Strangest bits in Spare…

[Motorcycleemptyness]

i haven’t quite finished it yet but I wanted to read a thread about some of the weirder bits of Spare, and I haven’t seen a thread where people were discussing those without the ‘H&M’ vs the rest of the RF debate. There are definitely some parts which have made me really question why they were included, and I was wondering if anyone else had any similar thoughts.

The inclusion of the imagery of the poppy fields, and how heroin funds the Taliban. Fair enough. We all know that. The rest of the book is one long ode to posh people taking drugs. Does Prince Harry think the cocaine he takes is gently knitted by fairies and delivered to him by unicorns? Do the drugs he takes not contribute to war and terrorism and misery across the rest of the world (and indeed misery and crime in the UK, where he is 5th in line to be monarch!) I found this quite a strange passage and I was wondering if anyone else had any thoughts, or am I just over thinking it?

Elizabeth Arden cream. ‘Mummy’s lips’. ‘Todger’. Why? But really, why? Why was this included? Why did anyone think it or commit it to paper, and then publish it? Why did I read it? Why am I typing it here? ARGH.

What he actually thinks the relationship between the royal family and the press should actually be. Only reporting true things? Someone had a photo of him taking cocaine. Dressed as a nazi. Calling his colleague a ‘P*ki’. He wasn’t happy, but it was all true. Should journalists not be allowed to report true things? Or should they only be reporting things he wants them to report? Does Andrew get to choose that too? What about everyone else?

What the actual royal family should look like. This was mind bending. He seems to be perfectly happy with the idea of the monarchy, an institution which is predicated on the idea that they’re inherently superior to the rest of us, and that’s their birth right, but seems to massively struggle to apply that to himself and William. If a monarchy is the best system, why shouldn’t the heir be treated differently to the spare? (I don’t believe it is the best system and wish we could abolish them all but I don’t understand how one can believe one but not the other!).

Anyone else have any interesting thoughts?

That was so bad.

Harry couldn't be King even if a freak occurence wiped out everyone before him, he's on record as saying he doesn't like England. How ludicrous would that be!

They have both sung a little publicly. It is a way of showing (again) that they are joyous, childlike, free spirits in contrast to stuffy, serious Kate and William.

I just cannot understand that angle. I mean, I can, given their likely target audience. But since when is being stuffy/serious/aware of one's position and responsibilities actually a bad thing?? I know what sort of person I'd rather associate with, tbh.

For all the relaxed/chill/druggy/huggy stuff that abounds in some demographics, what good has it actually done? I don't think the U.S. can lecture anyone else in the world on how to conduct their domestic affairs! There are a lot of big problems and issues that need sorting before they can presume to Lord it over the rest of us...

A tangent, I guess. But I really dislike that teenagey tone of rebellion against something that's perfectly okay. Being stuffy/serious isn't a moral failing!

I was disappointed to discover that for his gap year he sent his aide off to research destinations and activities. How can someone be THAT entitled??

It kind of fits with some of underlying character traits in his self portrait though- oddly passive, lacking intellectual curiosity about the world, and a odd absence of self agency -he can't sort anything out himself whether it's furniture, mental health care for his wife or gap year.

Does that suggest co-dependency traits?

@TangledWebOfDeception spot on, it’s so cringe, because they’re in their 40s. I actually don’t understand, who is their target demographic? Surely not gen-z? I don’t think they would really appeal to them tbh - they’re not really in sync with that generation. The huggy druggy scene sounds kinda more 90s/00s anyway (as in v outdated). And drugs, how can he normalise that with a clear conscience? Thereby promoting and encouraging it. He may think weed is benign, it really and truly isn’t. And as a parent, should aim for better.

I find the back cover strange as well. It's supposed to be a ?cute picture of Harry the action-packed boy prince, but I'm just left thinking that maybe having 'HRH The Prince' literally sewn on to your cadet dress-up clothes at a young age wasn't actually a great idea.

And I don't think it's a great idea either to draw attention to it on the book cover, given the levels of entitlement displayed inside - the gap year being a case in point.

@comrad I meant certain elements of U.S. audience.

There's nothing wrong with the British concept of stiff upper lip, in my view - sometimes it's better to be stoic and just get on with things. Can't bear all the happy, clappy nonsense, nor the idea that letting everything hang out all the time is automatically a good thing.

Quite - he wasn’t even ‘the Prince’, he was ‘one of the Princes’… If it said HRH Prince H or Prince Harry then fine, it’s ‘The’ that feels off to me

@GloomyDarkness added to that, army career at his level would have reinforced all those traits as well.

True - it does stand out and its so very alien to me.

I was thinking along lines of learned helplessness everything's been done for him so why strive for more - though quick google tells me that's originally trauma based a state that occurs after a person has experienced a stressful situation repeatedly. They come to believe that they are unable to control or change the situation, so they do not try — even when opportunities for change become available - which maybe fits him in which case can see heading out for USA would be a very positive move for him.

but I'm just left thinking that maybe having 'HRH The Prince' literally sewn on to your cadet dress-up clothes at a young age wasn't actually a great idea.

Yes - good point.

