X Close

Who destroyed Prince Harry? Desperate to see signs of inner turmoil, his audience eggs him on

Prince Harry. Photo by Kevin Winter/Getty Images for Global Citizen VAX LIVE

Prince Harry. Photo by Kevin Winter/Getty Images for Global Citizen VAX LIVE


May 21, 2021   5 mins

In one of those strange cultural quirks that makes the world a more interesting place, in the Russian version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire? contestants tend not to “Ask the Audience” because the audience too often deliberately give them the wrong answer. (French audiences also do this to a lesser extent — of course.)

This is supposedly to do with the country’s history of serfdom, collective ownership and general misery and oppression. Even before Communism, life in rural Russia was very communal, and late tsarist attempts to introduce private ownership into the Russian village failed miserably. This, combined with the country’s hugely stratified social hierarchy, meant that most Russians had little chance of making it rich. When they did, their neighbours resented it and assumed that they must have done something nefarious and unmerited. Why should Ivan win a million when I’m stuck here?

In America, by contrast, audiences whoop and cheer when Hank or Chuck gets the question right because, even if they’re poor, they think that anyone can make it and maybe they will too. Historically, it’s not untrue.

The Russian view of other people’s financial happiness has its equivalent in the West today with other people’s romantic and sexual happiness. It’s a phenomenon I call “toxic validation”, because the more people make the wrong decisions in their life, the more the audience cheers.

It’s a very modern phenomenon because it’s only recently that we have seen the development of a sort of ambiguous class between celebrities and “civilians”; influencers with a medium-sized social media following who build a relationship with their audience so intimate that they one day might even control aspects of their lives.

But even people who are not influencers still routinely go online for life advice, and the life advice they receive is invariably terrible. The most popular responses will always be the worst, but more toxic still is the way that people receive validation through social media engagement.

Here, the most popular lifestyle declarations, in terms of retweets and likes, are almost always the most disastrous. They’re the ones where people tweet about breaking off workable romantic relationships over quite minor problems; ending a relationship with a family member over politics; pursuing a conflict with employers that don’t need to be pursued; even self-mutilation — all while being encouraged, praised and applauded by thousands of people.

In many cases, the validation has a political aspect, in particular with regard to sex-positivity: such as when an exploitative narcissist uses ideology to undermine his girlfriend’s natural reluctance, and she tweets “Now he’s introduced me into a polyamorous relationship and although I felt uncomfortable at first I’m doing the right thing and am so happy!” Right?

The correct answer – the American audience answer – is “WRONG! Ditch him!” The social media applauders tell people quite the opposite:  obviously not what you’d advise a loved one.

But while ideology plays some part in this bad advice, the main problem is that these sites give people an audience, and audiences rarely have our best interests at heart; sometimes they are swayed by fashion and sometimes they are just bored and want drama.

And this danger of toxic validation also applies to genuine, high level celebrities, too, especially if political fashion is involved. Just weeks after his Oprah interview, in which he basically denounced his family as racist, Prince Harry was at it again, talking about his upbringing: “I don’t think we should be pointing the finger or blaming anybody… but certainly when it comes to parenting, if I’ve experienced some form of pain or suffering because of the pain or suffering that perhaps my father or my parents had suffered, I’m going to make sure I break that cycle so that I don’t pass it on, basically.”

Prince Harry was obviously referencing the fate of his mother, but her relationship with the media was far more like that of predator and prey, although also symbiotic; the son, instead, receives toxic validation from sections of the commentariat for opening up, for tackling important mental health issues, for being modern.

“You know what, that happened to me, I’m going to make sure that doesn’t happen to you,” he said of his own troubled relationship with his parents. And he’s of course right, I’m sure. It wasn’t a hugely loving environment, but then the royal family isn’t exactly famous for the whole lovey-dovey thing.

Charles’s own parents went off on a royal tour of North America when he was three and upon their return at Euston a camera caught the young Queen speaking to various family members before briefly patting her son on the head as an afterthought. There is no question that a lack of parental affection continues to hurt right into adulthood, but is Harry benefiting from the validation he gets here? The wisest advice anyone could give him would be to avoid the media as much as possible, never say anything about his relationship with his family, not mention political subjects and instead concentrate on uncontroversial good causes. Every time he does any of those things, he gets validation and becomes slightly worse off; more unpopular, more divisive, less likely to rebuild happy relationships, more likely to feel guilt and self-disgust later in life.

