The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 4: April-June 2021

[Curryong]

A nice photo of Harry and Meghan taken from the trailer for The Me You Can’t See, with both of them looking very bright and happy.

https://mobile.twitter.com/PHarry_Meghan

 

[Betsypaige]

When did anyone from Apple, Harpo Productions or anyone else, including Oprah or Harry, announce that there was to be a Diana segment on their new show? I can believe that Harry may go into the trauma he felt when he walked behind his mother’s coffin at some point in the forthcoming show, just as several years ago William also mentioned how he felt doing it. However I doubt that there will be a whole segment on Diana at any time.

I posted the link earlier ...it’s near the end. I didn’t mean they’d be doing an entire segment on Diana - I meant the segment where she’s talked about. I’m expecting the worst.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f... family&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1621261223

 

[Curryong]

Thanks. However, according to Chris Ship’s Twitter today, it is his understanding that there won’t be a discussion about Diana and her funeral on the series.

 

[Moran]

Harry's whining about his family was ridiculous. Genetic pain? Wrong side of the family, me thinks.


He's strangely silent about the Spencers, really. They aren't the most pain-free family either but this far, his lips have been locked. Could he be a little afraid that his uncle will actually reply and he won't like it?


I'm curious why all the blame and "genetic" pain should go to Charles. Diana didn't have the greatest relationship with her own mother either, did she? And I never really knew if she pushed her stepmother down the stairs or just claimed she had done so (and been disturbingly proud of it in either case). But somehow, it's all the Windsors' fault? The Spencers are "genetic pain" free? Surely I'd think the reverse is true. If we have to compare. In comparison, Charles' relationship with his parents looks positively stellar, ill-advised interview or not.


But the Spencers don't adhere to the Never Complain, Never Explain rule. Earl Spencer certainly didn't at Diana's funeral. And they didn't get the blame for Harry's genetic pain. I found this very calculating.


The ridiculous notion that Harry doesn't know what he's doing and he's manipulated by evil Meghan needs to die, really.

 

[moby]

[...]

On the Harry subject, I've been a fan of Armchair Expert for a long time and I particularly enjoy listening to conversations between Dax and very high achieving people in various fields. That's the essence of his episodes--there's always something interesting to learn about the speaker because they're often highly successful artists, and experts. I couldn't finish the Harry episode because I'm sorry to say, after listening to so many achievers talk with Dax and their insightful comments, this was a letdown. It just wasn't interesting.

Also, since this is the first time I'm just listening to him and not hearing and watching words coming out of his mouth--sorry to say this but English accents are usually so sexy and his has to be the only one that's not as he sounds mumbly. I can't believe I'd skip a podcast episode featuring royalty over Seth Rogen but I did just that in this one.

Was reflecting after that I used to be apathetic to Harry, then found him charming when he started doing his Invictus, etc., then got super excited when he met and got engaged to Meghan, was an absolute fan in the first few months and was quite defensive when she did the Africa interview, to "meh", to apathy, to active dislike.. lol thanks for the rollercoaster of emotions as a royal watcher, Sussexes.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

I believe he *thinks* he's doing this to help out others. There's a time and a place though to be able to really speak out on one's issues but the public domain is not one of them. Especially if you're going to involve the character and reputation of other people. Especially people that are well known as public figures around the world.

There's a reason that people feel safe within recovery groups or group therapy sessions. It's a staunch rule that whatever is said there, stays there. I can't see any mental health professional applauding Harry for what he's doing right now in the public domain. His words and actions tend to make me believe that he's winging all this "mental health therapy" on his own without any real professional guidance whatsoever.

