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

[Osipi]

Fairly recently the Queen's cousin Simon Bowes-Lyon who holds the title of Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne was convicted of sexually assaulting a woman but his title has not been removed, therefore if Harry's title is officially removed from him by Parliament surely Mr Bowes-Lyon's title should be removed as well.

That's why it's not a simple matter of removing Harry's titles. They remove Harry's (for whatever reason), it opens up a can of worms for removing titles and styles all over the place. This is not something Parliament would want to do and set a precedent going into the future. It just couldn't be done to legally remove a title from one person and just leave it at that no matter what the court of public opinion calls for. If they go after Harry's, the questions will be asked "Why not Andrew's? Or the Earl of Strathmore?"

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

This is a quote from what he said about Joe Rogan - unbelievable irony!

“The issue is in today’s world with misinformation endemic,” he added. “You’ve got to be careful about what comes out of your mouth.”

Prince Harry also warned Rogan — who, like the Duke of Sussex, has an exclusive production deal with Spotify — that “with a platform comes responsibility.”

good grief!!!

The source for this was page six.com but I’ve read the same quote other places.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Yes, indeed; but the part I don't understand is how moving away is doing anything to break 'genetic pain and suffering'. It might be somewhat helpful in creating a different environment (although as I said before: they don't seem to be creating a positive environment at the moment but rather the opposite) but how does it change the (painful) genes he passes on to his children?


What did Harry exactly say about 'bonkers'/free speech (and the First Amendment?). I've seen a few references to it and wonder about the context. What was the question and how did he answer? Thanks in advance!

Yes, certainly. It was part of a conversation about Harry and Dax's kids not having a say in the lives their parents chose (or were born into) and how news has crossed the line into entertainment in which there is no public interest. Harry had this to say in the run-up:

"What you're basically accepting is, anyone with a talent, let's punish people who've got a talent and have driven- have literally worked their a* off and have gotten to a point where, yes they're making money, and yes their fans are contributing to that, but they're being entertainment and value to society, whether it's through movies, whether it's through music or whatever."

Very telling about how Harry views the value that different people bring to the world. This in the context of name-dropping his relationship with Tyler Perry and Orlando Bloom, totally unnecessarily, in the same two minutes.

Dax was explaining to Harry that even though he had run a campaign that newspapers should not print pictures of children, he had not argued that it was illegal due to the First Amendment, but rather appealed to "what is right" (using a very crude metaphor).

Harry: I don't want to start sort of going down the First Amendment route because that's a huge subject and one of which I don't understand because I've only been here for a short period of time. But you can find a loophole in anything. And you can capitalize or exploit rather than uphold what is said. And we can do that with anything we want. And if it's a commercial incentive, then great. And if it's an ideology or you want to spread hate, laws were created to protect people. That's how I see it. But to put this one to bed for me, I believe we've got certain elements of the media re-defining what privacy means. Well, there's a massive conflict of interest. And then you've got social media platforms trying to redefine what free speech means. Why- I wonder why you're doing that. And again, sort of, this has been happening for 15 years now, and we're living in this world where the laws have been completing flipped by the very people that need them flipped so that they can make more money and they can capitalize off our pain, grief, and this sort of generalized self-destructive mood that is happening at the moment.

So, this conflict of interest is sort of like the major piece here and, as you say, should I [reference to Dax's crude metaphor] just because it's not illegal, like, power back to the people. Dax, it does come back to supply and demand. If we collectively became better at not clicking on and not spreading and sharing the things we know are putting other people through hell, then there's no market for it. But the more depressed and the harder life becomes, we end up surrounding to the information parallel with our own feelings. That's the information we end up sort of being drawn into."

Dax: "Yea, and the last stop is the pound and the dollar. It's literally that simple. To your point. If no one can profit off this stuff, it vanishes."

Harry: I have so much I want to say about the First Amendment. I still don't understand it, but it's bonkers."

Lots in there couched between two "I won't because I don't understand" statements.

 

[Betsypaige]

Agreed. I don’t like that either. I don’t think that was likely the intended implication, but I do agree it was there.

Also, William and Harry didn’t just suffer through their parents’ divorce, which many children have to deal with, but they had to deal with it in the media, nasty as it was. Then their mother died...my god, the trauma. However, they always bad a loving father who truly did the best he could. If anyone broke the cycle of bad parenting, it was Bertie. Before him, Windsor fathers (going back to the Georges, though of course they weren’t Windsor yet) were incredibly tough on their children...in some cases, unforgivably so. Bertie, future George VI, was a loving, devoted father. So has Charles been, even if he wasn’t perfect (no parent is).

 

[Betsypaige]

what did he say about the First Amendment?

He said the following in the Armchair Podcast:
I’ve got so much I want to say about the First Amendment as I sort of understand it, but it is bonkers. I don’t want to start going down the First Amendment route because that’s a huge subject and one which I don’t understand because I’ve only been here a short time. But, you can find a loophole in anything. You can capitalise or exploit what’s not said rather than uphold what is said.

Oh my goodness....Harry, then maybe you should expound on the Magna Carta instead.
This REALLY bothers me. He flees his own country to come to America and he has the nerve to say that one of the tenets of our Constitution is “bonkers” ? What, he doesn’t like free speech ? Is he upset that people are free to criticize him? He can go wherever he wants to - there are lots of places that don’t allow for free speech.

 

[Alison H]

You can tie yourself in knots over this sort of thing. In any free country, we get people blocking main roads or railway lines and saying that they're exercising their right to protest - and never mind the fact that they're stopping other people from going about their lawful and important business. We get people posting offensive comments and then claiming that they're entitled to do so because of free speech, and or that those are their religious beliefs. We get people posting false and potentially dangerous "news", such as claiming that the vaccines affect your fertility, and then saying that they're entitled to do so because of free speech. And, yes, we get newspapers publishing things about celebrities' private lives. It's a very complex area, and it's certainly not just about supply and demand or money.


