Battle of Brothers: William, Harry and the Inside Story of A Family in Tumult

[TLLK]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

The Daily Mail article suggests that Harry was already a heavy drinker and a regular (daily) pot smoker at the age of 16. Although that is not new information, I didn't realize it was that bad.

I agree that it was not new information and quite frankly from reading the excerpts it appears that there are very little new stories in this book. Both brothers belonged to a set of friends who had similar habits and fairly easy access to alcohol. As for the allegation that Prince Harry was a daily pot smoker at 16, hopefully that was a habit that ended soon afterwards.

[Winnie]

Originally Posted by Curryong

The Daily Fail asserts and twists a lot of things that are untrue . Many, many young British males drink heavily in their teens and early twenties, and not a few smoke pot. And that allegedly included members in William and Harry's circle, who used to gather at the Rattlebones Inn near Highgrove. If Harry was an alcoholic pothead during his army career, he would hardly have been trusted with very expensive pieces of equipment like Lynx and Apache helicopters.

This is all true. According to official records Harry was never officially in the RAF but was an Honorary Air Commandant. Harry instead served in British Army for 10 years. Harry did take lessons in 2011 and passed as a co-pilot gunner sharing duties with others. He was awarded a prize for best co-pilot gunner on Apache in Feb 2012 but never piloted the Apache which is a big difference.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by TLLK

I agree that it was not new information and quite frankly from reading the excerpts it appears that there are very little new stories in this book. Both brothers belonged to a set of friends who had similar habits and fairly easy access to alcohol. As for the allegation that Prince Harry was a daily pot smoker at 16, hopefully that was a habit that ended soon afterwards.

It is possible. I know many people who were regular pot smokers in high school and in college and grew out of it later on. It is not a particularly addictive drug.


Quite frankly I would worry more about the revelation that Harry was a heavy drinker at such young age. That is normally a symptom of bigger problems.

[Denville]

pot nowadays is a lot stronger than it was in my young days.. I think its more addictive and more harmful....

[rominet09]

What is the use of such information ?

[Curryong]

Originally Posted by Winnie

This is all true. According to official records Harry was never officially in the RAF but was an Honorary Air Commandant. Harry instead served in British Army for 10 years. Harry did take lessons in 2011 and passed as a co-pilot gunner sharing duties with others. He was awarded a prize for best co-pilot gunner on Apache in Feb 2012 but never piloted the Apache which is a big difference.

You have to pass helicopter pilot exams before you can be appointed as a co-pilot. Co-pilot-gunners don't share duties with others when on missions, as Harry was, in war zones in Afghanistan. Harry passed the exams to pilot in both Lynx and Apache helicopters after the two years training involved ànd Prince Charles was present at the ceremony when he received his wings.

He also qualified as a helicopter Commander, not in an honorary position actually, while he was serving in Air Services.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-23200552

[Sandy345]

I don't think Harry ever used pot except that brief "experimentation." I agree Curryong, Harry would not have been flying helicopters had he been a pot smoker. He and William did frequent the clubs but were not alcoholics.

[TLLK]

Originally Posted by Curryong

You have to pass helicopter pilot exams before you can be appointed as a co-pilot. Co-pilot-gunners don't share duties with others when on missions, as Harry was, in war zones in Afghanistan. Harry passed the exams to pilot in both Lynx and Apache helicopters after the two years training involved ànd Prince Charles was present at the ceremony when he received his wings.

He also qualified as a helicopter Commander, not in an honorary position actually, while he was serving in Air Services.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-23200552

The article that you shared Curryong confirms that Prince Harry aka Capt. Wales during his army days did share piloting duties as well as his role as a gunner.

During his deployment in Helmand the prince shared flying duties and took control of the weapons of the two-man Apache.

[Curryong]

Yes, TLLK. It also confirms that he was an Apache helicopter pilot, who was appointed a Commander (not honorary, earned) during his service career.

The 2013 BBC report also states, that following his return from Afghanistan, the Air Services authorities

confirmed that the prince "will continue with normal duties as an Apache pilot based at Wattisham Airfield". Says nothing there about being anything other than a helicopter pilot.

I was replying in my original post to the poster before me, who stated that Harry was a co-pilot and 'had never piloted an Apache. Big difference'. That is not so, as I pointed out. Also there was an inference from that poster that the Commander role was 'honorary'. It wasn't.

And I don't think that Harry has anything whatsoever to be ashamed of, either in his tours of service in Afghanistan with Air Services nor in his decade with the Army.

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by Betsypaige

I agree with your conclusion (though I’m unclear on your general point)...in which case, it’s best for all involved that Harry is no longer a working Royal. That doesn’t mean that the family can’t still be a family...but, the way it went down was problematic, and as far as I’m concerned it’s primarily on H and M. It didn’t have to be as contentious as it turned out to be.

Lacey. There are only so many ways he can make this story interesting. Because it really isn't that interesting. Even the Kate and William thing. I mean they were together so young...do we honesty dljnt that there wouldn't have been immature cruelties along the way.

Because Wills and Kate married and seem to be making a success of their marriage. Oh they smoked pot. Who cares.

