Harry's new interview 2

[Viviennemary]

I just thought I would start second thread since I noticed the first one is full. It has certainly dominated media reporting. I saw a snippet on Sky news earlier. A document from Harry saying its a dereliction of duty to stop his security. Erm who just whizzed off to the USA and left all the duties behind. I havent watched the whole interview. I wonder if he'll appeal again.

That could be so. However, they're the professionals, and he isn't, so he needs to leave it up to them. In the whole of his time in the UK, and since his marriage, he and his family have been safe.
The "near catastrophic car chase" was in NY. All their pap pictures have been taken in Canada or the USA. Objectively, he and they have been well protected..

A couple of points from Harry's interview that become more egregious with time.

"Some of my family will never forgive me because I wrote a book." [My emphasis].

The disingenuousness of that indefinite article! It wasn't just 'a book', was it, Harry? It wasn't a book about the joys of fly fishing. Or about the flora and fauna of the United Kingdom. It was a 350 page exposition of man-child malice filled with cruelties against your family, with a desiccated floral sprinkling of ableism, ageism and misogyny. But he can't be honest about this, because it would involve admitting that he, too, has done awful things over the past 5 years.

"My father won't speak to me about this security stuff, but he could solve it in an instant." [Paraphrase]

This is Harry's core grudge against his family and it's significant because of the cognitive dissonance it creates amongst Sussex supporters.

Sussex supporters often take the stance that the RF is a hive of colonialist racists and paedophiles, and dismiss the rest of us as cap-doffing lickspittles. Sure you can see that stance everywhere on these threads. But in order for that dichotomy to work, the SS have to uphold H&M as brave truth-tellers exposing the dark truth about inherited monarchy.

But that stance is NOT where H&M are. M clings to her titles; and worse, H is so MUCH of a Royalist that the very basis of his grievance is that he's not being treated royally ENOUGH. In fact he even wants his father to override the courts to meet H's demands, which crosses the line from ceremonial monarchy to outright tyranny. Harry's even more royalist than his own family, in other words. He dismisses the democratic rule of law - he is a tyrant.

It's very difficult for the SS to confront this cognitive dissonance, which is why they tend to fall back on tawdry appeals to emotion. But, as I've found elsewhere as a GC Feminist, it's really impossible to debate based on the Enlightenment values of empiricism and logic when your opponent is ignoring these values and focussing on emotional histrionics. So there's no point.

But, I've never yet seen a H&M fan logically reconcile these two opposing stances. I'd be genuinely interested in such an argument, if anyone can bring one forward.

I am not disputing MM’s influence on harry.
I am referring to the term itself.
It is a misogynistic slur because it is used to belittle female influence and says that women are only of value because of their vagina.
I am pretty sure you would not agree with that?
If you had instead said MM controls harry / pulls his strings / is the boss then I would agree with you.
You might want to question some terms you hear on tv or from others before you use them yourself because they may stem from a view which you do not condone.

@CorrectionCentre

“Palace insiders also railed against the BBC for letting the Duke's outrageous claims go unchallenged.”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14675925/strip-Harry-Meghan-HRH-titles-bombshell-interview-backlash-grows.html

Most of the what the SS doesn't make much sense, lots of them trying to turn this into a win for him on social media and claiming he's playing a long game whilst being annoyed he's mentioned reconciliation 🤣

This is a new post in her IG account. Why has she gone into edit and used the pen effect to highlight Archie’s bum?

Where is the source for that please? I would like to read this. The BBC are a complete let down on many issues these days.

Sadly this sounds very likely.
She had her motives all along.

When harry turned his back on his family she knew he could never take the kids off her. .
Not many have pulled a stunt that big but she managed.

Perhaps Parsley accidentally employed a misogynistic slur under the influence of Harry's book, Spare.

In which he makes fun of the physical appearance and age of the disabled Matron he had at school, characterising her as a 'crone' - a misogynistic slur.

In which he viciously attacked Camilla, characterising her as an 'evil stepmother' - a misogynistic slur.

In which he mocked and denigrated the young woman to whom he claims to have lost his virginity, characterising her as a drunken slut - a misogynistic slur.

In which he characterised Catherine as little more than a Stepford wife - a misogynistic slur.

You might want to question the desire to castigate others for words they use because your desire may stem from support of a person whose bigotry and misogyny you do not condone.

I'm surprised that Harry ran to the Beeb for his pre-record, given that it was the Beeb who manipulated his mother into such a frenzy of paranoia that she dismissed her own security and used Dodi's, which was a key factor in the decision to jump into a car to move locations on that fateful night in Paris.

Well, he might divulgue his version of what was said… suitably embellished and twisted to fit his own « récollections » (and make him look good/brave/the terribly hard-done-by victim)

You have completely misunderstood me.
I 100% agree with everything you say and was purely commenting on the term used.

👏

Posters on another thread said it was mentioned on Radio 4

I’m not surprised - it sounds like the interviewer gave him a very easy ride!

Ouch indeed , spot on though.

Very easy, I think it was poor journalism not to at least challenge the more controversial statements. However, he's a prince and it seems that many people accept what he says without question because of his power and privilege.

I think the photo this morning is in bad taste. First thoughts are...

Fuelling the fire
Dramatic black and white shot
Composition, does this mean - turning his back on...his family? His country?
Bringing the children into it
and posting with no words...

Why on earth post!!!

As usual @GiveMeSpanakopita nails it!

She has to churn out content. The children are of interest, and now Harry is in the headlines. Again. It's all about the clicks. All these influencers and reality celebrities do this. That's what the Sussexes merchandise; royal connections and controversy.

Whenever I see these photos I think they look like they’re living in the Garden of Eden but have already tasted the poisoned apple.

Harry says that the royal household sits on RAVEC , which apparently came as a surprise to him, he says it's Sir Clive Waterton (sp?) and one other , the one other seems to be a real problem for him, is it William I wonder ? Why didn't he say who it was ?

William doesn't sit on RAVEC. As far as I know, he doesn't have secret service or high level security expertise.
We have no idea what Harry meant, as per usual. However, @GiveMeSpanakopita 's point is spot on - he wants to be treated as a top royal, and he resents bitterly that he is not.

Didnt he say he wasnt going to say who it was..."yet"?

Another version of the Royal Racist. He is totally paranoid and delusional. The pair of them specialise in making vague threats . They are utterly shameless .
It won’t be long before he writes a sequel to his ‘book’ in which no holds are barred. Just spiteful and petulant.