How can Harry be so deluded?

[HiRen]

The paranoia deepens

I don't really know what to conclude from this other than that Harry must feel the victim of a deep state conspiracy. Being a spoilt brat, and not understanding that he's there to serve his country rather than the country being there to serve him, can't help. Even if he did fear strategic delays, why would he jump to the conclusion that specific individuals have it in for him, rather than that there's a bigger picture to consider?

I just can't fathom the depths of misery and confusion he must experience on a daily basis. He must think his whole life was a lie until he met Meghan. I really do think things with Harry are much worse than they seem. Which puts an entirely different, and much darker, gloss on all of Meghan's utterings of her era of joy.

I honestly wouldn't want to be in their orbit. And I wonder whether those who remain in their orbit are desperate, whether as friends or employees. They're too much.

I agree. I don’t think it’s anti-Archie, it’s just that girls - and later, women - are easier merching vehicles.

My ds - don’t make me laugh! He’d have worn a purple-spotted armadillo suit if I’d have bought it. He didn’t care; he still doesn’t care. Dd, otoh, has always liked outfits, shopping, make-up etc etc. I don’t love one more than the other!

Meghan patented “Lilibet’s Closet” before the child was even born. Lili is not (hopefully) favoured more, but is just more profitable .

Uricon2
Did anyone else read that Lady Louise (Edinburgh) is thinking of going into the military?

Good for her! Not that I'm particularly pro-military, but if that is what she wants she ought to do it, and if possible do it well. And she's going the right way about it by becoming a reserve Officer Cadet....

Only I thought her surname was Windsor?

I just find it so surprising and so disappointing that Harry and Meghan who so resented being below William and Catherine in the pecking order, should appear to favour Lilibet . I sincerely hope I am wrong and they treat both DC equally.

I think you're right! I put Edinburgh as a descriptor, as she seems to be part of the "quietly getting on with it" branch.

There could also be an unconscious effort to not make more of Archie as he is the older (ie William equivalent). In doing this they aren't realising that they're evening it out, but making it unfair in the opposite direction.
I've seen this before where a parent feels they were treated badly because they were first/middle/youngest, and they unconsciously favour their child in that position. In their mind, they're just evening out the unfairness, but they do it to an extreme that means they go beyond.

Indeed. I like the fact that she had a summer holiday job in a garden centre.

Interesting perspective, hadn’t thought about that.

Speculation about children in the public eye is both icky and pointless. There is no way anyone can really know what a child is like based on carefully curated photos or videos or even public appearances and children shouldn't be subject to this sort of speculation (whether it's Archie or Louis or Shiloh Pitt, or whoever).

@AtIusvue just keep in mind that the words in bold below are yours and yours alone.

If there were profound learning difficulties

@Uricon2 I’m genuinely sorry if you don’t like these particular posts of mine and all I can say in my defence is that there have been posts written in the past few days that I haven’t liked at all to the extent I had to say what’s been on my mind for quite some time now. I dislike Harry and Meghan and what they stand for, the awful things they’ve done, but I think there is some unfair criticism going on with regards to what appears to be blatant favouritism of Lilli and Archie appearing to be the family outsider.

We all look at the world through our own eyes and the things we’re familiar with and yes, like you said, Archie could be a shy wee boy.

@rayofhope75
How can you look at pictures of Archie and say he has special needs. It wouldn’t make any difference to the love he has from his family but this is pure wild speculation*

You just don’t get it do you? So I’m going to explain it just so you know. if a child lives a life where their needs come first and a family lives around those needs to the extent they look like a lost soul in the family, (which is basically what has been said about Archie the last few days) it doesn’t mean they don’t love the child, which is what you seem to think is what I’m suggestion, it in fact means they’re loved very much and looked after very well.

Yes, my point being that’s clearly not the case.

@Weepixiei think you are seeing things that really aren’t there.

I have and will steer clear of any speculation about Archie. After all, the internet is forever (unlike the tabloid press of the 80s and 90s, mostly).