But to go around decrying the First Amendment to the Constitution as "bonkers" is ridiculous. Does he want to go back to the days of any news outlet that disagreed with the authorities being closed down, or people being burnt at the stake for their religious beliefs?! And since when was he such an expert on the subject? Oh, no, he isn't. He said so himself!

 

[miss whirley]

Yes, certainly. It was part of a conversation about Harry and Dax's kids not having a say in the lives their parents chose (or were born into) and how news has crossed the line into entertainment in which there is no public interest. Harry had this to say in the run-up:

"What you're basically accepting is, anyone with a talent, let's punish people who've got a talent and have driven- have literally worked their a* off and have gotten to a point where, yes they're making money, and yes their fans are contributing to that, but they're being entertainment and value to society, whether it's through movies, whether it's through music or whatever."

Very telling about how Harry views the value that different people bring to the world. This in the context of name-dropping his relationship with Tyler Perry and Orlando Bloom, totally unnecessarily, in the same two minutes.

Very bizarre to brag about his friendship with Orlando Bloom in this context. When Bloom is participating in an animated show that will mock Prince George (and apparently Charlotte too). So Harry is distressed that famous people's children have become entertainment yet he not appalled by his friend (maybe is even amused by it!)

He is quite the little hypocrite. I hope the Cambridge kids are always kept at arms length form their Uncle, who clearly does not have their best interests at heart.

 

[UglyAmerican]

Does he want to go back to the days of any news outlet that disagreed with the authorities being closed down

I honestly think he does. All the complaining they've both done about how the Queen or Charles or the courtiers or whomever didn't stop the media to publish this, that, or the other thing only makes sense if the Firm has the power to control what gets published, or at least punish media outlets that publish things the Firm deems unacceptable. Harry has a child's understanding of the subject, and seems to just assume that those doing the censoring will share his views on what should and shouldn't be censored. He thinks - perhaps correctly - that a world where nothing he deems "harmful" ever gets published would be more pleasant to live in, and he hasn't thought beyond that, perhaps because he's not capable of it.

 

[PetticoatLane]

This interview proves definitively that Harry doesn't really care about mental health. No one who cares about improving the mental health of others would do to his father and grandmother what Harry did here.

So just as Harry faked being interested in the normal folk he met during all those horrible, nasty public engagements as a royal (that people far worse off than him will have worked hard to prepare for and who without fail offered him a sincerely warm welcome), his claimed interest in helping people improve their mental health is equally fake and condescending.

The worst part for me though is that, having damned his entire family as racist and essentially abusive a few weeks wither side of the death of his grandfather whom he claims to have loved, he essentially pronounces that anyone who chooses to live within the RF and do their duty are basically enabling further abuse. If it's all so traumatic and painful to grow up in that environment, it stands to reason that William and Kate are knowingly choosing a life of "genetic pain and suffering" for their own children. They have opted to subject those sweet little children to The Truman Show and life as animals in a zoo. This is yet another utterly unforgivable thing to say publicly and no one who values 'compassion' would ever do it.

Thank God William is the heir. Another bullet dodged for the BRF.

 

[Denville]

T

So just as Harry faked being interested in the normal folk he met during all those horrible, nasty public engagements as a royal (that people far worse off than him will have worked hard to prepare for and who without fail offered him a sincerely warm welcome), his claimed interest in helping people improve their mental health is equally fake and condescending.

F.

Is noone a little shocked by this? I honestly am. I wasn't his biggest fan.. for the past few years.. but I tried to give credit where it was due and thought that he did have at heart a genuine caring for people less fortunate than himself. And now he is saying he didn't want to do this part of the work, presumably he didn't care much about people... and only did it as part of his job.. and all the dancing with people and hugging and playing nice guy was all an Act?

 

[Erin9]

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

Yes, certainly. It was part of a conversation about Harry and Dax's kids not having a say in the lives their parents chose (or were born into) and how news has crossed the line into entertainment in which there is no public interest. Harry had this to say in the run-up:



"What you're basically accepting is, anyone with a talent, let's punish people who've got a talent and have driven- have literally worked their a* off and have gotten to a point where, yes they're making money, and yes their fans are contributing to that, but they're being entertainment and value to society, whether it's through movies, whether it's through music or whatever."



Very telling about how Harry views the value that different people bring to the world. This in the context of name-dropping his relationship with Tyler Perry and Orlando Bloom, totally unnecessarily, in the same two minutes.



Dax was explaining to Harry that even though he had run a campaign that newspapers should not print pictures of children, he had not argued that it was illegal due to the First Amendment, but rather appealed to "what is right" (using a very crude metaphor).



Harry: I don't want to start sort of going down the First Amendment route because that's a huge subject and one of which I don't understand because I've only been here for a short period of time. But you can find a loophole in anything. And you can capitalize or exploit rather than uphold what is said. And we can do that with anything we want. And if it's a commercial incentive, then great. And if it's an ideology or you want to spread hate, laws were created to protect people. That's how I see it. But to put this one to bed for me, I believe we've got certain elements of the media re-defining what privacy means. Well, there's a massive conflict of interest. And then you've got social media platforms trying to redefine what free speech means. Why- I wonder why you're doing that. And again, sort of, this has been happening for 15 years now, and we're living in this world where the laws have been completing flipped by the very people that need them flipped so that they can make more money and they can capitalize off our pain, grief, and this sort of generalized self-destructive mood that is happening at the moment.



So, this conflict of interest is sort of like the major piece here and, as you say, should I [reference to Dax's crude metaphor] just because it's not illegal, like, power back to the people. Dax, it does come back to supply and demand. If we collectively became better at not clicking on and not spreading and sharing the things we know are putting other people through hell, then there's no market for it. But the more depressed and the harder life becomes, we end up surrounding to the information parallel with our own feelings. That's the information we end up sort of being drawn into."