Yes, I cannot see the therapist who helped Harry a number of years ago supporting Harry in what he is now saying. Like you said, this is not AT ALL group therapy. I cannot see anyone (except maybe Dr Phil) encouraging this sort of disclosure.
In my experience most people enter therapy because of issues in their lives or things that have happened that they need help in processing. Because we all have families of origin and perhaps our own families as well when we become adults, most issues are relational. The healthy way to work through these issues is within the family system getting help from a therapist for insights and support if you cannot do that on your own with support from friends and other family members. Yes, it is important to talk about feelings to others but in settings with appropriate boundaries to protect everyone involved. Harry has no boundaries in sharing his personal story with “the world” and will not experience healing by talking to anyone and everyone who will listen. These relational issues he has with his family (particularly his father) can only be solved with those people - if he is truly interested in repairing relationships which I’m beginning to doubt.

The sharing of all these things by celebrities on TV turns those who watch into voyeurs of a sort. The trailer flashed a bunch of celebrities who look emotional and that they are sharing personal stories. Oprah is not a licensed therapist, nor is Harry. What they are doing is very different from having someone talk about suicidal ideation, for example, and then have someone with appropriate credentials who knows how to treat this explain to viewers what to do and how to contact someone for help if they are feeling suicidal. Also it is a good opportunity to explain some things about suicide (using suicide just as an example) that people may not know or have been misinformed. For example, many people think that “you shouldn’t ask someone if they are thinking about hurting themselves because that will give them the idea to do it.” Nothing could be further from the truth. If you are concerned about a friend or family member, you should ask them directly and then get help from a licensed mental health counselor.

So far this new Oprah and Harry thing sounds like a lot of “it’s important to talk about it” which it is, but not to everyone and on TV. I really fear it could make things worse for some viewers and feels really, really irresponsible to me.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

I find it hard to believe that he is NOT seeing a therapist.. but OTOH, its hard to believe that a good therapist would really advise him to make these public attacks on people. So perhaps he's not seeing anyone. So how does he plan to use all this to help others? Surely, as he's not a professional the best thing would be to advise people watching his programme about mental helath to seek help from a counsellor.. and if he's given up on therapy, how can he do that?

There is no way he is currently seeing a licensed therapist. At least not an ethical one.

 

[BriarRose]

I did chuckle to hear a descendent of George III calling the First Amendment "bonkers."

I assume Harry was referring to the freedom of speech, but if he was, in fact, referring to the freedom of the press, well, that was a reaction to the heavy press censorship by the British government back when his ancestor was King.

I'm guessing his issue is with freedom of speech and Archwell's charitable mission of eliminating false stories and trolling on the internet (paraphrasing). And I said this when they first moved to the US- they moved to a country with, for better or worse, the broadest protections for speech and smallest protections for the privacy of public persons, which is going to make their mission that much harder.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Harry hasn't much credibility lately.
That's what happens when you are caught out in so many discrepancies.

Neither has his wife, who claimed that she had to google Harry because she had no idea who he was.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...agazine-cover-two-years-met-Prince-Harry.html

 

[Curryong]

Meghan was pictured holding the magazine in which she’d written an article about sunglasses. So now she is supposed to have known all about the British royal family because she’s been seen with a mag which has a photo of Kate on the front!

Meghan was working on Suits at the time and so was a celebrity. Celebs are asked to hold countless things in their hands for publicity photos, souvenirs, footballs, cups, photos, dozens of things. And I am absolutely sure they know the details of each and every object, especially years later!


And while some Americans do know quite a bit about the British royal family, many millions of others know only vague outlines, what the Queen looks like, how beautiful and stylish Diana was, her funeral, some things about her sons, royal weddings and so on.

That might well have been Meghan, who decided to Google Harry to get more details about him.Unless she’d been a fan it’s extremely unlikely that she knew much more than he’d walked behind his mother’s coffin as a boy, been to the US a couple of times, met the Obamas, had been screamed at by female staff in the Capitol building on a visit, probably bits and pieces like that.

She obviously wanted to know more of who he was as a person, what he’d done in his life. Meghan didn’t claim complete ignorance of who Harry was as she stated in the engagement interview that like most Americans she knew about the Royal Family but unlike British people she hadn’t grown up with them and so didn’t know much about their lives. She repeated on the Oprah interview that she hadn’t known very much about the royal family.

