Where is Harry?

[Rhaidimiddim]

Just that.

I honestly can't think of a single reason for anyone to buy it. Surely everyone who was interested will have bought or borrowed the hardback by now, and the charity shops have plenty of them.

Since there's no new content - just why?

They won't sell many but some people prefer paperbacks, lighter but so much of it has already been discussed that its old news.

Addressing NATO earlier today as an Invictus rep.

Was he holding out a begging bowl as he did it?

After all those expenses don't meet themselves...

I just find the whole notion of Harry addressing NATO utterly ludicrous.

I think I'd like to read Spare to form my own opinion on it. Definitely charity shop though!

I do find them a bit irritating at times with the lecturing and they can be unclear but don't think they were expecting such a maelstrom of being a couple in the public eye.

I read Spare for the first (and only) time about 6 months ago.

I'm someone who tries really hard to look at this from all perspectives and be as fair as possible. I think there are times when Harry could have been treated better (e.g. Charles exploiting the 'drugs' story when he was a teenager to make himself look like a devoted parent). I think Mark Boland was very happy to use the boys for the father's PR.

All of which is to say that while I can be critical of him/his decision-making, I'm not endlessly critical.

I knew most of the shocking stuff from reading commentary when it first came out. But it was still very shocking to read it first hand. For the most part it's an entertaining read which moves along at a decent pace.

There were times I was frustrated with what was left out (I think Harry still has plenty of 'no go' areas) and he regularly assigns motives/thoughts to other people that I didn't think were very plausible. I was definitely left with the impression of somebody who is not very self-aware and it's strange to read an autobiography of somebody who doesn't seem to see themselves very clearly.

@Not2identifying - Tina Brown ( who whatever else you think abut her was a clever woman ) . She says that the worst combination to be is not very self aware and not as clever as you think you are.

There were times I was frustrated with what was left out (I think Harry still has plenty of 'no go' areas)

I said from the get-go I'd like to see Harold's take on his long standing animal abuse issues.

Very disappointed we got a todger and mummy fixation instead.

Even more disappointed to see the two conflated 😮

Your not alone. I find it crazy too. OK he's an ex serviceman, and has a title. But he's not operating in any sort of official capacity from the UK.
He must be at the point of doing more harm to the Invictus Games than good?

"He must be at the point of doing more harm to the Invictus Games than good?"

I think this is getting to be true. But I doubt he will ever give it up voluntarily. Maybe someone needs a word in his ear.

From what I've read, it was a pitch to get NATO to donate to Invictus.

I'd agree he isn't going to give it up voluntarily, maybe someone needs to have a word - NATO will only donate if Celebraties involved donate their time.

And all volunteers get the same level of expenses.

That second condition is going to be impossible to adhere to unless Harry pays his own expenses.

They probably have already but he doesn’t listen does he?

I'll make it clear those are just my thoughts on conditions that NATO could impose which would prevent PH making money from the games.

It's a bit harder to say we'll donate if you keep your nose out, easy to say everyone gets the same expenses.
Must take loads of volunteers to run those games same with any big games events.

I don't believe anyone should be profiting from the games.

Harry addressing NATO is exactly like when Greta Thunberg addressed NATO. They'll do it for the positive headlines but no real decision maker is in the room, and none of the interns present really believe they're going to consider or implement any of the emotive ramblings rolling out from the podium.

Yes - that would be interesting. I'd like to know how he squares his polo playing history etc with Meghan's scruples about animals (er...I'm not convinced there's any sincerity in these, but even so).

I know Meghan rudely refused to wear or accept a ceremonial hat on one of the tours because it was made of rabbit fur. While wearing leather shoes, of course. I get that the 'roasting chicken' craze they often speak of ought not to be taken literally, but nevertheless, Meghan is reported to have scruples about eating meat etc, so Harry's favourite activities do seem a bit incompatible.

I completely agree! MM has schlepped in too, soaking up the freebies, expensive travel, clothing, free publicity literally off the back of disabled people. If H&M stepped out the IVG may actually have enough money to pay for the insurance of these sports people

Would Invictus have got a chance to present to NATO if they did not have Harry?

Personally, I think it would be an absolute shame if Harry wasn't involved in Invictus.

However, turning it into the Meghan and Harry show was a disaster for Invictus, but I do believe he could come back from that, he needs to go back to basics and make it about the veteran sportsmen again, and move away from his and Meghans' celeb promotion type of event. .

Also, I know this was brought up before after an award Harry accepted, he rarely, if ever, attributes any appreciation to those who really do make Invictus happen, those who do the ground work. I only knew the name of the CEO because he resigned.

He should consider making it less about himself, certainly Meghan needs to be out of the public profile in regards to Invictus.. The self promotion is not working and it is detracting from a great cause and has brought too much ridicule to the games and the Invictus games foundation itself. The questionable finances need to be more transparent, so they can put to bed the rumours that Invictus financially supports the Sussex's.

Invictus needs a full overhaul to get it back to good standing, I think with the proper guidance his patronage could help it continue and grow.

Thedom · Today 11:12
Personally, I think it would be an absolute shame if Harry wasn't involved in Invictus.
However, turning it into the Meghan and Harry show was a disaster for Invictus, but I do believe he could come back from that, he needs to go back to basics and make it about the veteran sportsmen again, and move away from his and Meghans' celeb promotion type of event.

And this is another point to consider when the SS ask 'Why do you care?" about Meghan. I care about her because - as well as her more trivial and ridiculous antics - she has done real damage to so many things, especially the reputation internationally of the RF and the UK. I think the world is beginning to see her for what she is now, but those claims of racism did a lot of damage, and some people with an axe to grind are not going to let them go - despite Harry's retraction and evidence to the contrary. Mud sticks if people want it to.

And I agree she's damaged Invictus in the minds of many people. She's trivialised it and made it into a bit of a pantomime, and hurt and offended some of the veterans along the way, which is awful.

I care because it's entertaining. I enjoy few things more than seeing puffed up, pretentious, perfidious and priggish hypocrites get their karma. Almost everybody who is human does. I'm a human too, so I see no need to apologise for it or scrape around to come up with an 'acceptable' reason (not saying that's what you're doing, Coffee, just saying! I always enjoy your posts.)

Also I have fewer than ZERO fucks to give about people who try to police what other people choose to discuss online, when those other people are having perfectly legal discussions in expressing their opinions.

I've never quite understood the mentality of anyone who tries to police other people's online opinions anyway. Like, I don't know you, you're hiding behind a username and in fact your real life might be a total shambles, so why the heck do you think I'd care that you're trying to give me a ticking off lololol

I care because it's entertaining. I enjoy few things more than seeing puffed up, pretentious, perfidious and priggish hypocrites get their karma. Almost everybody who is human does.

Agree! It's so entertaining - what WILL they do next?? Better than a TV soap.

But also gratifying. Psychologists say our love of crime fiction (books and TV) isn't about being gruesome - it's about wanting to believe that the universe isn't random and amoral, and that bad people will get their punishment. Similarly I want M & H to be seen for what they are and (not to be 'punished', exactly - possibly Jeremy Clarkson went a bit far...) but to be exposed as liars and hypocrites rather than adored and rewarded for their spiteful behaviour.

Personally I believe that women read true crime because we need to know our enemy.

A yearning for a just cosmos is also a decent explanation.

I'm a firm believer in karma. Treat other people badly and it'll come back on you eventually. H&M are clearly now toxic in Hollywood terms given the number of erstwhile supporters who've publicly turned against them. That's because celebrities are nothing if not tactically cunning and they know that the RF is much higher value in PR terms than H&M. If H&M hadn't publicly slagged the RF to make a fast buck, it wouldn't even have needed to be a choice.

Camillas giving domestic abuse victims a voice. 1 in 5 adults are victims of domestic abuse.

Any one else believe one of her stepsons may be in a controlling abusive relationship?