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

[Denville]

True. Harry proclaimed to love the Army that it gave him structure, even in his fake Greta conversation he was talking very positively about what the Army did for him. So I can see why his family had every expectation that he would stay in the Army into his forties (like Andrew and the Navy). Then in the future during Charles' reign they would reevaluate his options. But Harry did a 180 on everyone and suddenly decided that everyday Army work was too boring for him.

Then they tried to make him a full time royal which he seemed interested in at the time. Then after a few years of that he wanted out. Anne, Andrew, and Edward led boring, dutiful lives. If he wanted that he would of stayed in the Army.

So now he's off blowing in the wind searching for excitement. Hopping from one early stage project to another, jumping on random bandwagon movements trying to get instant gratification. He life certainly has more drama and unrest which I think he desires. But I'm not sure the formula to any long term fulfillment can be found that way. For Meghan's sake hopefully he doesn't find any part of California life to be mundane because his past shows he will bail if it does.

He does not really seem to be doing all that much, IMO.. Its Meghan who is actively getting into this new life. He's done a few Zooms for charity things and I think one bit where he was supporting Meghan in her advising poeple to register to vote.

 

[Durham]

Why? Because maybe he had doubts about the Royal role in his twenties but decided to stay on because, as he once stated, because of loyalty to his grandmother. Those doubts may well have hardened and proliferated over the years.

Some people have three or four career changes and different changes of lifestyles in their lifetimes. Not everyone chooses a certain path in their early twenties and continues on the same road for the rest of their lives. And that includes those who feel pressure to stay in old and established family firms. If it doesn't feel a good fit any more then everyone has a right to choose a new destiny for themselves.

I think this is all fair comment.

Reading this & some of the previous comments maybe we need to give some serious thought to retiring the idea of a public royal family. A monarch & those in direct line is all we need, the rest could be private untitled citizens. Including spouses if necessary. A radical change but maybe one for the best. After all we don’t need a royal family to maintain the monarchy. They are after all just ordinary people born into extraordinary positions of great privilege who have no official constitutional role.

Maybe expecting people to lead particular sorts of lives because of an accident of birth is no longer fit for purpose. Clearly when royal individuals don’t want to play the game all sorts of upset is caused. That's certainly the case at the moment although people differ as to who is mostly to blame for this situation.

 

[Denville]

I think this is all fair comment.

Reading this & some of the previous comments maybe we need to give some serious thought to retiring the idea of a public royal family. A monarch & those in direct line is all we need, the rest can be private untitled citizens. Including spouses if necessary. A radical change but maybe one for the best. After all we don’t need a royal family to maintain the monarchy. They are after all just ordinary people born into extraordinary positions of great privilege who have no official constitutional role.

Maybe expecting people to lead particular sorts of lives because of an accident of birth is no longer fit for purpose. Clearly when royal individuals don’t want to play the game all sorts of upset is caused. That's certainly the case at the moment although people differ as to who is mostly to blame for this situation.

so why have a monarch and heir at all? Why not retire the whole lot?

 

[Durham]

so why have a monarch and heir at all? Why not retire the whole lot?

Because we are a monarchy. The monarch is part of the constitution.

 

[Hallo girl]

Because we are a monarchy. The monarch is part of the constitution.

The problem was that the person wanted a foot in both camps, not that he wanted to leave.

 

[Empress Merel]

I think this is all fair comment.

Reading this & some of the previous comments maybe we need to give some serious thought to retiring the idea of a public royal family. A monarch & those in direct line is all we need, the rest could be private untitled citizens. Including spouses if necessary. A radical change but maybe one for the best. After all we don’t need a royal family to maintain the monarchy. They are after all just ordinary people born into extraordinary positions of great privilege who have no official constitutional role.

Maybe expecting people to lead particular sorts of lives because of an accident of birth is no longer fit for purpose. Clearly when royal individuals don’t want to play the game all sorts of upset is caused. That's certainly the case at the moment although people differ as to who is mostly to blame for this situation.

So basically an even more strict version of the way the Dutch do it? It would easily solve a lot of problems and goes directly in line with Charles's vision of downsizing.

 

[Durham]

The problem was that the person wanted a foot in both camps, not that he wanted to leave.

Well yes that's probably true but without a public role for the monarch's relatives such a drama wouldn't happen in the first place.

 

[Denville]

Because we are a monarchy. The monarch is part of the constitution.