 

[valeas]

I have not got Charles' biography but the quotes mentioned in one of the posted articles above not gives the impression Charles threw his parents under the bus.
One should be able to criticise his/her upbringing and the quotes only said things which occur in families. Due to the different generation of a parent, due to lifestyle, protocol/traditions and personal experience we all make choices for our children and all children do feel not completely happy with this, varying over the years of course.
And in Charles case I am sure his parents where not surprised by the comments he seem to have made and it did not harm but show the RF is as normal as any other- not perfect because human. I mean what would anybody think today seeing the Queen shaking hands with the little boy after being absent for months! She is a wonderful mother?-No!
And of course this was only one moment, like any photo or video can only copy a moment.

Please note that I was raised in a monarchy, but ours is no "holy cow", so simply the fact of critical comments don't get me nervous or judging, no matter who is speaking.

The distinction to Harry is probably that the two C&H seemed not to have talked about the stuff before and him glorying his mother only, instead of taking a mature look at it.
Plus many sideeffects of the way, his choice of words, focusing only on the matter... which have been mentioned before here.
By the way talking about photos and videos of Harry's upbringing, have there been ANY moments caught between him &parents showing negativity ?
If we suggest that these are testimonies of deeper truth it might be interesting to compare. Given the fact that Harry's media presence was much higher than Charles' in his childhood.

 

[Denville]

I thought what Diana said was: They will take care of William. I have to look out for Harry, he has my brains.

I dont know of her saying that. That's why I wondered where the quote came from. Im fairly sure that she did say of Harry that "he's like me, always the naughty one who's in trouble" but I'd imagine that was more of a jokey thing that a mother might say of a small kid.

 

[Alison H]

There's a complex debate going on about free speech at the moment, and it goes beyond fake news. A recent example here was a preacher being arrested for shouting in the street that marriage was the union of one man and one woman. Some people feel that this was hate speech against same sex couples. Some people feel that he had the right to express his personal opinions and his religious views. It's a difficult area. But Harry should have realised that making insulting comments about the First Amendment was not an appropriate way of saying whatever he wanted to say.

 

[Denville]

There's a complex debate going on about free speech at the moment, and it goes beyond fake news. A recent example here was a preacher being arrested for shouting in the street that marriage was the union of one man and one woman. Some people feel that this was hate speech against same sex couples. Some people feel that he had the right to express his personal opinions and his religious views. It's a difficult area. But Harry should have realised that making insulting comments about the First Amendment was not an appropriate way of saying whatever he wanted to say.

I think anyone saying something as incoherent as what Harry said is going to be ridiculed...I couldn't follow what he siad, and it seemed like the gist of it was "Free Speech is bonkers but I dont really understand it anyway".. I can't beleive that anyone sensible, whether left or right wing, is going to think he's made any kind of sensible point.

 

[Alison H]

Very true. You can't really imagine Voltaire or Thomas Paine or John Locke or Benjamin Franklin using the word "bonkers" !

 

[AC21091968]

There's a complex debate going on about free speech at the moment, and it goes beyond fake news. A recent example here was a preacher being arrested for shouting in the street that marriage was the union of one man and one woman. Some people feel that this was hate speech against same sex couples. Some people feel that he had the right to express his personal opinions and his religious views. It's a difficult area. But Harry should have realised that making insulting comments about the First Amendment was not an appropriate way of saying whatever he wanted to say.

Very good point raised about Free Speech and how complex the term is with lots of grey areas. On the subject of Free Speech, around the time when Harry's appearance on the Armchair Expert podcast was released, The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech Bill) was one of the proposed legislation raised in the Queen's Speech. Under this new legislation, "universities in England could face fines if they failed to protect free speech on campus", particularly targeting student unions.

