"Spare" memoir by the Duke of Sussex (2023)

[Denville]

Oh yes I agree with that last sentence!

And indeed H&M know what they're doing & need to plug themselves like all celebs. With H though there does increasingly seem to be a lot of people who wonder about his general welfare in all of this self promotion. Whether it's actually damaging to him. If it can be seen by them then it does make you wonder whether the media also know but don't actually care because their focus is ratings & profit. Does that make them potentially as unethical as Bashir? I think it probably does.

I dont really see why they should care. Harry wants money and he wants to revenge himself on his family.. he's getting paid and getting a chance to talk about his family. the media are taking their whack for helping him to do this. But it was H and Meg who initiated this big sell out of the RF.

 

[Durham]

I dont really see why they should care. Harry wants money and he wants to revenge himself on his family.. he's getting paid and getting a chance to talk about his family. the media are taking their whack for helping him to do this. But it was H and Meg who initiated this big sell out of the RF.

Well if anything does go horribly wrong somewhere down the line these various people & organisations better have their excuses in place.

I also don't think they should be surprised if they end up being criticised in some future spare 2! Oh the irony of that!

 

[Denville]

I eed.

Meghan really seems to have gone to ground since the book came out.

She has, i am cynically wondering if she is beginning to pull back from Harry

 

[Denville]

Well if anything does go horribly wrong somewhere down the line these various people & organisations better have their excuses in place.

I also don't think they should be surprised if they end up being criticised in some future spare 2! Oh the irony of that!

Unless there is proof that they told Harry a lot of lies to get the interview, or stiffed him for his fees, or spiked his drinks I cant see what they would have to worry about.

 

[camelot23ca]

Oh yes I agree with that last sentence!

And indeed H&M know what they're doing & need to plug themselves like all celebs. With H though there does increasingly seem to be a lot of people who wonder about his general welfare in all of this self promotion. Whether it's actually damaging to him. If it can be seen by them then it does make you wonder whether the media also know but don't actually care because their focus is ratings & profit. Does that make them potentially as unethical as Bashir? I think it probably does.

I think various members of the media likely do know, and don’t care. Harry is just like every other celebrity who is vulnerable in some way - drinking, drugs, mental health disorders, all of the above - who gets plenty of press even when they’re going off the rails, as long as they’re interesting or entertaining enough to be profitable. The interviews that Harry does are business transactions and the people he’s talking to have no responsibility for his welfare. It’s not an environment I’d be comfortable in, but I don’t think it’s necessarily unethical.

What made the Panorama interview different was Bashir’s intentional dishonesty. It was professionally unethical and amoral in general, because he knew his actions had the potential to cause a great deal of psychological harm to Diana.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

Not "probably" but "more than likely". In his 21st birthday interview I posted up thread, he admitted taking notes of headlines about himself (including the reporter's and photographer's names) and in the book he mentioned several headlines printed when both he and William were in Eton so it's pre-2000 and he's still a teenager so perhaps we can even say that it definitely started from his teens.

The impression I got from the book is it's not that he can't find help, but he rejects/doesn't want to accept it. Several times in the book he mentioned how people around him offering advices or voicing their concerns, from his family to his friends and including his former nanny, but he either dismissed it, got defensive because of it, if not felt offended. The "my way or no way" sense is very strong in the book.

Wow, thanks for sharing your thoughts about this. After watching his 21 birthday interview it indeed sounds like he had a notebook/diary in his teens (and perhaps now?) to write down names and notes about specific members of the press - this both blows me away and shows such implacability. Nothing is going to bring his mother back; is he truly not aware of how the media has changed since the phone hacking? Please hear that I’m not defending the way a number of people in the media have behaved since some have been despicable. But my understanding is that there have been some positive changes.

I am trying to figure out his hatred for them yet going out for drinks or whatever. What was that about? Keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer?

Also I think your points about “my way” or the highway speaks volumes about how he and Meghan got where they are. It’s as if he won’t even consider looking at things from any other viewpoint.

He’s built his whole life and sense of identity as the son of Diana - believing that the press killed his mother and his actions (he says and of course, some have been) are to honor her as well to avenge her death.

If this belief system collapses or at whatever point it collapses (if it ever does), who will he be? Subconsciously, it would be terrifying to let this go. So he sticks his head in the sand and doubles down, because without this narrative…….???:

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

He did have more than one glass, and he was on for almost the full hour.

These things are worked out well in advance during the pre-interview with staff. Harry might have even specified the brand of tequila he prefers. Nothing is left to chance on these shows.