There is no written constitution and in any case, there is no need to have a monarchy. What if Charles or William felt they wanted out of royal life? WHy shoudl anyone be stuck with the job if they dont want it?

 

[Denville]

Well yes that's probably true but without a public role for the monarch's relatives such a drama wouldn't happen in the first place.

The Drama happened because Harry and Meghan wanted to be half and half in and out of hte RF

 

[Durham]

There is no written constitution and in any case, there is no need to have a monarchy. What if Charles or William felt they wanted out of royal life? WHy shoudl anyone be stuck with the job if they dont want it?

Parliamentary bills need to have royal assent to become Acts of Parliament & law. The constitution exists unwritten or not & the monarch is essential to its smooth function.

The issue of the heirs is a separate question. I was speculating about the position of the monarch's relatives not in direct line.

 

[Durham]

The Drama happened because Harry and Meghan wanted to be half and half in and out of hte RF

Indeed. I answered this up thread.

 

[Betsypaige]

I agree, I still remember in 2012 during that Las Vegas incident, the media and the people have many excuses for him and insisted that he was just being a lad and they think that it wasn't much a scandal.

Yep...IMO Harry got away with things others wouldn’t have. Look at Lacey himself - in one of the excerpts posted above, he completely excused Harry for the Nazi incident, and blamed those who held him responsible for “missing the point”. I’m livid over that - Lacey has a lot of explaining to do there.

 

[Betsypaige]

I think this is all fair comment.

Reading this & some of the previous comments maybe we need to give some serious thought to retiring the idea of a public royal family. A monarch & those in direct line is all we need, the rest could be private untitled citizens. Including spouses if necessary. A radical change but maybe one for the best. After all we don’t need a royal family to maintain the monarchy. They are after all just ordinary people born into extraordinary positions of great privilege who have no official constitutional role.

Maybe expecting people to lead particular sorts of lives because of an accident of birth is no longer fit for purpose. Clearly when royal individuals don’t want to play the game all sorts of upset is caused. That's certainly the case at the moment although people differ as to who is mostly to blame for this situation.

Why should wholesale changes be made because Harry was unhappy enough to leave? Everyone else (I’m not counting Edward VIII) has accepted their lot, done their duty and eventually found happiness.

The “upset” is really to do with the a Royals’ personal lives. HM, Charles, William, Anne - they all continue to do their duty, and it’s all steady. In fact, they’ve been brilliant during this crisis- Harry’s departure has not adversely affected how they go about their business.

 

[Durham]

Why should wholesale changes be made because Harry was unhappy enough to leave? Everyone else (I’m not counting Edward VIII) has accepted their lot, done their duty and eventually found happiness.

The “upset” is really to do with the a Royals’ personal lives. HM, Charles, William, Anne - they all continue to do their duty, and it’s all steady. In fact, they’ve been brilliant during this crisis- Harry’s departure has not adversely affected how they go about their business.

Well they don't need to. It's just a thought prompted by earlier comments.

The present & the past are not necessarily the best predictors for the future. Who knows how those not in direct line may feel about their destinies a generation from now. Maybe they will be accepting & dutiful but on the other hand they might not. And we'd be back at square one.

 

[Heavs]

I guarantee you that if they announced tomorrow that Charlotte and Louis would be loosing their HRH and will be completely private citizens there whole lives, except for maybe balcony appearances etc there would still be an outcry if they went into party politics or joined Extinction Rebellion etc. And talk about how this was damaging their father/brother and the institution of the Monarchy. They may well not be fulltime royals but there are still limits.

Current members of the BRF have freedom to marry the person that they want in their personal lives and to a certain extent do what they want when they're "off duty". Sophie and Edward failed partly because of the type of jobs they had as well. Bea and Eugenie don't cause controversy with their jobs partly because they aren't trying to sell what is basically a politically active but still "Royal" brand and partly because they are further away from the throne and limelight than Harry. If Harry and Meghan had decided their passion was smallholding in Wales, working for a bank, retraining as doctors or opening something like Luminary Bakery for themselves then we wouldn't be having this conversation (as much).

 

[Durham]

I guarantee you that if they announced tomorrow that Charlotte and Louis would be loosing their HRH and will be completely private citizens there whole lives, except for maybe balcony appearances etc there would still be an outcry if they went into party politics or joined Extinction Rebellion etc. And talk about how this was damaging their father/brother and the institution of the Monarchy. They may well not be fulltime royals but there are still limits.

