brilliant things like campaigning for stephen lawrence and many other amazing campaigns. They've exposed wrongdoing in government, scandals that are in the public interest to expose, and so on. You can't stifle the free press when they are uncovering crimes and immoral behaviour. Harry looks to want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Preventing the freedom of the press is the thin end of the wedge when it comes to a totalitarian state. Putin has done so. I don't condone illegality when it comes to the press, and anyone suggesting it is attempting to bait me, so I'll ignore all inane comments and not engage.

When it comes to celebrities and celebrity baiting the press are insane. So that is where I am with Harry myself. It's the other things he says and does which I don't like.

caringcarer · 10/05/2023 19:59

I feel sorry for his family. For his birth family that he betrayed, and his children that he put a target on their backs with the Taliban. I don't know how Meghan puts up with him. Stealing all of the gas and air when she was in labour. He needs to grow up.

Whaeanui · 10/05/2023 20:07

Preventing the freedom of the press is the thin end of the wedge when it comes to a totalitarian state. Putin has done so. I don't condone illegality when it comes to the press, and anyone suggesting it is attempting to bait me, so I'll ignore all inane comments and not engage.

Nobody is baiting you. It’s called responding to posts. You here, your words, are making connections between hacking cases that involve Harry and many others, to Putin. So I’m not quite understanding why you’re talking about stifling free press, and Putin right now. It doesn’t have any connection to anyone suing the press over unlawful activity in the UK. It doesn’t make sense to connect them when freedom doesn’t include breaking laws.

KnickerlessParsons · 11/05/2023 09:25

Preventing the freedom of the press is the thin end of the wedge when it comes to a totalitarian state. Putin has done so. I don't condone illegality when it comes to the press, and anyone suggesting it is attempting to bait me, so I'll ignore all inane comments and not engage.

"The freedom of the press" and "illegality" are two different things. One is good, the other is bad.
Be careful not to conflate the two - the press aren't entirely bad, though phone hacking is an awful thing to do.

Sugarfree23 · 11/05/2023 10:28

While I do think he's make things worse for himself with his moaning to Oprah, and the book. He's lost the trust and respect of his family.

I do feel a bit sorry for him. Boarding school from a very young age, loosing his mum, it's a pity he couldn't stay in the Army because that's where he's been at his happiest.
I guess there is an element of he can't quite cope with civilian life he's been institutionalised with school and army.

If its true the press and intrusion into his private life is what caused the spilt with his previous partner then that's awful.

I really hope he is able to rebuild trust with his family. Because he's in a very vulnerable position if he doesn't

Morestrangerthings · 11/05/2023 11:25

Of course we need a free press. But it has to also be responsible. It’s the fourth estate and should operate as a check and balance to government. It should/has to be held to account, always.

“Back in the 1970s, a new, up-and-coming newspaperman pointed out the problem. “We have more responsibility than power I think,” he said. “The newspaper can create great controversies… throw light on injustices – just as it can do the opposite. It can hide things, and be a great power for evil.”

That newspaperman was one Keith Rupert Murdoch.

‘A Great Power For Evil’
Byline Times 21st April 2023

It’s a good article exploring Murdoch - owner of The Times and The Sun in the UK, who has spread his tentacles across three countries - US and Australia. That much power should be held to the light.

‘A Great Power for Evil’
Peter Jukes and Hardeep Matharu21 April 2023

Peter Jukes and Hardeep Matharu, Author at Byline Times

https://bylinetimes.com/author/peterjukeshardeepmatharu/

Supersimkin2 · 12/05/2023 19:36

I admire his press battle; brave. Clever - we’ll see. Invictus was genius.

You’d have to be nuts not to be sorry for his mother’s death.

But no one likes a sneak, and I suspect his bitchy anecdotes aren’t overburdened with truth.

He comes across as a trustafarian who’s taken too many drugs, egged on by a savvy wife who’s marketing his rage.

Such a shame after his marriage that his only asset is pique - he used to have a lot going for him.

I think he’ll be useful and happy again after he’s 45 and back in the UK. Providing Charles is still going - don’t fancy Harry’s chances getting a work permit if W’s the boss.

Maireas · 12/05/2023 21:20

@Supersimkin2 - "his only asset is pique" very good point. I think giving him invictus was a great idea, he's got a charity in Lesotho as well - that's a far better focus than all this weird contradictory victim nonsense.

ArcaneWireless · 12/05/2023 21:54

I daresay a lot of folk will be marketing H’s rage. The kerchings surrounding him must be deafening at times. A lot of folk can profit from a bit of pique.

Do I feel sorry for him? Not really. He has made his bed and is lying in it and says he is happy.

Good on him for being happy at least. But to be truly happy it doesn’t help to be so bitter sounding and angry and I don’t think making others unhappy with your actions is conducive to that either.

I hope he can be happy. But I can’t see how he really can be at the moment unless he is in the bosom of his home and leaving the past on his front step.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread