Best advice for Harry going forward?

[SandyThumb]

I have all the same initial reactions as many others on MN regarding Harry i.e. whiner, grifter, stupid, entitled etc and it's easy to dole out the criticism.

However while I wouldn't say I have sympathy for him, as so much of his situation is of his own making, I actually do have some underlying feelings of concern for him and his future (and children).

He reminds me an awful lot of a relative of mine who is neurodiverse with a mild learning disability and a tendency to be self-absorbed with an overdeveloped victim complex - always lashing out, blaming others, seeing conspiracy where there is none etc.

Harry is clearly a damaged man, with childhood trauma and issues which continue to plague his mental health.
As with my relative, he has grown up with a support network which has probably quietly managed and enabled his passage through life, but when big outbursts happen (as have happened in our family too) everyone backs off and 'grey rocks' him until he has calmed down. Some people just give up, too exhausted by the constant drama of it all.

Now I don’t believe you @MrsLeonFarrell!!!
it’s common knowledge that my father is Archbishop of Canterbury!

My mistake, my Dad was the Pope.

Ahh yes! , easy mistake to make!
my deepest condolences also 💐

But but what about the extra sossidge?

He could have friends visiting from the UK every weekend. We have no idea.

Are you sure about that ?

True @foreverblowingbubbless!
a heinous offence obviously! 🤣
but reading between the lines , I recon he’s like my brother! , William had no extra sausage, Harry wanted one of Williams sausages and when told no , was put out because he’d already put dibs on it , so it forever became “ the extra sausage “ 🤣

If we believe his neighbours then no !
apparently they see no one coming or going to their house ( including them!)

Ooof blistering article from Marina Hyde. She suggests he needs some ‘unconscious pious training’!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/06/prince-harry-security-royal-family

I think we'd know if he did. I'm sure neither he nor Meghan want to be seen as Billy-No-Mates.

I suspect that any of Harry's friends Meghan doesn't approve of would not be allowed to visit.

H&M have lost the Guardian, so it is pretty much game over in the UK press.

Condolences to the UK media hire.

@MrsLeonFarrell

I don't need to try harder

There are service records kept you know.

Service records that prove unsubstantiated gossip? I very much doubt it.

There is something very distasteful about insisting on slandering those who are deceased.

Interesting too that the late QE often said that the Malta years were very happy, it was her "isle of happy memories". Plenty of evidence of that on record.

Unless she was a complete psychopath I hardly think that would be the case if she knew Philip had been up to what must have been truly appalling things to be worse than Andrew and worse than certain rumours about Harry, according to the previous poster.

There has been speculation about Philip and affairs (consensual, with adult women) for decades, it is hardly a massive secret and I consider the truth or otherwise of that to be a matter between him and the late Queen.

It may be just me but I have little interest in sexual 'shenanigans' as some pps have put it. In a very long marriage such as that of the late Queen and PP, who knows? I'd put money on the Queen never having strayed - she was nuts about her husband, apart from anything else, but I also think she was one of those rare people with absolute integrity - as well as having a strong religious faith. If PP played away, I think that's entirely between man and wife. Some spouses (of both sexes) genuinely love their partners and want to keep their marriage going but do have occasional affairs. Personally I think loyalty is more important than absolute sexual fidelity. I'm not explaining what I mean very well here - but I've heard and read people expressing this view and I can understand it to a large degree. It needs to be a mutual understanding, of course.

All I'm saying is that, if, as a pp has salaciously alleged, PP occasionally strayed sexually, it doesn't necessarily mean he didn't adore his wife or that there was any chance of them splitting. I'm not defending sexual infidelity, just saying that in long marriages it may happen in some circumstances. I would only judge the behaviour if it caused pain and damage to the other spouse or to children.

But clearly the Q and PP had a deeply loving relationship for 70 years, so I don't know why vulgar gossips need to concern themselves with what may or may not have happened between them.

Granted my dh was just normal military but I assume the same restrictions apply!

I do hope they are not claiming that their father revealed sensitive information to his child!
or that he took home service records and showed them !

my dh wasn’t allowed to reveal anything to me no matter how trivial!

But I didn't include detail, unlike @jeffgoldblum who then deleted it

I think you are right. There were negative comments in interviews from Chris Ship of ITV and Tina Brown over the weekend, both of whom have been supportive of H&M. And also from Baroness Ayesha Hazarika (I think she was an MP, now a Times Radio presenter), who calls herself a friend of Harry and has always stuck up for him. I think he'd really gone too far for everyone sensible who kept giving them the benefit of the doubt. Even Paula Rhone-Arden who goes on Piers Morgan's show all the time to defend them is now twisting like a pretzel to make out that she's not defending H&M, all she's doing is trying to encourage the RF to be stronger and better.

Hmm... maybe, "Get a job"? I don't think his behaviour can be justified with MH issues. Lots of people are survivors of i.e. alcoholic parents and true poverty, and they don't shout all the time, "Give me more money!". And I think his actions are actually this - he's ran out of money, it's more difficult than he has envisaged, and as he has confessed in Oprah interview "Daddy stopped the cashflow" and "We've been living on my Mom's inheritance" (way beyond their means, BTW). It's been 5 years and I haven't seen him actually working, but I've seen his wife a lot trying to do something.

I didn’t include details either!!
I was extremely vague and didn’t go into the full specifics at all!
i also didn’t claim it was from a family member, so was fact and I was extremely clear that it was gossip and rumours that couldn’t be construed as fact at all.
please don’t try to insinuate that my withdrawn post said things it did not!!
other people read it too and know what it said!!

Third, the correspondence apparently referred to "The Princess of Wales". However, that could well have been referring to Camilla pre QEII dying. Scobie never actually named Catherine, the interpretation was made
though that "Princess of Wales" was referring to her. Harry would have had to say one way or the other, and in doing so, thrown one of them under the bus.

This is the crux of the matter. CNN published an article in July 2013 discussing George's potential skin tone. Given the precedent of media speculating over a baby's features, it would be highly likely that KC3 would discuss potential media coverage of H's future child using Catherine's situation as an example. And Camilla is the person who was present for the conversation and remained silent as Camilla was The Princess of Wales at the time of the discussion.

H&M know that the global public associates the title of The Princess of Wales with Diana and Catherine. Even in the UK many people don't realise that Camilla was The Princess of Wales from her marriage to the then Prince Charles until Charles' accession to the throne.

I firmly believe that Catherine was minding her own business with her husband and kids when KC3 and H&M dragged her name into their mess. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to reason that the explanation letter KC3 sent to H&M would have included the fact that Catherine's experience was used as an example. H&M allowed their mouthpiece to use this to try to destroy Catherine's reputation. It was a cruel and malicious and downright evil move by H&M.

H has allowed Catherine to be unspeakably vilified on social media by his vicious Sussex Squad every day and yet H has the sheer audacity to say he has forgiven his family and wants reconciliation! IMHO, W&C are correct to fully let go of any association with H&M and to protect themselves and their children from such toxic relations.

What – and who – will the royal baby look like?

So that makes it ok then, does it?

@My2cents1975 Absolutely agree with everything you say. I do think it was probably Camilla, but H&M were happy to see Catherine in the firing line as they hate her. Harry's conduct towards Catherine, who seems to have gone out of her way to be a big sister towards him, has been nothing short of evil. My opinion is that Harry has been acting like a man who has been spurned. I think he was a little in love with Catherine, and weirdly also with William, as the embodiment of Diana in looks. And treated the two of them like a substitute mummy and daddy. Who then betrayed him by having their own children and "excluding" him.

And thank you for reminding me about that CNN article, written about Catherine darkening the features of future royal children. Remarks from one Dr. Anand Saggar, who doesn't sound like your archetypal racist.

Ms Fulani was not supposed to be at the event in question but went along uninvited.

Wow.

Hadn't heard this story but if this really is the case you've got to wonder why Henry is convinced royal security is so eminently desirable. Surely something like this should put the wind up him something chronic?

But then we also hear rumours he's happy to fling the door wide to food delivery drivers so who knows?

Marina Hyde has described every rich person ever who hasn't earned their money. Not for nothing parallels are being drawn between Harry and the older Beckham boy, although I think the latter's parents have done a better job of instilling some understanding of the real world in him than Harry's parents. Neither man wants to put themselves out to live in the real world, though, hence the parallels.

I don't think MM sees things this way. She will know how hard it is to earn mega-millions. The impossibility of it (for her) is precisely why she glommed onto Harry. And it's also why that she's now reveling in cosplaying a lady-of-the-Montecito-manor. It's her latest costume, the one she's wanted from her elementary school days.

Harry is a man who believes, deep in his soul, that his very DNA is royal and that that entitles him to extraordinary privileges. MM believes herself equally entitled by marriage. She will never leave him, no matter how miserable he must be to live with, and how utterly dull life with a stupid, whining, moaning, bitter ignoramus must be. They both firmly believe themselves special, and uniquely special and each individually knows they will be nothing without the other. I'm sure we all wish them the very best together.