Dax: "Yea, and the last stop is the pound and the dollar. It's literally that simple. To your point. If no one can profit off this stuff, it vanishes."



Harry: I have so much I want to say about the First Amendment. I still don't understand it, but it's bonkers."



Lots in there couched between two "I won't because I don't understand" statements.

Indeed. He says he doesn’t understand the First amendment, but has the audacity to call it “bonkers.” Well- he didn’t have to move here.

Thanks for sharing- that was really painful to read.

I find it bizarre that a man who is complaining about people getting to say whatever they want and spreading hurt and pain....is saying whatever HE wants. I guess it’s okay when he’s the one saying hurtful things.

 

[miss whirley]

Is noone a little shocked by this? I honestly am. I wasn't his biggest fan.. for the past few years.. but I thought that he did have at heart a genuine caring for people less fortunate than himself. And now he is saying he didn't want to do this part of the work, presumably he didn't care much about people... and only did it as part of his job.. and all the dancing with people and hugging and playing nice guy was all an Act?

I'm not shocked. It's becoming increasing clear that Harry has no regard for anyone but himself.

-Sees people in dire circumstance. Then pities himself because they're "free"

-People come to see him at engagements because they hold him in high regard. Then he pities himself because he doesn't want to be there, and puts on fake smile.

-Waxes on about his own mental health and how people weren't sensitive enough to him. While throwing grenades at his family that will effect their mental health.

- Is grateful that Meghan got him mental health treatment when HE needed it. But when Meghan needed it, he didn't help because her struggles embarrassed HIM.

-Talks about his concern for celebrity children -mostly himself as a child and Archie who he sees as (Harry's son "Harrison"). While bragging about his friendship with Orlando Bloom who is doing a parody show on Prince George.

-Talks about his childhood trauma. Then when the host tells his much more traumatic story, it doesn't make an impression on Harry who compares it to a comedy movie, then returns to talking about himself.

This podcast was quite the display of self-obsession.

 

[Erin9]

The worst part for me though is that, having damned his entire family as racist and essentially abusive a few weeks wither side of the death of his grandfather whom he claims to have loved, he essentially pronounces that anyone who chooses to live within the RF and do their duty are basically enabling further abuse. If it's all so traumatic and painful to grow up in that environment, it stands to reason that William and Kate are knowingly choosing a life of "genetic pain and suffering" for their own children. They have opted to subject those sweet little children to The Truman Show and life as animals in a zoo. This is yet another utterly unforgivable thing to say publicly and no one who values 'compassion' would ever do it.

Thank God William is the heir. Another bullet dodged for the BRF.

Ouch. My goodness. This is very bad IMO.

It does come across that he’s slamming Catherine and William for subjecting their children to life in a zoo, perpetuating cycles that he was smart enough to escape. He’s going at it a bit indirectly by not calling them out by name. But, it’s there. Oh my.....

 

[Heavs]

Is noone a little shocked by this? I honestly am. I wasn't his biggest fan.. for the past few years.. but I tried to give credit where it was due and thought that he did have at heart a genuine caring for people less fortunate than himself. And now he is saying he didn't want to do this part of the work, presumably he didn't care much about people... and only did it as part of his job.. and all the dancing with people and hugging and playing nice guy was all an Act?

I was a little, especially the quotes about meeting poor people he felt "freer" around the Commonwealth. I guess he hasn't discovered the poverty cycle yet despite also claiming his travels opened his eyes to the way others live.

I mean all the BRF have "game faces" when going to engagements and opening provincial amenities and meeting the 1000th cute school kid when they might be bored stiff, but to have one of them openly admit he hated it? Especially when he was never one of the 400+ per year crowd is a little shocking. Hey Harry, that's part of the job in exchange for the perks like palaces and taxpayer funded security and everything else.

I shouldn't have been surprised though, this is the man who complained that both the Bank of Taxpayer and BOD had closed after he left the family business in a huff and moved to a different continent saying they wanted to be financially independent.

Or he talks about compassion whilst trashing his grieving father and grandmother and doesn't see the irony in people desperate to speak "their truth" wanting to stifle free speech because criticism makes him feel bad.

It's become clear that "cheeky Harry" as we knew him never really existed.

-Talks about his childhood trauma. Then when the host tells his much more traumatic story, it doesn't make an impression on Harry who compares it to a comedy movie, then returns to talking about himself.

Oh I forgot about this. Yes comparing Dax Shepard's chilhood abuse to "Stepbrothers" and even when DS says "without the comedy" just brushing it off and keeps talking about his own pain. Really compassionate there.

 

[Denville]

I was a little, especially the quotes about meeting poor people he felt "freer" around the Commonwealth. I guess he hasn't discovered the poverty cycle yet despite also claiming his travels opened his eyes to the way others live.

I mean all the BRF have "game faces" when going to engagements and opening provincial amenities and meeting the 1000th cute school kid when they might be bored stiff, but to have one of them openly admit he hated it? Especially when he was never one of the 400+ per year crowd is a little shocking. Hey Harry, that's part of the job in exchange for the perks like palaces and taxpayer funded security and everything else.

I shouldn't have been surprised though, this is the man who complained that both the Bank of Taxpayer and BOD had closed after he left the family business in a huff and moved to a different continent saying they wanted to be financially independent.

Or he talks about compassion whilst trashing his grieving father and grandmother and doesn't see the irony in people desperate to speak "their truth" wanting to stifle free speech because criticism makes him feel bad.

It's become clear that "cheeky Harry" as we knew him never really existed.

Oof course not all royals will care that much, and many of them will have bad bored days when they have to put on their best smiles and go through with the job. But Harry and Meg have been preaching for 3 years about how they are really devoted to the charity work and serving the people... and making life better for people.
And when I've seen him with people, he seemed to be genuine in his sympathy for poor people, esp. kids, and for veterans... and now it seems like he's saying "I hated doing this.... I dont want to meet people because they are freer than I am.. and I have to pretend to like them and like doing the job..." and all the time, he was really thinking about how miserable he was doing the job....
But yes it is the same disconnect between saying that he wanted to earn his own living.. and then complaining because the tax payer and the Bank of Dad had refused to pay his expenses.