I do not remember Stephen Colbert ever having another guest on his show for the entire time. Usually, it’s his opening monologue, some talk to the band, a guest, Colbert doing a humorous segment, another guest - you get the picture. This really, really surprised me. Full disclosure: I really like Colbert!

And you are absolutely correct - all is worked out In interviews with Colbert’s team in advance. Usually the guest is a celebrity with a new movie or TV show, an author with a new book, or a politician talking about something currently in the news.

If anyone remembers Colbert having one guest stay for the whole show, I’d be interested in knowing.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

I think various members of the media likely do know, and don’t care. Harry is just like every other celebrity who is vulnerable in some way - drinking, drugs, mental health disorders, all of the above - who gets plenty of press even when they’re going off the rails, as long as they’re interesting or entertaining enough to be profitable. The interviews that Harry does are business transactions and the people he’s talking to have no responsibility for his welfare. It’s not an environment I’d be comfortable in, but I don’t think it’s necessarily unethical.

What made the Panorama interview different was Bashir’s intentional dishonesty. It was professionally unethical and amoral in general, because he knew his actions had the potential to cause a great deal of psychological harm to Diana.

I absolutely agree. Harry has put himself out there by publishing a book to the public and then going on various TV interviews to try to get that same public interested in buying his book so that he can make money. A symbiotic relationship - similar to the relationship he claims the RF has with the press in the UK which he thinks is wrong. Hmmmm ?

 

[Prinsara]

I don't know if it's geolocked, but here's Harry on Colbert, complete with tequila.

I'm not sure he got the band playing "Born Under A Bad Sign" as his intro music. (Actually, the only interesting thing I can find about Harry's birth is that he was born at 4:20pm. Which I'm sure he figured out sometime long ago.)

Harry actually comes across as slightly saner than I'd been expecting through second-hand reports the last few days, and Stephen is pretty easy on him, but he still freely admits almost first thing that he believes his family, personally, is working against the book.

Also I'm not sure Harry is aware of what year it is. He thinks it's been two years since January 2020?

Also: I notice they had to tone done the jingling of his bracelets compared to a clip that got released earlier.

Also, you'll all be glad to know the dog-bowl necklace is fixed.

For those of you who may have missed it before or want to see it for yourselves, here is the whole Colbert interview, or since they call it "extended", probably more than what made it to air.

 

[Leopoldine]

Interesting. Thank you!

I used to run a store very close to the Ed Sullivan Theatre, back when it was Letterman's show, in the 90's. (That's where Colbert films now.)

We had a lot of interaction with the then-staff. The prep they do for each show is frenzied overkill. One time, they had some bit where they wanted to put bandleader Paul Schaefer in a big box or container or trunk of some sort. They came into to my place in a big hurry, asking if we had anything Paul would fit in. We did. They threw money at us and ran out. Turns out, they abandoned the skit last minute. My point is that these shows plan for everything.

I would also take a side bet that it wasn't real tequila, but the bottle was the brand associated with Jack Brooksbank and George Clooney. Two birds sort of thing.

 

[Leopoldine]

I do not remember Stephen Colbert ever having another guest on his show for the entire time. Usually, it’s his opening monologue, some talk to the band, a guest, Colbert doing a humorous segment, another guest - you get the picture. This really, really surprised me. Full disclosure: I really like Colbert!

And you are absolutely correct - all is worked out In interviews with Colbert’s team in advance. Usually the guest is a celebrity with a new movie or TV show, an author with a new book, or a politician talking about something currently in the news.

If anyone remembers Colbert having one guest stay for the whole show, I’d be interested in knowing.

If there was a musical guest in the last 3 minutes, I missed them. There was another guest name in the promos for the show, I assumed they got bumped. I didn't care. It's not like Colbert booked Artie Shaw.

 

[Toledo]

Re Harry's interview with Colbert one of the Body Language experts stated the following:
1. For security reasons it was done unannounced and with no audience present.

2. The applause, laughs and public reactions were added in afterwards during the editing. Then presented within the show as if it was 'live'. You don't see Harry doing his thing and playing for the crowd because is just tech staff behind the equipment.

These NY or LA based night shows are recorded in the afternoons, edited and then broadcasted in Prime Time/late hours. That's why you never hear any remarks of anything important happening in the USA, or the World for that matter, until the following day if it happens during the afternoon taping.

 

[Prinsara]

Re Harry's interview with Colbert one of the Body Language experts stated the following:
1. For security reasons it was done unannounced and with no audience present.

2. The applause, laughs and public reactions were added in afterwards during the editing. Then presented within the show as if it was 'live'. You don't see Harry doing his thing and playing for the crowd because is just tech staff behind the equipment.