And yet he’s cheered on by an audience that dislikes the royal family, that dislikes the sort of people who are anti-Meghan and who believe public displays of inner turmoil are in society’s best interests. I doubt they are, but they certainly aren’t in Prince Harry’s interests — this is a Russian audience voting, not an American one.

So why do people validate other’s destructive lifestyles? One reason might be a need for chaos, but another is probably the need to rationalise their own life decisions. This is why, I suspect, so much bad advice is given out by journalists and social commentators — articulate, intelligent people who are often very bad at making life choices, and have been since the days of Rousseau and Paine.

Rousseau wrote a sort-of lifestyle guide to raising children while sending his own poor children to certain death in an orphanage; Paine wrote two of the most influential tracts on human affairs while pissing away his own life on drink. Journalists tend to have chaotic personal lives filled with debt, disastrous relationships and a desperate need for popularity, which is why you should never let them near the levers of power.

And people living distinctive lifestyles feel the instinctive urge to evangelise for that lifestyle, to gather cultural support around it, to encourage others to do the same. No one ever says: “I’ve decided I’m now X or doing Y or living with Z but I don’t particularly want to talk about it and don’t expect anyone else to go along with it.”

In the marketplace of cultural ideas everyone is selling, creating a competition in which values are inevitably changing rapidly. When social norms are ambiguous and up for grabs toxic validation can only flourish, because in the game of life no one is entirely sure what the right answer is to anything. Every question is worth £32,000 and the audience doesn’t necessarily want you to win.

To return to Russia’s cheery history, after the revolution broke out, the Bolsheviks enacted the first great sexual revolution of the 20th century. Determined to break the bonds of family, Russia’s rulers encouraged young Communists to publicly denounce family members for opposing the regime, to the approval of their peers and society’s new elites. This same thing happened in Mao’s China, where they were lauded with approval for their fervour in this time of revolutionary moral uncertainty.

Later, when it all sank in, the same people were overcome with guilt, shame and horror at what they had done. They had made a terrible choice. But then people, especially the young, seek validation from the most influential and powerful in society, not from the wisest, or those with their best interests at heart.

The Bolsheviks wanted children to turn against their family members because they saw the family as a rival to state power, but the family was also the source of common sense and folklore, the cumulative wisdom of the ages. It is a rival source of affection, and a genuine one, as Christopher Lasch called it, “a haven in a heartless world”. And it really can be a heartless world — which makes it all the sadder that the toxic validators cheer when a young man denounces his own.


Ed West’s book Tory Boy is published by Constable

edwest

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

287 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago

Harry is a 36 year old adult. He is responsible for his own actions. Trying to blame everyone else (his father, the royal family, the media) is the mark of someone who needs to grow up. His wife is taking advantage of his immaturity to intentionally damage his family and his country. He should man up and refuse to allow her to lead him around by the nose.

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago

Monty Python had a sketch where Richard ( brother of David) Attenborough keeps crying at an award ceremony. Spitting Image could have a crying Harry with Meghan at the back winding a machine that money comes out of , shouting ‘Keep crying Harry’.

David Waring
David Waring
3 years ago
Reply to  kathleen carr

That image is cruel and is funny.

Last edited 3 years ago by David Waring
Drahcir Nevarc
Drahcir Nevarc
3 years ago
Reply to  kathleen carr

V good.

Richard Turpin
Richard Turpin
3 years ago
Reply to  kathleen carr

I’m howling

Fred Atkinstalk
Fred Atkinstalk
3 years ago

If he’s an adult, why does ne need to grow up?

Truth is, he’s a 36 year old adolescent. And his father is a 70 year old petulant toddler.