 

[Erin9]

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

Oh I forgot about this. Yes comparing Dax Shepard's chilhood abuse to "Stepbrothers" and even when DS says "without the comedy" just brushing it off and keeps talking about his own pain. Really compassionate there.

Sounds like someone so locked in on their own pain that they can’t really see anyone else’s. Which explains a lot really.

 

[Heavs]

Oof course not all royals will care that much, and many of them will have bad bored days when they have to put on their best smiles and go through with the job. But Harry and Meg have been preaching for 3 years about how they are really devoted to the charity work and serving the people... and making life better for people.
And when I've seen him with people, he seemed to be genuine in his sympathy for poor people, esp. kids, and for veterans... and now it seems like he's saying "I hated doing this.... I dont want to meet people because they are freer than I am.. and I have to pretend to like them and like doing the job..." and all the time, he was really thinking about how miserable he was doing the job....
But yes it is the same disconnect between saying that he wanted to earn his own living.. and then complaining because the tax payer and the Bank of Dad had refused to pay his expenses.

Well to take a different discussion tack. I'm not sure how much of what he says now can be taken as 100% gospel for how he truly felt back then. If we apply it to the times Harry openly said this he and his father have had their ups and downs but they were in a much better place and he's a real support and that he appeared genuine in saying that, we can also apply it to the times he seemed very genuine in meeting members of the public. That at the time he was happy enough or at least accepting of it with good and bad days but recent events (and possibly Meghan "opening his eyes to being trapped") means his memory is playing tricks on him.

Would explain why he can't remember bike riding with his Dad despite photographic evidence.

ETA:

Sounds like someone so locked in on their own pain that they can’t really see anyone else’s. Which explains a lot really.

Which is another reason this podcast and possibly the whole series with Oprah isn't a good idea. It's not helping his pain, his family's pain or giving a way out for anyone else.

 

[Princess_Eleanor]

I find Harry's assertions in this podcast quite problematic for several reasons. First of all, he seems to wish to help other people suffering from mental health issues with things like this or the Apple TV series. Yet, isn't it really just a way for the Sussexes to earn money? Harry is not a mental health professional, nor does he provide resources for people to get help, other than saying that he himself has been to therapy.

That's good and could indeed encourage people to seek therapy, if all the rest of what he says wasn't so wholly unproductive. As a public figure as well as someone trying to basically make money on these issues, he should really be careful about what he says on mental health, since he is not a mental health professional. Harry is trying to explain "genetic pain" to us, but much of what he says doesn't make that much sense.

Mental health issues can indeed be genetic, as well as caused by environmental factors or a mixture of those two things, but what exactly does Harry mean when he says "genetic pain"? He mentions his father, grandmother and grandfather in this context. Yet, none of these 3 people have dealt with alcohol or drug issues, as Harry has. Addiction can indeed be hereditary and I believe Princess Margaret dealt with such issues, but again, Harry only mentions his father, grandmother & grandfather in this context.

If he is, as I think he is, on the other hand referring to pain caused by the way people were raised, I don't believe that there is conclusive scientific evidence of that being genetic? I think that would rather count towards environmental factors?

And finally, if it was genetic, how could you easily break the cycle by moving away and leaving the "firm"? What is in the genes cannot easily be changed like that.

Harry also references the school his father was sent to, where he was, as we all know, very unhappy. Yet, I fail to understand what that has to do with Harry and the way he was raised?

I do believe that Harry experienced trauma through the death of his mother, but his family is not at all to blame for that! I really don't understand how he can put all the blame for his issues on his family. He was not abused and to put himself, if not literally then by implication, in the same space as children who were abused, neglected or have experienced other terrible things, is in my opinion quite wrong.

Dax Shepherd discussed physical and sexual abuse and Harry basically acts as though what he has experienced is just as bad - that is quite simply not the case AT ALL.

I know we are only onlookers but in my opinion it is quite clear that Harry has (until recently) always been supported by Charles financially and I do believe he has supported him emotionally as well. I think it is clear that his grandparents greatly supported Harry (and William) after their mother's death and I do think for all the years thereafter. Harry has always been supported by William and Catherine, and seems to have gotten on well with his cousins.

I think it is shameful that he is now presenting himself as someone who never had a family to support them but was only treated badly by said family. Again, I see zero awareness from Harry that there are countless children who are abused and/ or neglected or who are truly psychologically diminished by there parents - told that they will never amount to anything etc.

Harry's family has obviously supported him, has tried to help him - he says himself in this podcast that they could see he had issues, they tried to get him help, get him to therapy... yet he did not like this suggestion.

Okay, so what terrible things did Harry's father and grandparents do to him? They told him that there are some things that he can't do and say as a Prince? They didn't wish for him to take drugs and run around naked in Las Vegas? How truly awful of them.

Certainly, his father always worked a lot, as did his grandparents when his father was a child. But Harry seems to have no empathy or understanding of that at all. Perhaps his father should have worked a bit less and spent more time with Harry - true. But can he not see the other side of things - that his father and grandparents were doing an admirable job, were doing their duty to their country, helped a great many charities?

Or that the Queen became monarch at the young age of 25; she had to tour the huge Commonwealth (and travel wasn't as fast or easy back then as it is now). Because she wanted to do her job well and took her role seriously, she probably did not spend as much time with her older children and she herself might have wished to. This is neither the first time something like that has happened, nor enough reason to speak of this huge cycle of psychological pain that only Harry is apparently brave enough to break... And all the rest of the royal family is just living in a constant state of unbearable emotional pain, is that what he means?

Yet, that's clearly not the case. Harry is the one who has struggled and is still very obviously struggling, or he wouldn't go on TV and podcasts & complain about his terrible lot in life and blame his family for all that is going wrong.