The target audience is the Victim Culture Generation. There was a time that a book like this would describe the adversity, the hurt, the hard lessons, but the protagonist would triumph, not through perpetuating their victimhood but by transcending it. That's not what the current zeitgeist expects. The victim's victimhood is now their supreme characteristic. They take no blame or responsibility for their condition, because whatever society did offer them in terms of education and opportunities was always tainted by their otherness or someone else's superior position. They do not take the reins of their destiny, no, they demand that everyone else apologises and gifts them a position that they feel they would have owned had they had that superior position in the first place - even if it means someone else is then the inferior. Hard work, an "I'll show then" attitude, laughing off those who slight you, making the best of the hand you are dealt, and making things better for your own children's chance in life are all antiquated notions. No, we must be forever the victim, forever talk, talk, talk about how hard done by we are, forever demand reparations from the previous generations. We become the most superior in our victimhood, those who just get on with their lives are the conspirators of our nasty forefathers.

That’s a very astute set of points @MoirasSaggyBundles. You are absolutely right.

Actually the perpetual victimhood and virtue signalling, actually does sound quite gen z 😅😂

Bang on there. It’s what’s wrong with so much of the world at the moment.

Yes that bit of this sorry saga will certainly resonate with many of that cohort.

@MoirasSaggyBundles very good points - certainly see some of that in the current zeitgeist.

Though I'm not sure how many in the demographic affected by that zeitgeist are buying the book - I suspect it's a different demographic and more for the car crash elements.

More gen zzzzzz 💤💤💤😴😴😴😴😴🥱

Well very true, I'm not sure the target audience has actually been hit, even if it was the intention. To start with, as childish as they behave and sound, they forget they are not 20-somethings but middle aged. They should have it sorted out by now. Even the moaning young generation think they should have a bit of their life in order by the time they are 40 - it's not inspirational to still be moaning!

I think Harry's also taken the victim claim to the levels of absurd. If it was a mere tale of a boy who lost his mum and sought to escape the stifling confines of an archaic institution in the arms of his modern and capable wife, triumphing in the freedom, then he may have hooked in a wider audience. However, a sorry tale of perpetual victimhood actually has to resonate with other "victims".

He's literally one of the 3 most privileged white, straight, adult men on the earth, bestowed a status by mere birth that no amount of hard work can achieve. He lost his mother, but he doesn't seem to have been mistreated by the adults around him, even if they could never replace her warmth and love. He has a so-so relationship with his brother, but that's hardly an odd thing, Willy's crimes are minor indeed. He's had the chance of a superior education that he squandered. A leg up into the army officer class (the poor kids who enter the military in the US in order to hopefully survive and then get a paid for college education aren't going to be impressed). Post army, a chance to do anything he wanted with his life with help at hand and funds, albeit needing perhaps a little ingenuity to stretch them to his requirements. A gorgeous wife, a free home. Etc etc.

Then layer on the lies and inaccuracies. The nasty tales of his own behaviour. The back-tracking over racism - their biggest claim of victimhood for many - and the desire to return to the institution, not to stay in the US and make a great life. Any sympathy over his mum goes out the window when he treats her as some sort of bad angel, whispering in his ear about his brother, and present while he rubs cream on his privates.

So yes, he's an over-privileged car-crash, and I agree that most people will hate read and that my Oxfam bookshop will soon have stacks of this memoir in the window; much like a few years back when they had stacks of 50 Shades of Grey and did a rather racy window display with whips and the like. I predict a stack of Spare + a saddle + Elizabeth Arden cream + a few fish pencils and sausages.

True enough. They might make a shitload of money (for now) but they won’t win any kudos/respect where it matters. They might be okay with that, but who knows.

I think they have looked and sounded more ridiculous by the minute with the podcasts/documentary/book. I’ll be interested to see where they go with things over the next 10 years.

I think psychologists could have a field day on the effects on a young lad losing his Mum under the glaring light of world publicity - just as he is entering puberty. Just at the point he should be gaining agency, and thinking naughty thoughts - omg, Mum is dead - everybody freeze, stop the clocks. So the Elizabeth Arden cream, older woman stuff is pretty mild compared to what might have happened.

Imagine Harry as your own son, and how it would be if you died under tragic circumstances with him at that age. Would you expect him to grow up straight as an arrow, or end up with some slightly worrying kinks? Would you expect him to be a paragon in the playground, or accept he might end up with a few woman issues, on abandonment grounds alone? What support would you like there to be in place for his recovery, and how would you feel (hypothetically, not being there anymore after all...) if he didn't receive much?

@AutumnCrow I wonder if Diana was being a cheapskate mum and putting Harold in Willy's hand me downs. HRH the Prince works for both, might even have been Charles' when he was a kid.

My brither and I lost our mum suddenly and traumatically at 13 and 16 respectively. We have managed, mainly, not to be a car crash in later life.

Whatever the cause I bet he'd have turned out exactly the same. So if Diana had survived and was living a happy life with different partners H would've struggled with jealousy or abandonment issues. Diana's parents didn't die tragically but she was needy and fragile after been farmed off to boarding school at 9 and not having a dm around. If someone is fragile emotionally it doesn't matter what the trigger is that causes the unravelling.

He was destined to grow up to be fucked up imo. The rf protected him as they no doubt knew how emotionally volatile he is, but once fed to the wolves ie Netflix and various US enablers he didn't stand a chance.