I know exactly what @Weepixie is saying. I've had similar reflections, because it sounds like I have a similar experience of such things. Speaking only for myself and my experiences: when parents grapple (and first time parents always do, especially when their children are single-digit aged) with such things, they often run the gamut of feelings towards each of their children, about themselves as parents, themselves as individuals, about each other. This is even if they had similar issues themselves: it's different when you're the parent, and when your child is mostly likely different from the way you were. It can be really complicated, and it can be really hard. Occasionally, it can be straightforward - but this is exceptional. Never once, in my experience, is it a question of less or more love. It can be more challenging; it can be an outpouring of overcompensation; it can be guilt-induced; it can be pure and stripped right back. But it's always loving, at the same time as all the other things it can be, many or all of which will wax and wane over time.

At the core of it, from what Meghan has put out there, are two parents who seem to love their family life. Personally I think she'd do very well to keep both children off social media and out of the media altogether. But they're not my children, she's not breaking any laws.

Also business equity. Seen as Meghan sees a future for Lili with As ever and has never mentioned Archie’s involvement. Not even with his namesake, Archewell foundation/productions.

According to Harold, Archie will take the reins at Invictus, another tainted brand.

Personally I think both are likely to have been exposed as shady entities and doubt either will be in existence by the time Archie is of an age to take on any family biz.

I’m bemused that anyone can deduce anything at all from the little that’s been seen of either of those children.
There’s something really off about people claiming they have such unique insight into the world of additional needs that they can diagnose from a photo.
A photo of the back of the head, at that.

I think they seem to be favouring Lili but for a more obvious reason: Meghan wanted to have a daughter as part of her often-repeated feminist interests. She'd have loved to have a daughter as first born to be able to complain about the unfairness of her not inheriting the Dukedom - that is of course sexist and unfair, but I can't imagine Meghan taking it on as an issue for anyone else's benefit, eg the York girls. A daughter as her eldest child would have been another weapon in her campaign about how outdated/bigoted the royal family are. Having Archie first made it all more traditional and predictable. Ruled out one more avenue for being a disruptor. So I think she's more drawn to Lili now as the child who can spearhead her approach. Archie is the son and heir to the title and is therefore less exciting.

If Meghan wanted to campaign about how outdated/bigoted the RF are, why keep the titles? Why style herself Duchess? Why have the Coat of Arms on her website, and the Coronet over her initial on her stationery? Why allow Archie and Lilibet to be Prince and Princess? Why allow Archie to eventually become Duke of Sussex?.
You're making absolutely no sense, @PullTheBricksDown .
Plus - a feminist? She's clinging on to her husband all the time and doing a trad wife show.

Oh but she did something or other when she was eleven that proves she's a feminist. Or something. I think.

Dish soap.

I know! All this is completely contradictory and hypocritical! That's (part of) my point. Both Sussexes claim to hate the stuffy old restrictive royal ways but actually love the importance it brings and don't want to let go of that.

Archie will one day be important as the heir to the title, but not yet. Meanwhile, Lili can be the face of Meghan imparting her feminism 🙄 to the next generation, and - I overlooked this earlier - the new Diana. The opportunities are endless.

They love being royal, as you say. It's really at the heart of everything. Sadly they wanted to be royal without the restrictions and hierarchy, which is really what royalty is all about.
I wish they were a bit more reflective.

Thanks but this is way too long for me to concentrate. Harry is here to avenge plain and simple - Diana I mean. And someone has to do it because Wills follows the party line, Andrew's in his own mess, Anne doesn't give a shit, Prince Charles (sorry the King) is too old and too gobsmacked that he's King to do anything; Edward is weirdly too sensible now. Harry has to avenge Diana if it kills me and get the tabloid press bastards and the phone hackers and the royal palace ghastly members of staff that wouldn't let him speak to his own grandmother. He can't go flying around in a helicopter anymore. He needs to stop the rot. Good luck to him and get the bastards.

Why will Archie be important ? Americans don’t care about any title he has .Its irrelevant. He lives in America.

All the bastards are in his head. Classic paranoia.

Who are the bastards ?