Finally, Harry also shows absolutely no empathy for his recently deceased grandfather, who was a refugee, grew up mostly without his father & mother and didn't even have a permanent home.

 

[Somebody]

Well to take a different discussion tack. I'm not sure how much of what he says now can be taken as 100% gospel for how he truly felt back then. If we apply it to the times Harry openly said this he and his father have had their ups and downs but they were in a much better place and he's a real support and that he appeared genuine in saying that, we can also apply it to the times he seemed very genuine in meeting members of the public. That at the time he was happy enough or at least accepting of it with good and bad days but recent events (and possibly Meghan "opening his eyes to being trapped") means his memory is playing tricks on him.

Would explain why he can't remember bike riding with his Dad despite photographic evidence.

That's a very important observation. He seems to be 'reinterpreting' his former life through this new lens - which is not necessarily congruent with how he truly experienced it at the time.

Just like he is mixing up how it is now Meghan who helped him take up therapy while he previously explained how it was his brother who 'made sure' he started therapy - years before he even met Meghan. It's all about the new narrative.

 

[rominet09]

This interview proves definitively that Harry doesn't really care about mental health. No one who cares about improving the mental health of others would do to his father and grandmother what Harry did here.

So just as Harry faked being interested in the normal folk he met during all those horrible, nasty public engagements as a royal (that people far worse off than him will have worked hard to prepare for and who without fail offered him a sincerely warm welcome), his claimed interest in helping people improve their mental health is equally fake and condescending.

The worst part for me though is that, having damned his entire family as racist and essentially abusive a few weeks wither side of the death of his grandfather whom he claims to have loved, he essentially pronounces that anyone who chooses to live within the RF and do their duty are basically enabling further abuse. If it's all so traumatic and painful to grow up in that environment, it stands to reason that William and Kate are knowingly choosing a life of "genetic pain and suffering" for their own children. They have opted to subject those sweet little children to The Truman Show and life as animals in a zoo. This is yet another utterly unforgivable thing to say publicly and no one who values 'compassion' would ever do it.

Thank God William is the heir. Another bullet dodged for the BRF.

So very right ! So well said !

 

[Queen Ester]

It is a pseudo-science that is currently getting a bit of head space due to identity politics and woke culture. Essentially it is the old sins of the father manta from old. That the mental pain of your great grandparents are embedded into your mental makeup.
So all the emotions pain and sufferings that your ancestries went through are on you.
Personally I think it is a lot of hooey.
I am not my parents, not my grandparents and never got to met my great grandparents. I shudder to think of blaming my mistakes on my great grandparents that I never met - I cannot blame my divorce, my arguments with my children or anything problem in life I have on my parents, or indeed anyone but myself. They do not control my decisions or my free will.
That is called been an adult.

I don't think he means anything he says, H was advised that playing victim will get him deals, and now he is just winding himself up to the point when he actually believes it, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy

 

[Eskimo]

That's why it's not a simple matter of removing Harry's titles. They remove Harry's (for whatever reason), it opens up a can of worms for removing titles and styles all over the place. This is not something Parliament would want to do and set a precedent going into the future. It just couldn't be done to legally remove a title from one person and just leave it at that no matter what the court of public opinion calls for. If they go after Harry's, the questions will be asked "Why not Andrew's? Or the Earl of Strathmore?"

That’s why I said in my original statement that BRF will wait until Parliament will want to do it. Parliament isn’t going to remove titles, place in line of succession etc. until something untenable happens like Harry and Meghan going on a tour criticizing the UK government or something. That’s what will prompt Parliament to act and no one can really argue that Andrew and Bowes-Lyon etc. need to have their titles removed for the same reason.

 

[Sandy345]

I agree...well said. He’s taking the same path his father did in a way, except Charles didn’t have his true love by his side, and in fact, was engaged in a bitter feud with Diana. This is what Giles Brandreth meant when he said Charles was in a dark place at the time he made those comments about his parents. Harry has the life he supposedly wants and the wife he adores ...I say “supposedly wants” because he seems intent on burning the bridges behind him. Why would he do that ? Why not just cross the bridge ? I think it’s because he didn’t exactly get what he wanted - he wanted half in/half out; he didn’t want to completely leave, certainly didn’t want to lose his military titles/rankings, what have you. If he’d always wanted out, why didn’t he say “ok” and marry ..I’m sorry, I forget her name, was it Cressida? The girl who broke up with him because she didn’t want that life ?

I don't think Cressida and Harry were all that serious about each other. Both decided to walk away from the relationship. Chelsy Davy and her family lived in South Africa so theoretically he would have spent a lot of time there with her and her family had they gotten married.

It is win win for Harry because he does have a family with the wife he adores. The trouble with Charles comments is that the media ran with it and ran photos of the Queen merely shaking hands with him when she returned from a tour

 

[duchessrachel]

That's why it's not a simple matter of removing Harry's titles. They remove Harry's (for whatever reason), it opens up a can of worms for removing titles and styles all over the place. This is not something Parliament would want to do and set a precedent going into the future. It just couldn't be done to legally remove a title from one person and just leave it at that no matter what the court of public opinion calls for. If they go after Harry's, the questions will be asked "Why not Andrew's? Or the Earl of Strathmore?"

I agree. The only way I see his titles being removed is if Parliament feels that he has done or said something that would affect the relationship between the UK and the US, or the UK and some other country. As much as I would love to see him stripped of them, it probably won't happen. He is playing the short game, but the Royal Family is playing the long game. As you said earlier, he is being given enough rope to ether hang himself or let go. I ultimately think the Royal Family is going to let the situation work itself out, and it will. What I am wondering/fearing is how it will work out. I don't think it will work out well unless Harry comes to his senses. Hollywood is fickle and the flavor of the month will be different the next month. Americans will get tired of a privileged person complaining about the big, bad royal family, who are the very reason Hollywood is interested in him. No serious mental health organization will want to partner with him long term when he says things about his family that could negatively affect their mental health. I have seen headlines which say that Harry's statements could be giving ammunition to republicans in the UK to overthrow the royal family, but I believe that if the War of the Wales didn't destroy them, Harry and Meghan certainly won't. Harry needs to realize that the Americans he is associating with are a minute percentage of the population [...]I said in an earlier post that for the life of me I will never understand how he and Meghan could ditch the platform and virtually solid foundation of the royal family for the fickleness of Hollywood.