Yes there are still limits. That's inevitable. On the other hand they might have the opportunity to lead more fulfilling & happier lives. Being free of duty doesn't have to equate with being at liberty to be controversial. It's just as likely that they would lead quiet private lives.

Over time we might get used to the idea & think it quite normal. And think the previous way of doing things was peculiar.

 

[Durham]

If Harry and Meghan had decided their passion was smallholding in Wales, working for a bank, retraining as doctors or opening something like Luminary Bakery for themselves then we wouldn't be having this conversation (as much).

If only they had.

 

[akina21]

That's right, blame a guest - don't blame Harry. I don't understand how Robert Lacey can chide the public for being outraged and claim that missed the point. They didn't, Lacey did. Harry was 20 years old, he should have known better, and he didn't need his brother telling him it was wrong. Harry may have red hair, but he's clearly Lacey's fair-haired boy.

That's exactly what I was going for with Harry never growing up . Nothing is ever Harry's fault , it's wrong friends who tempted him , a brother who didn't babysit him 24/7 , evil tabloids ... The list goes on and on .

 

[Somebody]

Well yes that's probably true but without a public role for the monarch's relatives such a drama wouldn't happen in the first place.

While you can try to diminish the role of royal relatives; you cannot completely undo it. So, someone like Harry who is living off his status as member of the royal family could still do so when untitled - it would be a little harder but we only have to look to a particular presidential family to see that those connections are still there and a prominent position can be achieved.

I guess that is still my main issue. It is one thing to no longer work as a senior royal but to effectively continue the royal lifestyle (luxurious - probably even more so than the royals themselves - and making a living of your title/position and getting recognition for 'doing good') but without any of the responsibilities, is the thing that continues to rub me the wrong way.

 

[Betsypaige]

That's exactly what I was going for with Harry never growing up . Nothing is ever Harry's fault , it's wrong friends who tempted him , a brother who didn't babysit him 24/7 , evil tabloids ... The list goes on and on .

Yep. It’s because Harry was fun and charming, so outwardly different than the other Royals, that he got the benefit of the doubt. It’s always someone else’s fault, not Harry’s. Well, I think Lacey is spitting into the wind because most people who aren’t Sussex stans are very likely doing to roll their eyes at how portrayal of H.

 

[Durham]

While you can try to diminish the role of royal relatives; you cannot completely undo it. So, someone like Harry who is living off his status as member of the royal family could still do so when untitled - it would be a little harder but we only have to look to a particular presidential family to see that those connections are still there and a prominent position can be achieved.

Yes this is true. If you're closely related to a head of state, particularly one who's there for decades, then inevitably you may well benefit from your links. Not sure how to get round that one. I suppose the more private they are from birth the less likely they are to profit.

 

[Sun Lion]

Part four of the serialisation - the final installment -

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...mance-ROBERT-LACEY-reveals-untold-twists.html

 

[Betsypaige]

Part four of the serialisation - the final installment -

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...mance-ROBERT-LACEY-reveals-untold-twists.html

I feel like I need to take a shower after reading this....the snide comments about Kate, the gossipy, conversational language...This book is incredibly unpleasant

 

[AC21091968]

I feel like I need to take a shower after reading this....the snide comments about Kate, the gossipy, conversational language...This book is incredibly unpleasant

I agree, the extract from the Daily Mail is full of gossip and speculation. I think Robert Lacey is trying to push the narrative that Carole Middleton is a "pushy mother" and Kate is a "social climber".

BTW, thank you Sun Lion for posting the Daily Mail links containing Robert Lacey's book.

 

[Betsypaige]

I agree, the extract from the Daily Mail is full of gossip and speculation. I think Robert Lacey is trying to push the narrative that Carole Middleton is a "pushy mother" and Kate is a "social climber".

He all but said that Kate went to St. Andrews so she could bag a prince, as if 18 year olds don't change their minds, for any reason.

Robert Lacey is nothing more than a gossip-monger.....and a nasty one to boot. Historians shouldn't be pushing any narrative.......I've lost all respect for him.

Sun Lion, thanks so much for posting those extracts!

 

[rominet09]

I am not particularly fond of Kate, but I think what I've just read disgusting. Do they consider that William can only be loved by interested financially people ?

 

[camelot23ca]

This book seems like a waste of paper. Nothing new, short on facts, long on the sort of gossip and speculation any hack at the Daily Mail could have written in their sleep.

