BS: Harry Duke of Sussex

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Jan 23 - 05:42 PM

I have no opinion on him but I am on the sympathetic side.
An emotionally distant father is not unique. A Queen grandma is unique.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 12 Jan 23 - 10:46 PM

Thanks, Bill D. The court of public opinion sees a connection between being hounded by the paparazzi and both the death of Diana and the departure of Harry and Meghan.

I started reading Spare and one of my first thoughts was that they had found a good storyteller/ghost-writer to work with him on the story. I don't expect he's the writer, but he told the writer the stories. (She is a writer, but not to this extent).

People can defend their opinions by saying that the courts didn't find wrongdoing as far as the press; if this had happened only once, perhaps. But there are decades worth of examples of the press in the UK behaving badly (and I'm reminded of the fictional account in Notting Hill when Anna tells William how awful the British press are at picking up something and trashing her reputation.) Art imitates life.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jan 23 - 11:55 PM

Of course the paparazzi are awful Stilly and it is not just the UK. Diana's death was in France and the very term is Italian.

What I do find amazing is that the ginger whinger is cynically making a fortune by using the very press that he tells us he is trying to avoid! If he wants the quiet life, why go so public with his gripes and moans. I am far from a royalist and will be happy if his story knocks them off the pedestal that some see them on. But his hypocrisy is manifest.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Senoufou
Date: 13 Jan 23 - 02:15 AM

'...the ginger whinger' hahahaha, love that Dave!
Some of the intimate details about family life revealed by the ginger whinger are the sort of things all brothers do. William asking Harry to 'pull his finger' then farting. Or waking him up by farting in his face. Many young boys pull these sort of pranks on their brothers/friends. But is it appropriate for anyone in a privileged position to speak about these in public life when fully grown-up?
There is a huge discrepancy between 'wanting to retreat from public life and keep away from the Press' and publishing a book telling all, then sending tweets or whatever about such things. Hypocrisy, and in my view simply money-chasing.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Jan 23 - 05:39 AM

I daresay ALL authors chase money.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 23 - 05:56 AM

The court of public opinion doesn't gain extra legitimacy just because you call it a court, unfortunately. The court of public opinion resulted in the elections of Thatcher, Reagan, Dubya, Trump and Boris, lest we forget, and, for much of the thirties, supported Hitler. Unlike what a real court does, or should do, good judgement is often clouded by loyalty, tribalism, partial information and prejudice (into which mix we could throw racism and misogyny, etc.). I am terribly uninterested in the doings of the royals (though I'd be terribly interested in moves to get rid of them), though one can't ignore the baleful effect they have, by dint of their place at the top of the pyramid, on class and privilege. But our current discussion of paparazzi piqued me to investigate the death of Diana a bit further, and the fact of the matter (and you can look up the facts, both in the French and English reports we've mentioned) is that blaming the paparazzi (however vicious we think they are, and I definitely go along with that) in any way for the crash is unjustified. As for the criticism of the press, well I hate the Mail and Express and Sun as much as the next sane person, but, for me, it's a laugh-out-loud moment for me when I hear of Harry's whingeing about how they've damaged him and Meghan. The royals, along with the majority of other celebrities, revel in being in the public eye, and the mass media is (are?) their main vehicle for keeping them there, and they use it shamelessly. When things turn on them, they can hardly complain unless the depredations of the tabloids step over to the wrong side of what's actually legal. As for those paparazzi on motor bikes, they were worms, bumholes and parasites. But find the facts surrounding that incident and the only sensible conclusion is that Diana and co were killed by a very drunk driver who was breaking the rules of the road. I'm very lucky in that I hate both the royals and the paparazzi in equal measure (roughly). That means I have a better chance of being dispassionate about all this than many a royals' aficionado. As the founder of the Guardian, CP Scott, said, comment is free but facts are sacred...

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Jan 23 - 06:27 AM

'Spare' is being touted as the fastest selling non-fiction book.
I would query the classification as 'non-fiction'!

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Jan 23 - 06:36 AM

Who hasn't had a squabble?
Media makes $ calling it a;
debacle
fiasco
failure
catastrophe
despicable behavior
disaster
disintegration
mess
wreck
ruin
downfall
collapse
defeat
rout
overthrow
conquest
trouncing
foul-up
screwup
fight
battle
clash
conflict
encounter
confrontation
engagement
fray
contest
combat
tussle
scrimmage
fracas
affray
melee
rencounter
outrageous wrongdoing
outrageous behavior
immoral behavior
unethical behavior
discreditable behavior
impropriety
misconduct
wrongdoing
offense
racist
transgression
crime
sin
skeleton in the castle
skeleton in the closet
business
money chasing affair
royal-gate and
brouhaha

so what, it ain't climate change.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 23 - 07:21 AM

Nice one, Nigel!