 

[Betsypaige]

Indeed. He says he doesn’t understand the First amendment, but has the audacity to call it “bonkers.” Well- he didn’t have to move here.

Thanks for sharing- that was really painful to read.

I find it bizarre that a man who is complaining about people getting to say whatever they want and spreading hurt and pain....is saying whatever HE wants. I guess it’s okay when he’s the one saying hurtful things.

I'm not shocked. This is a man who has thrown hissy fits because of comments people said on social media that he didn't like. This is a man who, with Meghan, froze out the British media in favor of the young-ish, woke-ish media who fawn over him. Harry's right, he has no conception of what genuinely free speech means.

On another note, I saw this recently:

If this goes down, then all the focus and attention will be on his Hollywood friends and not on the veterans..

Prince Harry plans big pop concert next year. From my Eden Confidential column in Saturday's Daily Mail

https://twitter.com/x/status/1393460831543824384

Ouch. My goodness. This is very bad IMO.

It does come across that he’s slamming Catherine and William for subjecting their children to life in a zoo, perpetuating cycles that he was smart enough to escape. He’s going at it a bit indirectly by not calling them out by name. But, it’s there. Oh my.....

He's really incredibly judgmental about choices other people make....he's rather self-centered.

Someone reminded me of a comment Katherine McPhee made awhile back about how her husband is a father figure to Harry........It means a lot more now than it did then.

Oof course not all royals will care that much, and many of them will have bad bored days when they have to put on their best smiles and go through with the job. But Harry and Meg have been preaching for 3 years about how they are really devoted to the charity work and serving the people... and making life better for people.
And when I've seen him with people, he seemed to be genuine in his sympathy for poor people, esp. kids, and for veterans... and now it seems like he's saying "I hated doing this.... I dont want to meet people because they are freer than I am.. and I have to pretend to like them and like doing the job..." and all the time, he was really thinking about how miserable he was doing the job....
But yes it is the same disconnect between saying that he wanted to earn his own living.. and then complaining because the tax payer and the Bank of Dad had refused to pay his expenses.

It seems to me that Harry is good at pretending. If he's as angry at his father as he sounds, with the comments he's made about how Charles has treated him all these years, then he sure as heck put on a good act since he was a kid. There have been reports of strained relations between them, like with Charles and William, but really nothing overly serious....and for the most part, Harry sure hid his anger well. If he could do all that, if he could sound loving when he spoke about his pa, than he could do the same when he went out on his engagements.

I find Harry's assertions in this podcast quite problematic for several reasons. First of all, he seems to wish to help other people suffering from mental health issues with things like this or the Apple TV series. Yet, isn't it really just a way for the Sussexes to earn money? Harry is not a mental health professional, nor does he provide resources for people to get help, other than saying that he himself has been to therapy.

That's good and could indeed encourage people to seek therapy, if all the rest of what he says wasn't so wholly unproductive. As a public figure as well as someone trying to basically make money on these issues, he should really be careful about what he says on mental health, since he is not a mental health professional. Harry is trying to explain "genetic pain" to us, but much of what he says doesn't make that much sense.

Mental health issues can indeed be genetic, as well as caused by environmental factors or a mixture of those two things, but what exactly does Harry mean when he says "genetic pain"? He mentions his father, grandmother and grandfather in this context. Yet, none of these 3 people have dealt with alcohol or drug issues, as Harry has. Addiction can indeed be hereditary and I believe Princess Margaret dealt with such issues, but again, Harry only mentions his father, grandmother & grandfather in this context.

If he is, as I think he is, on the other hand referring to pain caused by the way people were raised, I don't believe that there is conclusive scientific evidence of that being genetic? I think that would rather count towards environmental factors?

And finally, if it was genetic, how could you easily break the cycle by moving away and leaving the "firm"? What is in the genes cannot easily be changed like that.

Harry also references the school his father was sent to, where he was, as we all know, very unhappy. Yet, I fail to understand what that has to do with Harry and the way he was raised?

I do believe that Harry experienced trauma through the death of his mother, but his family is not at all to blame for that! I really don't understand how he can put all the blame for his issues on his family. He was not abused and to put himself, if not literally then by implication, in the same space as children who were abused, neglected or have experienced other terrible things, is in my opinion quite wrong.

Dax Shepherd discussed physical and sexual abuse and Harry basically acts as though what he has experienced is just as bad - that is quite simply not the case AT ALL.

I know we are only onlookers but in my opinion it is quite clear that Harry has (until recently) always been supported by Charles financially and I do believe he has supported him emotionally as well. I think it is clear that his grandparents greatly supported Harry (and William) after their mother's death and I do think for all the years thereafter. Harry has always been supported by William and Catherine, and seems to have gotten on well with his cousins.

I think it is shameful that he is now presenting himself as someone who never had a family to support them but was only treated badly by said family. Again, I see zero awareness from Harry that there are countless children who are abused and/ or neglected or who are truly psychologically diminished by there parents - told that they will never amount to anything etc.

Harry's family has obviously supported him, has tried to help him - he says himself in this podcast that they could see he had issues, they tried to get him help, get him to therapy... yet he did not like this suggestion.

Okay, so what terrible things did Harry's father and grandparents do to him? They told him that there are some things that he can't do and say as a Prince? They didn't wish for him to take drugs and run around naked in Las Vegas? How truly awful of them.