Universities could face fines over free speech breaches
Universities in England could face fines under new legislation if they fail to protect free speech on campus.
https://www.bbc.com/news/education-57076093

Speaking of the devil indeed when Harry commented about The First Amendment (which includes Free Speech), whilst the proposed legislation could punish university student unions who de-platform speakers due to "hate speech". Even John Mcdonnell, Germaine Greer and Selina Todd were cancelled by student activists and they are not conservative.

 

[Mbruno]

There's a complex debate going on about free speech at the moment, and it goes beyond fake news. A recent example here was a preacher being arrested for shouting in the street that marriage was the union of one man and one woman. Some people feel that this was hate speech against same sex couples. Some people feel that he had the right to express his personal opinions and his religious views. It's a difficult area. But Harry should have realised that making insulting comments about the First Amendment was not an appropriate way of saying whatever he wanted to say.

I am not a legal expert, but hate speech is not actually banned under the First Amendment. I have seen KKK marches in towns I lived in and it was not in the Deep South or any state normally associated with overt racism.



My understanding is that speech used to be criminalized in the US under Supreme Court doctrine only when it could be proven that it led to "clear and present danger". More recently, I think that test has been changed more broadly to likelihood to incite or produce "imminent lawless action" or something similar to that.


In the case you mention, arresting someone for shouting that marriage is a union between a man and a woman is unreasonable in my opinion and a violation of freedom of speech. He may have been arrested, however, for other reasons, e.g. disorderly conduct or "disturbing the peace".

 

[Betsypaige]

I’m sorry, but this is ludicrous...now Harry and Meghan are presuming to provide deep psychological insight into the feelings of people around the world ? How exactly are they qualified to do this? Even psychiatrists shouldn’t presume to speak for people in general.

This timely docuseries explores the current state of the world’s mental health and emotional well-being through storytelling. Co-created by @Oprah and Prince Harry, #TheMeYouCantSee is about people, our experiences, and why we feel the way that we do. apple.co/TheMeYouCantSee

https://twitter.com/x/status/1394287944903528449

 

[Osipi]

She obviously wanted to know more of who he was as a person, what he’d done in his life. Meghan didn’t claim complete ignorance of who Harry was as she stated in the engagement interview that like most Americans she knew about the Royal Family but unlike British people she hadn’t grown up with them and so didn’t know much about their lives. She repeated on the Oprah interview that she hadn’t known very much about the royal family.

This is hitting the nail on the head. I can't count how many times I've had the experience of hearing a familiar name but had to actually search to find out more about the person. Right now there are 5 people in my house and out of all them, I am the only one that could tell you anything at all about Harry as a person. So many people know of Harry but they don't know who Harry is.

If I had been in Meghan's shoes at the time and I was about to meet Prince Harry of the UK, I'd have spent a bit of time looking him up too. In fact, it's occurred to me that before engagements and investitures, the royal will be handed a "cheat sheet" with a bit of information about each of the people that they're going to be meeting with a bit of personal information so that "small talk" can go a whole lot smoother.

So, it made sense to me that Meghan googled Harry.

 

[Erin9]

The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 4: April 2021 -

There's a complex debate going on about free speech at the moment, and it goes beyond fake news. A recent example here was a preacher being arrested for shouting in the street that marriage was the union of one man and one woman. Some people feel that this was hate speech against same sex couples. Some people feel that he had the right to express his personal opinions and his religious views. It's a difficult area. But Harry should have realised that making insulting comments about the First Amendment was not an appropriate way of saying whatever he wanted to say.

It’s worth noting IMO that the First Amendment covers more than just speech. Not sure if he’s clear on that. He called quite a bit “bonkers”. It really wasn’t appropriate.

Free speech is indeed a complex topic.

It was beyond foolish to call the foundation of someone else’s country bonkers- while admitting you don’t understand it. And then proceeding to demonstrate your lack of understanding by fairly incoherent commentary. I assume he wants to be taken seriously and not seen as a joke. This was not a good start.

 

[Betsypaige]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is the First Amendment...it’s really not complicated. The fact that Harry finds it “bonkers” doesn’t speak well for him at all, nor does his use of the word “bonkers” for a man who thinks he knows it all about mental health.