It says it was taped in front of a separate audience, not that there was no audience. From an actual newspaper, not a YouTube source. https://www.latimes.com/entertainme...ce-harry-late-show-taping-absence-upsets-fans

 

[Denville]

what is a separate audience?

 

[Denville]

I

What made the Panorama interview different was Bashir’s intentional dishonesty. It was professionally unethical and amoral in general, because he knew his actions had the potential to cause a great deal of psychological harm to Diana.

I think that yes Diana was by then known by a lot of people who knew her to be fragile mentally. Harry is a bit of an unknown quality in that respect right now. He is not really all that coherent and he is almost certainly still using booze and drugs, so its hard to say what is his own doing and what's mental problems that he can't help. But what is not in dispute IMO is that he and Meg went to America to make money and they knew that they would be telling all about the RF to make that money.
Its hard to say if perhaps H has deteriorated lately to a point wehre he is mentally ill, and if that happens, then I think that interviewers should be more cautious in interviewing him.... and certainly not allow him to have booze or drugs.

 

[Imanmajed]

what is a separate audience?

Means that the viewers of the show who was present live were not in the same room or on the same day/time there with Harry when the interview took place. Negative reactions from the audience can thus be technically prevented/switched off. Only the positive reactions of the audience (or those that the organizer wishes to show publicly) are then broadcast on TV.

In Harrys case the show had taped the “Prince Harry interview“ a day earlier with no audience, citing security reasons.

It says it was taped in front of a separate audience, not that there was no audience.

seperate audience = no audience ....no one of the audience was there live as the interview took place.

 

[Denville]

Hmm, but ther is an audience. i Presume they watch on a screen as its being filmed?

 

[Imanmajed]

Hmm, but ther is an audience. i Presume they watch on a screen as its being filmed?

No, in Harrys case the show had taped the “Prince Harry interview“ a day earlier with no audience, citing security reasons.

 

[Hallo girl]

Means that the viewers of the show who was present live were not in the same room or on the same day/time there with Harry when the interview took place. Negative reactions from the audience can thus be technically prevented/switched off. Only the positive reactions of the audience (or those that the organizer wishes to show publicly) are then broadcast on TV.

In Harrys case the show had taped the “Prince Harry interview“ a day earlier with no audience, citing security reasons.



seperate audience = no audience ....no one of the audience was there live as the interview took place.

I didn't see the whole programme but I did see a clip where he asks if there are veterans in the audience. There was a response.

 

[Prinsara]

what is a separate audience?

A different audience than the one they would have originally taped in front of, aka, people who were there for Monday's taping, which is why there are clips of Harry with Tom Hanks.

I don't know where this persistent myth of "there was no audience and all the footage and reactions are fake" comes from, especially when it's refuted by the LA Times.

 

[lip63]

hello long time lurker first time poster, im still catching up on the last few pages but after the discussion about harrys potential drug use during his service and whether he avoided drugs test, i thought id add something.

harry trained to fly the apache helicopter. It has a 2 person crew, the pilot and the weapons system operator. During initial training new recruits are taught how to perform both roles, however in the british army its standard that when they join their operational squadron, the new pilots are responsible for flying the aircraft whilst the more experienced crew member operates the weapons and is in command with the roles being 'fixed'.

At the end of his training it was announced that harry, on joining his squadron would be the WSO. This was explained at the time, if i recall, that there was simply a surplus and nothing untoward was happening. However, many pages ago, another poster said that harry stated in his book he was paired with a more experienced pilot which given what ive said above doesnt really make sense. the expectation would be that 'he' would switch roles and be the gunner whilst harry would be the one doing the actual flying.

whilst i think its possible harry did meet the standards to be a WSO, the only way i can make the above make sense in my mind is if harry never met the standards for being a pilot and the army found a way to accommodate him. i think you can legiteamately ask that question

 

[Toledo]

Hmm, but ther is an audience. i Presume they watch on a screen as its being filmed?

A separate audience in this case seems then more in the lines of a Viewing Part event. The Colbert show wanted to manipulate the situation and yet, continue the trend of USA interviews never to confront him with facts and press him to tell the truth on live TV.

 

[Prinsara]

A separate audience in this case seems then more in the lines of a Viewing Part event. The Colbert show wanted to manipulate the situation and yet, continue the trend of USA interviews never to confront him with facts and press him to tell the truth on live TV.

Would you please stop? The interview was filmed in front of a normal audience. The same ones who saw Tom Hanks, probably. Just not the ones who thought they would see Harry. Colbert is a master comic and doesn't care too much whether the crowd is happy or hostile. He'll still get ratings.

The LA Times says "audience". Not "no audience", not "viewing party". Unless you have a reliable source to contradict that, please stop spreading other narratives.