Certainly, his father always worked a lot, as did his grandparents when his father was a child. But Harry seems to have no empathy or understanding of that at all. Perhaps his father should have worked a bit less and spent more time with Harry - true. But can he not see the other side of things - that his father and grandparents were doing an admirable job, were doing their duty to their country, helped a great many charities?

Or that the Queen became monarch at the young age of 25; she had to tour the huge Commonwealth (and travel wasn't as fast or easy back then as it is now). Because she wanted to do her job well and took her role seriously, she probably did not spend as much time with her older children and she herself might have wished to. This is neither the first time something like that has happened, nor enough reason to speak of this huge cycle of psychological pain that only Harry is apparently brave enough to break... And all the rest of the royal family is just living in a constant state of unbearable emotional pain, is that what he means?

Yet, that's clearly not the case. Harry is the one who has struggled and is still very obviously struggling, or he wouldn't go on TV and podcasts & complain about his terrible lot in life and blame his family for all that is going wrong.

Finally, Harry also shows absolutely no empathy for his recently deceased grandfather, who was a refugee, grew up mostly without his father & mother and didn't even have a permanent home.

Brilliant!

Also.....does Harry remember that he, as an adult, chose to dress up as a NAZI for Halloween? I don't think he's ever expressed sufficient contrition for that - and yes, I'm Jewish, but I'd feel that way regardless. Do people throw that in his face constantly? No, it's kind of been forgotten about because he was so well-loved, but it still happened. What about the mental health of all those who have lost family members in the Holocaust? I thought he said he was going to speak about this.......still hasn't done it, probably won't.

 

[duchessrachel]

This is a quote from what he said about Joe Rogan - unbelievable irony!

“The issue is in today’s world with misinformation endemic,” he added. “You’ve got to be careful about what comes out of your mouth.”

Prince Harry also warned Rogan — who, like the Duke of Sussex, has an exclusive production deal with Spotify — that “with a platform comes responsibility.”

good grief!!!

The source for this was page six.com but I’ve read the same quote other places.

Hollywood can't make that up. That demonstrates his utter lack of self-awareness.

 

[duchessrachel]

I find Harry's assertions in this podcast quite problematic for several reasons. First of all, he seems to wish to help other people suffering from mental health issues with things like this or the Apple TV series. Yet, isn't it really just a way for the Sussexes to earn money? Harry is not a mental health professional, nor does he provide resources for people to get help, other than saying that he himself has been to therapy.

That's good and could indeed encourage people to seek therapy, if all the rest of what he says wasn't so wholly unproductive. As a public figure as well as someone trying to basically make money on these issues, he should really be careful about what he says on mental health, since he is not a mental health professional. Harry is trying to explain "genetic pain" to us, but much of what he says doesn't make that much sense.

Mental health issues can indeed be genetic, as well as caused by environmental factors or a mixture of those two things, but what exactly does Harry mean when he says "genetic pain"? He mentions his father, grandmother and grandfather in this context. Yet, none of these 3 people have dealt with alcohol or drug issues, as Harry has. Addiction can indeed be hereditary and I believe Princess Margaret dealt with such issues, but again, Harry only mentions his father, grandmother & grandfather in this context.

If he is, as I think he is, on the other hand referring to pain caused by the way people were raised, I don't believe that there is conclusive scientific evidence of that being genetic? I think that would rather count towards environmental factors?

And finally, if it was genetic, how could you easily break the cycle by moving away and leaving the "firm"? What is in the genes cannot easily be changed like that.

Harry also references the school his father was sent to, where he was, as we all know, very unhappy. Yet, I fail to understand what that has to do with Harry and the way he was raised?

I do believe that Harry experienced trauma through the death of his mother, but his family is not at all to blame for that! I really don't understand how he can put all the blame for his issues on his family. He was not abused and to put himself, if not literally then by implication, in the same space as children who were abused, neglected or have experienced other terrible things, is in my opinion quite wrong.

Dax Shepherd discussed physical and sexual abuse and Harry basically acts as though what he has experienced is just as bad - that is quite simply not the case AT ALL.

I know we are only onlookers but in my opinion it is quite clear that Harry has (until recently) always been supported by Charles financially and I do believe he has supported him emotionally as well. I think it is clear that his grandparents greatly supported Harry (and William) after their mother's death and I do think for all the years thereafter. Harry has always been supported by William and Catherine, and seems to have gotten on well with his cousins.

I think it is shameful that he is now presenting himself as someone who never had a family to support them but was only treated badly by said family. Again, I see zero awareness from Harry that there are countless children who are abused and/ or neglected or who are truly psychologically diminished by there parents - told that they will never amount to anything etc.

Harry's family has obviously supported him, has tried to help him - he says himself in this podcast that they could see he had issues, they tried to get him help, get him to therapy... yet he did not like this suggestion.

Okay, so what terrible things did Harry's father and grandparents do to him? They told him that there are some things that he can't do and say as a Prince? They didn't wish for him to take drugs and run around naked in Las Vegas? How truly awful of them.

Certainly, his father always worked a lot, as did his grandparents when his father was a child. But Harry seems to have no empathy or understanding of that at all. Perhaps his father should have worked a bit less and spent more time with Harry - true. But can he not see the other side of things - that his father and grandparents were doing an admirable job, were doing their duty to their country, helped a great many charities?

Or that the Queen became monarch at the young age of 25; she had to tour the huge Commonwealth (and travel wasn't as fast or easy back then as it is now). Because she wanted to do her job well and took her role seriously, she probably did not spend as much time with her older children and she herself might have wished to. This is neither the first time something like that has happened, nor enough reason to speak of this huge cycle of psychological pain that only Harry is apparently brave enough to break... And all the rest of the royal family is just living in a constant state of unbearable emotional pain, is that what he means?

Yet, that's clearly not the case. Harry is the one who has struggled and is still very obviously struggling, or he wouldn't go on TV and podcasts & complain about his terrible lot in life and blame his family for all that is going wrong.