 

[Osipi]

I’m sorry, but this is ludicrous...now Harry and Meghan are presuming to provide deep psychological insight into the feelings of people around the world ? How exactly are they qualified to do this? Even psychiatrists shouldn’t presume to speak for people in general.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1394287944903528449

What's next? A three part series on quantum physics and it's application in our everyday world? I can hear Harry now. "May the force be with you". This is really starting to sound like this couple believe that they actually have the answers to solve everybody's problems but their own. Go figure.

 

[Betsypaige]

What's next? A three part series on quantum physics and it's application in our everyday world? I can hear Harry now. "May the force be with you". This is really starting to sound like this couple believe that they actually have the answers to solve everybody's problems but their own. Go figure.

It does, lol...They both are now estranged from their families, with signs that it’s only going to get worse from Harry’s end. Harry’s (I have no idea what happened with Meghan and Thomas) method of handling family disputes is apparently to escape to another country and publicly devastate his father, grandparents and the family over all. Why would anyone take advice from him ? Or Meghan, who has a reputation of completely cutting people out of her life? ..I don’t think they’re going to have a long shelf life with this sort of thing. Their fans will buy in, but that’s only a tiny section of our huge population (IMO, their target audience is Americans). 99.9% of Americans are not interested in Royals at all, and they certainly won’t be interested in H and M expounding from their mansion in CA about their “problems” when many are struggling to survive day to day...

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I am not a legal expert, but hate speech is not actually banned under the First Amendment. I have seen KKK marches in towns I lived in and it was not in the Deep South or any state normally associated with overt racism.

My understanding is that speech used to be criminalized in the US under Supreme Court doctrine only when it could be proven that it led to "clear and present danger". More recently, I think that test has been changed more broadly to likelihood to incite or produce "imminent lawless action" or something similar to that.

In the case you mention, arresting someone for shouting that marriage is a union between a man and a woman is unreasonable in my opinion and a violation of freedom of speech. He may have been arrested, however, for other reasons, e.g. disorderly conduct or "disturbing the peace".

You are right with respect to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but Alison is a resident of the UK, where there is no First Amendment. However, the UK has laws protecting most speech but "hate speech" is outlawed in many areas of the Western world. In non-Western countries, there is no right of free speech.

I've had experience working with refugees all over the world and I can honestly say that I have never seen refugees from countries that have strong protections of freedom of speech, assembly, religion. People who live under governments that prohibit a free exchange of ideas are often economically poor and physically unsafe.

Perhaps instead of envying the "freedom" of those who live in poverty, often in unsafe areas, Harry should take the time to understand history. I believe that Harry after studying this history, he will have to conclude that although there are disadvantages to any policy, free speech and religious tolerance are the cornerstones of successful, safe, and wealthy societies.

 

[Osipi]

Perhaps instead of envying the "freedom" of those who live in poverty, often in unsafe areas, Harry should take the time to understand history. I believe that Harry after studying this history, he will have to conclude that although there are disadvantages to any policy, free speech and religious tolerance are the cornerstones of successful, safe, and wealthy societies.

Freedom is a word that can mean so many different things to different people. Not all freedoms are defined by laws of countries or cultures or even within a familial group. Envying the "freedom" of people in poverty kind of reminded me of something that has stuck with me since I was a child and, to me, it defines the meaning of personal freedom.

There's an excellent book I'd recommend for anyone to read to really get a good perspective of human freedoms. It's called "Man's Search For Meaning" by Viktor Frankl. Frankl was an Austrian neurologist, psychiatrist, philosopher, author, and Holocaust survivor. He was the founder of logotherapy, a school of psychotherapy which describes a search for a life meaning as the central human motivational force. This quote of his stuck in my mind and remains there and continues to remind me of my part of defining *my* freedom.

"Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way."

 

[Sandy345]

Harry's whining about his family was ridiculous. Genetic pain? Wrong side of the family, me thinks.