 

[Toledo]

hello long time lurker first time poster, im still catching up on the last few pages but after the discussion about harrys potential drug use during his service and whether he avoided drugs test, i thought id add something.

harry trained to fly the apache helicopter. It has a 2 person crew, the pilot and the weapons system operator. During initial training new recruits are taught how to perform both roles, however in the British army its standard that when they join their operational squadron, the new pilots are responsible for flying the aircraft whilst the more experienced crew member operates the weapons and is in command with the roles being 'fixed'.

At the end of his training, it was announced that harry, on joining his squadron would be the WSO. This was explained at the time, if I recall, that there was simply a surplus and nothing untoward was happening. However, many pages ago, another poster said that harry stated in his book he was paired with a more experienced pilot which given what I've said above doesn't really make sense. the expectation would be that 'he' would switch roles and be the gunner whilst harry would be the one doing the actual flying.

whilst I think it's possible harry did meet the standards to be a WSO, the only way i can make the above make sense in my mind is if harry never met the standards for being a pilot and the army found a way to accommodate him. i think you can legitimately ask that question

Welcome to the Forum and thanks for posting your thoughts!

I assume at all stages of his military service there were precautions taken so he would always be with someone that can step in and take over. I can't recall the time without looking it up now, but I think William was not married/w children yet and Harry was still # 3 in the succession order with Prince Andrew as # 4. So, he had to be protected by all means.

 

[Toledo]

Would you please stop? The interview was filmed in front of a normal audience. The same ones who saw Tom Hanks, probably. Just not the ones who thought they would see Harry. Colbert is a master comic and doesn't care too much whether the crowd is happy or hostile. He'll still get ratings.

The LA Times says "audience". Not "no audience", not "viewing party". Unless you have a reliable source to contradict that, please stop spreading other narratives.

Ok
And I'm not spreading narratives if I see the interview was manipulated by Colbert and his staff.

Re Colbert, he is a great comedy writer, some of his best work I remember was in the TV series 'Strangers with Candy'. But he is overrated to me in the nighttime interview lineup. He's anything but bias, like all hosts are, and much like Harry, does he enjoy his opinions to be only ones that count.

Without getting into risqué commentary here, Colbert is one of many that declines every night to do comedy on the current leader and his very public erratic behavior the same way he did to the predecessor.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

A different audience than the one they would have originally taped in front of, aka, people who were there for Monday's taping, which is why there are clips of Harry with Tom Hanks.

I don't know where this persistent myth of "there was no audience and all the footage and reactions are fake" comes from, especially when it's refuted by the LA Times.

Thanks for posting this clip! Some additional info below that might help others and a question I have as well.

It WAS a live audience just like you said - just not the people who stood in line thinking they were going to get to see him so those people were mad coz they didn’t get to see him. It was taped live the day before (so surprise to the audience who was there not knowing that Harry would be there) - they are saying due to security. So the people the next day stood in line thinking they were going to see him when it had already been taped the day before.

What I don’t understand: if it was taped live (in the afternoon before which it always is) and then broadcast that same night, why didn’t Colbert fans know that Harry had already been on? That is, if they are such fans that they would stand in line, why hadn’t they watched the night before and seen that Harry had already been on with Tom Hanks? This is what confuses me.

 

[lip63]

Welcome to the Forum and thanks for posting your thoughts!

I assume at all stages of his military service there were precautions taken so he would always be with someone that can step in and take over. I can't recall the time without looking it up now, but I think William was not married/w children yet and Harry was still # 3 in the succession order with Prince Andrew as # 4. So, he had to be protected by all means.

thank you for the welcome

with regards to the apache the crew sit in tandem, the pilot in the rear the WSO in the front seat, both have the flight control systems. if for any reason 'he' needed to take control as a precaution from harry it could be done from the front seat WSO position. i dont think it was as a "precaution"

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

This clip shows some of the rehearsal for the “red carpet fanfare” and Harry shaking hands with audience members. Harry says to the audience : “you didn’t know, did you.” Obviously, this clip includes many guests who weren’t on that night.

 

[Prinsara]

What I don’t understand: if it was taped live (in the afternoon before which it always is) and then broadcast that same night, why didn’t Colbert fans know that Harry had already been on? That is, if they are such fans that they would stand in line, why hadn’t they watched the night before and seen that Harry had already been on with Tom Hanks? This is what confuses me.

Because that clip was only aired on Tuesday (why Tom says "I'm back"). There was no way for the Tuesday audience to know Harry's interview had been done the day before, which is why the LA Times says they were so angry.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

Ohhhh! That makes sense now - thanks!

I found the clip above which refutes some “no audience, fake responses, edited after the fact” comments upthread.