Finally, Harry also shows absolutely no empathy for his recently deceased grandfather, who was a refugee, grew up mostly without his father & mother and didn't even have a permanent home.

My comment on what I put put in bold print in the quote above: You are certainly correct that his family tried to help him. In the week following his mother's death, the Queen endured bad press and a drop in support all because she chose to be a grandmother and keep Harry and William at Balmoral and away from the press and hysteria.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

Yes, certainly. It was part of a conversation about Harry and Dax's kids not having a say in the lives their parents chose (or were born into) and how news has crossed the line into entertainment in which there is no public interest. Harry had this to say in the run-up:

"What you're basically accepting is, anyone with a talent, let's punish people who've got a talent and have driven- have literally worked their a* off and have gotten to a point where, yes they're making money, and yes their fans are contributing to that, but they're being entertainment and value to society, whether it's through movies, whether it's through music or whatever."

Very telling about how Harry views the value that different people bring to the world. This in the context of name-dropping his relationship with Tyler Perry and Orlando Bloom, totally unnecessarily, in the same two minutes.

Dax was explaining to Harry that even though he had run a campaign that newspapers should not print pictures of children, he had not argued that it was illegal due to the First Amendment, but rather appealed to "what is right" (using a very crude metaphor).

Harry: I don't want to start sort of going down the First Amendment route because that's a huge subject and one of which I don't understand because I've only been here for a short period of time. But you can find a loophole in anything. And you can capitalize or exploit rather than uphold what is said. And we can do that with anything we want. And if it's a commercial incentive, then great. And if it's an ideology or you want to spread hate, laws were created to protect people. That's how I see it. But to put this one to bed for me, I believe we've got certain elements of the media re-defining what privacy means. Well, there's a massive conflict of interest. And then you've got social media platforms trying to redefine what free speech means. Why- I wonder why you're doing that. And again, sort of, this has been happening for 15 years now, and we're living in this world where the laws have been completing flipped by the very people that need them flipped so that they can make more money and they can capitalize off our pain, grief, and this sort of generalized self-destructive mood that is happening at the moment.

So, this conflict of interest is sort of like the major piece here and, as you say, should I [reference to Dax's crude metaphor] just because it's not illegal, like, power back to the people. Dax, it does come back to supply and demand. If we collectively became better at not clicking on and not spreading and sharing the things we know are putting other people through hell, then there's no market for it. But the more depressed and the harder life becomes, we end up surrounding to the information parallel with our own feelings. That's the information we end up sort of being drawn into."

Dax: "Yea, and the last stop is the pound and the dollar. It's literally that simple. To your point. If no one can profit off this stuff, it vanishes."

Harry: I have so much I want to say about the First Amendment. I still don't understand it, but it's bonkers."

Lots in there couched between two "I won't because I don't understand" statements.

So the two of them continuing to talk about it in Dax’s podcast, for Pete’s sake, doesn’t correlate to the two of them making money off their “fame.” Puh-leeze!

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

Is noone a little shocked by this? I honestly am. I wasn't his biggest fan.. for the past few years.. but I tried to give credit where it was due and thought that he did have at heart a genuine caring for people less fortunate than himself. And now he is saying he didn't want to do this part of the work, presumably he didn't care much about people... and only did it as part of his job.. and all the dancing with people and hugging and playing nice guy was all an Act?

Me too, PetticoatLane. I believe he is just blathering on and not really thinking about what he is saying and the consequences - just whatever serves the purpose of whatever narrative he is putting forth at the time. Someone else said this earlier and I agree with them.

I'm not shocked. It's becoming increasing clear that Harry has no regard for anyone but himself.

-Sees people in dire circumstance. Then pities himself because they're "free"

-People come to see him at engagements because they hold him in high regard. Then he pities himself because he doesn't want to be there, and puts on fake smile.

-Waxes on about his own mental health and how people weren't sensitive enough to him. While throwing grenades at his family that will effect their mental health.

- Is grateful that Meghan got him mental health treatment when HE needed it. But when Meghan needed it, he didn't help because her struggles embarrassed HIM.

-Talks about his concern for celebrity children -mostly himself as a child and Archie who he sees as (Harry's son "Harrison"). While bragging about his friendship with Orlando Bloom who is doing a parody show on Prince George.

-Talks about his childhood trauma. Then when the host tells his much more traumatic story, it doesn't make an impression on Harry who compares it to a comedy movie, then returns to talking about himself.

This podcast was quite the display of self-obsession.

Excellent points - he is very self-absorbed.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

I was a little, especially the quotes about meeting poor people he felt "freer" around the Commonwealth. I guess he hasn't discovered the poverty cycle yet despite also claiming his travels opened his eyes to the way others live.

I mean all the BRF have "game faces" when going to engagements and opening provincial amenities and meeting the 1000th cute school kid when they might be bored stiff, but to have one of them openly admit he hated it? Especially when he was never one of the 400+ per year crowd is a little shocking. Hey Harry, that's part of the job in exchange for the perks like palaces and taxpayer funded security and everything else.

I shouldn't have been surprised though, this is the man who complained that both the Bank of Taxpayer and BOD had closed after he left the family business in a huff and moved to a different continent saying they wanted to be financially independent.

Or he talks about compassion whilst trashing his grieving father and grandmother and doesn't see the irony in people desperate to speak "their truth" wanting to stifle free speech because criticism makes him feel bad.

It's become clear that "cheeky Harry" as we knew him never really existed.



Oh I forgot about this. Yes comparing Dax Shepard's chilhood abuse to "Stepbrothers" and even when DS says "without the comedy" just brushing it off and keeps talking about his own pain. Really compassionate there.

This was unbelievably obtuse! I’m sure Dax was not impressed with Harry’s comment about Stepbrothers. What a jerky thing to say after someone else is sharing about real abuse!