He's strangely silent about the Spencers, really. They aren't the most pain-free family either but this far, his lips have been locked. Could he be a little afraid that his uncle will actually reply and he won't like it?


I'm curious why all the blame and "genetic" pain should go to Charles. Diana didn't have the greatest relationship with her own mother either, did she? And I never really knew if she pushed her stepmother down the stairs or just claimed she had done so (and been disturbingly proud of it in either case). But somehow, it's all the Windsors' fault? The Spencers are "genetic pain" free? Surely I'd think the reverse is true. If we have to compare. In comparison, Charles' relationship with his parents looks positively stellar, ill-advised interview or not.


But the Spencers don't adhere to the Never Complain, Never Explain rule. Earl Spencer certainly didn't at Diana's funeral. And they didn't get the blame for Harry's genetic pain. I found this very calculating.


The ridiculous notion that Harry doesn't know what he's doing and he's manipulated by evil Meghan needs to die, really.

I don't think the blame should be shifted to Diana. Charles was very outspoken about his own parents to Dimbleby and even his siblings spoke out and objected to Charles' comments. If there had been social media it would have been a lot worse..

Diana and her stepmother Raine got along and made up after 1992 so Raine did not consider Diana "bad". Diana was not "disturbingly pleased." if so Raine would have had nothing more to do with her. History proves otherwise. As for Diana's mother, she was rather bitter after her second husband left her. Burrell said she would leave Diana in tears because she complained that DIana was dating a Muslim (Dr. Khan). Diana's mother shares the blame. But she too had generational issues. Her own mother testified against her in court and then her mother complained about Diana.

All families have issues if they don't they are not human. Charles is not flawless. Even though he was going through a "rough patch" he should have gone to his own parents privately and complained about his upbringing.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Freedom is a word that can mean so many different things to different people. Not all freedoms are defined by laws of countries or cultures or even within a familial group. Envying the "freedom" of people in poverty kind of reminded me of something that has stuck with me since I was a child and, to me, it defines the meaning of personal freedom.

There's an excellent book I'd recommend for anyone to read to really get a good perspective of human freedoms. It's called "Man's Search For Meaning" by Viktor Frankl. Frankl was an Austrian neurologist, psychiatrist, philosopher, author, and Holocaust survivor. He was the founder of logotherapy, a school of psychotherapy which describes a search for a life meaning as the central human motivational force. This quote of his stuck in my mind and remains there and continues to remind me of my part of defining *my* freedom.

"Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way."

I understand your point and I admire those who are able to rise above horrific circumstances but not everyone can.

I don't think I could tolerate the type of life I have witnessed in some refugee camps. As someone who lives in a free, rich society, I don't have an excuse to feel sorry for myself, but I often do. In that respect, I can sympathize with Harry.

But it is more than a little insensitive for Harry to state that he envied those who have few material goods because they were freer. Harry could have walked away at any time, people who live in poverty, cannot. What I really find offensive is that Harry's remedy for the unfairness is restricting other people's freedoms - he certainly was not stating that his freedom of speech should be curtailed.

 

[TLLK]

Harry's whining about his family was ridiculous. Genetic pain? Wrong side of the family, me thinks.


He's strangely silent about the Spencers, really. They aren't the most pain-free family either but this far, his lips have been locked. Could he be a little afraid that his uncle will actually reply and he won't like it?


I'm curious why all the blame and "genetic" pain should go to Charles. Diana didn't have the greatest relationship with her own mother either, did she? And I never really knew if she pushed her stepmother down the stairs or just claimed she had done so (and been disturbingly proud of it in either case). But somehow, it's all the Windsors' fault? The Spencers are "genetic pain" free? Surely I'd think the reverse is true. If we have to compare. In comparison, Charles' relationship with his parents looks positively stellar, ill-advised interview or not.


But the Spencers don't adhere to the Never Complain, Never Explain rule. Earl Spencer certainly didn't at Diana's funeral. And they didn't get the blame for Harry's genetic pain. I found this very calculating.