Anyone with access to the internet can find out the public facts of Harry and Meghan’s time as working royals, the exit process and their life in California. We can all watch the wedding, their interviews, their engagements, everyone can see their social media posts, etc. Beyond that the vast majority of us are just reading tea leaves even if some of us, like Robert Lacey, try to pretend otherwise.

Trying to make sense of the relationship between siblings is often impossible even for people who know them well. With William and Harry I don’t think we can say anything about their private relationship based on the public relationship that’s been presented to us. We know how they relate to each other when they’re on display as members of the BRF. We’ve never seen them in their homes having lunch together, or having a really ugly fight, or texting each other about their father’s health, or one brother getting snippy when someone makes a negative comment about the other, even though he’s said the very same thing multiple times, and so on.

 

[Betsypaige]

This book seems like a waste of paper. Nothing new, short on facts, long on the sort of gossip and speculation any hack at the Daily Mail could have written in their sleep.

Anyone with access to the internet can find out the public facts of Harry and Meghan’s time as working royals, the exit process and their life in California. We can all watch the wedding, their interviews, their engagements, everyone can see their social media posts, etc. Beyond that the vast majority of us are just reading tea leaves even if some of us, like Robert Lacey, try to pretend otherwise.

Trying to make sense of the relationship between siblings is often impossible even for people who know them well. With William and Harry I don’t think we can say anything about their private relationship based on the public relationship that’s been presented to us. We know how they relate to each other when they’re on display as members of the BRF. We’ve never seen them in their homes having lunch together, or having a really ugly fight, or texting each other about their father’s health, or one brother getting snippy when someone makes a negative comment about the other, even though he’s said the very same thing multiple times, and so on.

Good points. If Robert Lacey simply wanted to bring more facts to light, that would be one thing....but, there’s simply nothing new under the sun. What he’s doing is engaging in armchair psychology - shameful for an historian. This is a money grab - anything about William and Harry will sell, and then shocking opinions about the BRF are the cherry on top of the sundae...

 

[evolvingdoors]

Whether it be a royal family or a pauper's family, there is never an obligation for a child to grow up and fit into the mold that the parents want him to fit into. Both William and Harry very possibly could have walked away from their royal roles and there would be nothing to stop them. Legally that is. There's *no* law states that a child *must* fall into their royal roles for the rest of their lives. David abdicated because that is what he wanted to do. The monarchy continued. Harry has walked away. The monarchy will continue.

A lot of people see Harry's defection from his royal life as a disappointment and a "let down" of the family and refusal to do his "duty". I see it as feeling strongly enough to want to cut the puppet strings and go and live how he felt would be best for his family. I don't think there's one person here that could honestly say they'd live their lives the way other people decided they should live it. I certainly wouldn't. That's for sure!

That may be so, but the biggest question is: is this current life his own desires or that of his wife?
Because when Harry spoke of thinking of walking away in the past it was to Africa, and I will 100% believe that that included living and raising his children there (which is why his comment about s.africa was bs imo)
I also strongly think that a woman who would have had a true desire to do good and not simply to ride causes for the sake of personal PR to big up her name, would have managed to make leaving the "working royal" fold in a more mature way.
But that's just my opinion.

I agree that Charles tried his best.
At the very least, he didn't inflict the damage that Philip did, with his insistence that he knew best about his son's education, etc. Philip completely ignored Charles' feelings on Gordonstoun, and created a nightmare situation.

Surely he made some mistakes, but I believe he was sincerely concerned for his sons' happiness.

I'm not so sure, I personally think Harry would have benefited better with the old Gordonstoun style school (so almost military like), he seem to thrive better in firmly structured institutions where there someone there to provide a positive guidance, vs going to Eton where he was also constantly compared to the much better academically successful William.

 

[Denville]

That may be so, but the biggest question is: is this current life his own desires or that of his wife?
Because when Harry spoke of thinking of walking away in the past it was to Africa, and I will 100% believe that that included living and raising his children there (which is why his comment about s.africa was bs imo)
I also strongly think that a woman who would have had a true desire to do good and not simply to ride causes for the sake of personal PR to big up her name, would have managed to make leaving the "working royal" fold in a more mature way.
But that's just my opinion.

I'd say that if either of them had a big desire to dedicate their lives to doing good, they could do it quite as well as members of the RF working in the UK.