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Jan 23 - 07:58 AM

Yes, Nigel, seconded :-) I may pinch that!

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 23 - 09:13 AM

Yep, he had a ghost writer. As for fiction, Nigel, the books sez that Harry got an XBox for his 13th birthday. Well, XBoxes weren't released until four years after that...

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 13 Jan 23 - 10:31 AM

Herself: I think he [the ginger whinger] has realised he's on the back of the tiger, and he daren't let go of the tail.

Me: Does that mean he's riding it backwards?

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 13 Jan 23 - 11:58 AM

From the Washington Post: Opinion: Harry’s truth may be too true to protect against regret

The piece pivots here:

You know how it goes. You discover insights that you want to share with your family, but they’ve not done the necessary work. You might as well try to explain God to an atheist or love to a misanthrope. Despite his best efforts, Harry couldn’t penetrate his family’s proud armor nor displace the family motto: Never complain, never explain. Ultimately, he ran away and began rewriting the fairy tale of his own life.

Today, living in California, Harry hasn’t spoken to brother or father in “a long while.” He says he loves his relatives deeply, means them no harm, and wants his children to have a relationship with their royal family. For someone seemingly so self-aware, it doesn’t occur to him that his estrangement is attached to the fact that he won’t stop talking.

He is talking - and the Royal Family isn't, they're leaking to the press. What they've always done. They'd be leaking even if he wasn't talking.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Jan 23 - 05:48 PM

The very term 'leaks' rather implies an unplanned accidental and unwanted process.. Yet it's meaning seems to have been shifted so that it means something completely different and planned. God know which is closer to the truth, and how consistently.

I think it is more plausible to assume the British tabloids operate largely on the basis of speculation, gossip and just making things up rather than of carefully checked journalistic research. Harry's accusations seem to be based on an assumption that the gutter press is a lot more professional than is often the case, and that when they print something they are passing on stories that they have been given.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 23 - 06:22 PM

You may be right, but the tabloids know how to tread the fine line between quarter-truths and getting sued, and they have armies of lawyers to ensure that the line is not crossed.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Jan 23 - 06:48 PM

The thing is,if you have good reason to assume a story will never get a formal denial or a legal challenge you can get away with what you like. Of course Harry breaks with that, with legal challenges all over the place.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Jan 23 - 07:32 PM

One thing that's been largely ignored in this stuff about the miseries of being a 'spare" is that between 1830:and 2022 the only times the monarch was someone who'd been first-in-line when they were born was between 1901 and 1910, and a few months in 1936. "Spares" have normally been the ones that inherited the throne.

It's interesting to note how primogeniture is a lot more the way of the world than just in the context of royalty and aristocracy. Remember how, when Ed Miliband went up against his big brother Dave it was widely seen as a stab in the back, just not done. Most especially by Dave, who stormed off to sulk in America rather than just buckling down and bing ready to serve loyally in his brother's cabinet, as would have been expected of Ed if the vote had gone the other way, and which is what other defeated candidates mostly do. And that was seen as quite reasonable behaviour on the part of Dave,.

And I don't think it'd be reasonable to see that distortion as being a matter of spilling over from monarchical and aristocratic primogeniture and infecting English society. More deeply rooted than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 23 - 07:36 PM

Yep, that was a funny one all right...

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Jan 23 - 07:52 PM

Machiavelli endorses strategic lying in The Prince. Just make sure you don't get caught. P.S. Notice that Machiavelli isn't too concerned with morality and ethics. Yeah, that's kind of groundbreaking when it comes to politics.
Chew on This
According to Machiavelli, being honest is a surefire way to end up without a kingdom.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Jan 23 - 08:34 PM

It's probably truer to see Machiavelli as spilling the beans about how corrupt and vicious respected rulers are rather than as recommending that way to his readers.. Essentially "Be warned, this is the way of the world. This is what you have to expect and be ready to deal with if you get involved in politics."

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 23 - 08:38 PM

I have a photo somewhere of Machiavelli's tomb in Florence...