The ridiculous notion that Harry doesn't know what he's doing and he's manipulated by evil Meghan needs to die, really.

I believe that could be a possibility and unlike the Windsors, the Earl Spencer might be more inclined to make a public reply to any claims that Prince Harry might make. Obviously there were issues among the Spencers and three children of Johnnie and Frances certainly have had their share of mental health struggles over the years which affected relationships with others. IMO her parents' divorce certainly impacted Diana's relationship with her own children and how she parented them



I'd be curious to see if Prince Harry chooses to address this in any upcoming mental health work that he becomes involved in or will he continue to only point to his paternal family?

 

[Osipi]

I understand your point and I admire those who are able to rise above horrific circumstances but not everyone can.

I don't think I could tolerate the type of life I have witnessed in some refugee camps. As someone who lives in a free, rich society, I don't have an excuse to feel sorry for myself, but I often do. In that respect, I can sympathize with Harry.

But it is more than a little insensitive for Harry to state that he envied those who have few material goods because they were freer. Harry could have walked away at any time, people who live in poverty, cannot. What I really find offensive is that Harry's remedy for the unfairness is restricting other people's freedoms - he certainly was not stating that his freedom of speech should be curtailed.

I think what it all boils down to for all of us is that no matter what circumstances we're faced with, we all have a choice on how we process things mentally. Do we sit in a corner crying into our beer and decry that the world is against us or do we accept what's facing us and figure out what we can do about it and tackle it head on or ask for help and guidance to find the best possible solution?

Reminds me of hearing once upon a time of a family that had very little and had trouble even putting food on the table (which during this pandemic, I think happened to a *lot* of people). The mother was standing in the kitchen after a meager meal and she was smiling. When asked why she was smiling, she remarked "I'm thanking God for dirty dishes. We had food to put on them today". Attitude is everything.

It's things like this that serve to remind me that I cannot and will not take anything that comes out of Harry's mouth in regards to mental health seriously. He may be "woke" but he ain't smellin' the coffee yet.

 

[Moran]

I don't think the blame should be shifted to Diana. Charles was very outspoken about his own parents to Dimbleby and even his siblings spoke out and objected to Charles' comments. If there had been social media it would have been a lot worse..

Diana and her stepmother Raine got along and made up after 1992 so Raine did not consider Diana "bad". Diana was not "disturbingly pleased." if so Raine would have had nothing more to do with her. History proves otherwise. As for Diana's mother, she was rather bitter after her second husband left her. Burrell said she would leave Diana in tears because she complained that DIana was dating a Muslim (Dr. Khan). Diana's mother shares the blame. But she too had generational issues. Her own mother testified against her in court and then her mother complained about Diana.

All families have issues if they don't they are not human. Charles is not flawless. Even though he was going through a "rough patch" he should have gone to his own parents privately and complained about his upbringing.

I'm not shifting the blame onto Diana. I'm saying Harry has two parents and he's laying all the "genetic pain" onto one of them when the other had had issues with her own parents as well. But he's just like this - Diana is all sweetness and light, Charles all bad. Any problems in Diana's family go swept under the carpet, any problems in Charles' - bloated to high heaven.


I'm pretty sure I read how proud of herself Diana was for standing for her principles after pushing her stepmother down the stairs. Perhaps in Morton book? But I'm not inclined to argue the depth of the Spencers' family problems here. My point is that they had them and Harry glossed all over it when lamenting about his inherited pain. I believe it was both desire to paint his father as black as Old Nick and his mother in halo and unwillingness to take the risk that his uncle would take a public stand agaist him while the RF woudn't.


His mother was such a tremendous influence in his life but only with her lightness. Her problems didn't affect him at all, so they were all but nonexistent as far as Harry is concerned while his father's were so tremendous that they crippled his own life and he felt it necessary to speak about them publicly. Nothing will ever convince me that it's fair, balanced or anythig else than biased and spiteful.