Harry and William were very close...if there was an element of being under the thumb there...It happens. Harry met Meghan and everything changed. Friends, family, media. It all went peat tong. And that in nutshell is it.

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Yes, TLLK. It also confirms that he was an Apache helicopter pilot, who was appointed a Commander (not honorary, earned) during his service career.

The 2013 BBC report also states, that following his return from Afghanistan, the Air Services authorities

confirmed that the prince "will continue with normal duties as an Apache pilot based at Wattisham Airfield". Says nothing there about being anything other than a helicopter pilot.

I was replying in my original post to the poster before me, who stated that Harry was a co-pilot and 'had never piloted an Apache. Big difference'. That is not so, as I pointed out. Also there was an inference from that poster that the Commander role was 'honorary'. It wasn't.

And I don't think that Harry has anything whatsoever to be ashamed of, either in his tours of service in Afghanistan with Air Services nor in his decade with the Army.

Who honestly cares? He definitely shot gunners but he doesn't fly now or has done for years. His brother was the flyer. Harry was in the army.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by rominet09

What is the use of such information ?

What information?

[Denville]

Originally Posted by poppy7

Lacey. There are only so many ways he can make this story interesting. Because it really isn't that interesting. Even the Kate and William thing. I mean they were together so young...do we honesty dljnt that there wouldn't have been immature cruelties along the way.

Because Wills and Kate married and seem to be making a success of their marriage. Oh they smoked pot. Who cares.

Harry and William were very close...if there was an element of being under the thumb there...It happens. Harry met Meghan and everything changed. Friends, family, media. It all went peat tong. And that in nutshell is it.

It seems from the extracts that Lacey is blaming everyone but Harry and Meg for his departure.. Its Will's fault, Diana's fault, Charles' fault. My personal feeling is that "nice jolly Harry" was only a small part of H's character. Perhaps he was damaged by his parents bad marriage and bad decisions... but he's a man now...

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by poppy7

Lacey. There are only so many ways he can make this story interesting. Because it really isn't that interesting. Even the Kate and William thing. I mean they were together so young...do we honesty dljnt that there wouldn't have been immature cruelties along the way.

Because Wills and Kate married and seem to be making a success of their marriage. Oh they smoked pot. Who cares.

Harry and William were very close...if there was an element of being under the thumb there...It happens. Harry met Meghan and everything changed. Friends, family, media. It all went peat tong. And that in nutshell is it.

Well said. LOL. I don’t need, never have needed, to read about William and Harry’s relationship or their private lives. Am I supposed to be shocked at teenage/young adult behaviors (I’m not counting the Nazi Halloween outfit incident as that was already known) between them? There is nothing new under the sun. The book is essentially a rehash of facts already known, but with Robert Lacey’s sleazy brand of pop psychology and opinions mixed in (along with overheated, breathless language and snide insinuations). I’m guessing Lacey went into this project with a notion (that W and H’s rift is devastating - as bad as the Abdication (sorry, that’s still so stupid)- and, therefore, found “evidence” to support his theory going back to the princes’ childhoods. In other words, confirmation bias. There’s just so much wrong with this book..

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by Denville

It seems from the extracts that Lacey is blaming everyone but Harry and Meg for his departure.. Its Will's fault, Diana's fault, Charles' fault. My personal feeling is that "nice jolly Harry" was only a small part of H's character. Perhaps he was damaged by his parents bad marriage and bad decisions... but he's a man now...

He is...make no mistake about it. He does criticize H and M to a degree, but it’s relatively mild - Lacey clearly thinks they were done wrong, and has thought so for months. His savage criticisms are directed at everyone else ...

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Betsypaige

Well said. LOL. I don’t need, never have needed, to read about William and Harry’s relationship or their private lives. Am I supposed to be shocked at teenage/young adult behaviors (I’m not counting the Nazi Halloween outfit incident as that was already known) between them? There is nothing new under the sun. The book is essentially a rehash of facts already known, but with Robert Lacey’s sleazy brand of pop psychology and opinions mixed in (along with overheated, breathless language and snide insinuations). I’m guessing Lacey went into this project with a notion (that W and H’s rift is devastating - as bad as the Abdication (sorry, that’s still so stupid)- and, therefore, found “evidence” to support his theory going back to the princes’ childhoods. In other words, confirmation bias. There’s just so much wrong with this book..

Perhaps devastating isn't the word, but IMO it is a sad and bad thing for the RF. Coming on top of the scandal of Andrews... While Harry's behavior is of course noting like as awful as Andrew's it raises the question of "second sons" and whether they are likely to become a problem. I think that some of H's problems do spring from the fact that he's a second son and with Andrew, I think there's something similar going on there. Both of them wanted some independence because of knowing that they'll never be as rich or famous as their elder brother...I think Andrew saw some of the advantages of being a younger son, in some ways, for a time he was able to get away wiht his louche lifestyle because the press attention had gone off him after his divorce and he could lead his life without too much notice... but he still clearly resented not being as rich as the oldest son and knowing that he was now way down the line from the throne... and he wanted to use his position to make private money for himself and Fergie....
And while perhaps in future years, the RF will be able to get along with less people at present, it has commitments which have been affected by the disappearance of Harry Meghan and Andrew all around the same time.
Its not like the 1930s in that someone walking out of Royal life is going to be treated as a black sheep and rarely seen - Harry will still be part of the family and welcomed.. by the queen and Charles.. but I think that Will IS more resentful.. Perhaps Meg and Kate didn't hit it off and he's grouchy about that, or perhaps its simply that he feels he will be most affected by H's disappearance.. so if Harry continues to go along the path of living in teh US, being a bit controversial, following Meg's lead, I am not sure the brothers relationship will improve that much

[ACO]

I mean being the "spare" is a crappy position. Always told you are never [as] important as your sibling. I couldn't imagine growing up in that life. And I know damn well I wouldn't want that for my own child. Knowing you can't truly have any real independence because everything in your life must revolve around said sibling.

Andrew is a mess but at least he had other siblings. I would imagine that tension is worse if it is only two of you. This keeps happening throughout generations for a reason. Not all the same way but it is a pattern. And hopefully they can stop the cycle with the Cambridge kids but only time will tell how that plays out once they are older and things truly begun to shift.

Harry's exit might not be pleasant but it might have forced them to reevaluate things for the next generations.

As for Lacey's book? It is just another royal book to join the many others. I don't take any of them serious but it is interesting how some people do pick and choose which ones are "true" or not due to the content. I personally think all of them are just works of fiction with sprinkles of some tidbits that most people already are aware of.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by ACO

I mean being the "spare" is a crappy position. Always told you are never [as] important as your sibling. I couldn't imagine growing up in that life. And I know damn well I wouldn't want that for my own child. Knowing you can't truly have any real independence because everything in your life must revolve around said sibling.

Andrew is a mess but at least he had other siblings. I would imagine that tension is worse if it is only two of you. This keeps happening throughout generations for a reason. Not all the same way but it is a pattern. And hopefully they can stop the cycle with the Cambridge kids but only time will tell how that plays out once they are older and things truly begun to shift.

Harry's exit might not be pleasant but it might have forced them to reevaluate things for the next generations.

As for Lacey's book? It is just another royal book to join the many others. I don't take any of them serious but it is interesting how some people do pick and choose which ones are "true" or not due to the content. I personally think all of them are just works of fiction with sprinkles of some tidbits that most people already are aware of.

and the heirs position? Is that so enviable? He or she is alwaays going to be on show and can rarely have any kind of career of his own...
A junior member can fly under the radar.. He or she may never be as rich as the monarch but he's far from poor.. and usually can do his royal job, as Andy did fro many years, and lead his private life in Private. If Andrew had not gotten mixed up with dubious oligarchs, dubious businessmen and a louche sex life.. he could have had a comfortable life wiht the press paying little attention to him...He was alos able to have a relativley long spell in the Navy.. which he enjoyed.. unlike heirs who can rarely pick a job and do it for many years...

[ACO]

Originally Posted by Denville

and the heirs position? Is that so enviable? He or she is alwaays going to be on show and can rarely have any kind of career of his own...
A junior member can fly under the radar.. He or she may never be as rich as the monarch but he's far from poor.. and usually can do his royal job, as Andy did fro many years, and lead his private life in Private. If Andrew had not gotten mixed up with dubious oligarchs, dubious businessmen and a louche sex life.. he could have had a comfortable life wiht the press paying little attention to him...He was alos able to have a relativley long spell in the Navy.. which he enjoyed.. unlike heirs who can rarely pick a job and do it for many years...

I don't think the heirs have an ideal situation though they will always be set up to succeed and no matter what people will do all in their power to ensure they are protected. They ultimately have the control though especially with their family. Not saying that is easy...

And the dynamics don't work for everyone. I know people focus on the money but I also think about the emotional and psychological burden of the positions. I mean we are already seeing it start with the Cambridge kids. It is a little thing but Sir David visits and only has a gift for the Future King, but not his siblings. You understand why but compound that over years of that message of "less than" being sent to you. "This person is more important to than you" is such a weird ass dynamic in a family but that is the royals.

The older generations dealt with different obstacles and even if it messed with their own psyche they still pushed through. But heck back then talking about mental health was weak. It is seen as a strength today. Times are different. People will react to things in a different way. We are seeing in with everything.

So I agree that none of them have it easy by any means but some have it set up more in their favor. But that is life and some will accept things and others will not. But I will throw this out since money is one of the clear factors --- Harry was a grown man who had to depend on his Father to pay his way. Soon that would be his brother. That was his debt. The idea that things could be cut off and then what would he have?

Harry clearly was in his feelings about that being thrown in his face. The renovation of Frogmore was literally a month long debate. I can totally see with his personally that he felt that burden wasn't worth it. If he fails then he failed by at least he no longer felt in debt to people who used that to try and control him and his child. Right or wrong -- I do think that played a part. And explains why they were so determined to pay it all back.

[yukari]

Talking about the heir and the spare, funnily enough we also have Albert Victor - George V and Edward VIII - George VI. For some reason, the heirs had more (rumoured) scandals than the spares.