Natalija Svobodné
Natalija Svobodné
3 years ago

“adult” isn’t really an age, it’s an attitude and a value. it’s just supposed that at 36 one might have the attributes to be considered an adult…

Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
3 years ago

They revolt me and every article I see on them makes me more annoyed. I came here to to comments see if this is common – I despise seeing those sickos, what flag bearers of the modern age they are –

But “To return to Russia’s cheery history, after the revolution broke out, the Bolsheviks enacted the first great sexual revolution of the 20th century. Determined to break the bonds of family, Russia’s rulers encouraged young Communists to publicly denounce family members:”

This is what Monsters always do – and this is WHAT LIBERALISM IS ABOUT!!!! They wish to destroy the family and so pay unsuitable single mothers to have children, and make tax law to prevent middle class from being able to afford having enough children to replace themselves. They promote promiscuity and adultery to destroy the bonding of men and woman, attack marriage, and push abortion (a Million + a year in the WEST!!!) to destroy the bonds of parents to children. Liberalism is as evil as Stalin, but wears a mask of a nice guy. (google Frankfurt School 11 points). Now they wish to cause racial hatred, and through MMT destroy the Middle classes to make all dependent on gov handouts.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
3 years ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

Harry & Megs are cringy

Jem Couture
Jem Couture
3 years ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

Harry and Meaghan are a young couple in love trying to do the best that they know how within their circumstances. It would seem that they were escaping the cruel media attacks when they decided to opt out of their royal assignments. Like all celebrities who are adored and in fact made famous by the media so that they can then be made fodder by ripping them apart and trashing them. Seems to give many people some perverse gleeful satisfaction. H & M are simply people simply human beings with struggles and emotions of their own like all of us. I’m so disappointed by the mean spirited attacks directed towards them by complete banal strangers who know absolutely nothing about the inner lives of Harry and Megan.

Phil Mac
Phil Mac
3 years ago
Reply to  Jem Couture

Nah……, I’m not biting onto that hook.
Nicely baited though!

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago
Reply to  Jem Couture

Are you their PR firm? If i said in private the mean spirited things M said about her sister-in -law to millions I would be in trouble. They both know enough about the First Amendment to know they can say what they want without it being truthful. Equally they know lots of people will feel they must be telling the truth or the Royal Family would sue them.

patriciaendresrn
patriciaendresrn
3 years ago
Reply to  kathleen carr

This! The funniest thing ever happened with CNN. Max Foster from the UK was a guest in shortly after the Oprah interview. He told of 17 lies and he had documented proof. The CNN interviewer was very quiet throughout this guy’s effort to explain about the lies. You know Max was right about every lie he uncovered. Why do we know? CNN never ran that segment again and they deleted that segment from their online news sight.
If that doesn’t say Max was right about everything he said , I don’t know is.
Everyone needs to get informed before they hop in a bandwagon or accept someone’s lies as truth. Don’t feed into toxic validation.

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago

When two of the claims , Archie being made a Prince & their secret marriage were debunked the whole show fell to bits. However the new truth is that anyone who identifies as b can say anything and they must be believed. This is an unworkable system.M had 3 w grandparents and always cast as w-she is a superficial air-head actress just jumping onto each passing bandwagon.

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago
Reply to  kathleen carr

Which is why I think she was chosen for Harry. He can seem ‘cool’ and tolerant by choosing her and wipes out all his former bad behaviour. Any problems the couple have he just brandishes the r word. He even claims his son also suffers -even though by some genetic chance ( or possible use of a surragate?) baby A justs looks like his dad.This whole thing just fits a bit too neatly into the current ‘white privilege’ debate/political agenda , which all M’s new friends support.

Kat L
Kat L
3 years ago
Reply to  Jem Couture

megs….is that you?

Drahcir Nevarc
Drahcir Nevarc
3 years ago
Reply to  Jem Couture

My younger brother used to share a desk with him at Ludgrove, and says he was a complete t1t.

Cheryl Jones
Cheryl Jones
3 years ago
Reply to  Drahcir Nevarc

I’m sure he has his moments like everyone. One thing I find strange though is this aggrandising of trauma for brownie points and attention. On the radio today an ex soldier friend of Harry’s said he bonded with Harry over his mum dying because his grandad died ‘and he suffered PTSD for years’ because his family didn’t like to talk about him. The death of a grandparent, sad though it is, is a natural part of life. The idea it gives you PTSD seems to be stretching reality somewhat and frankly demeans the people the term was invented for i.e those who have had their legs blown off, seen someone killed in front of them, or almost dying themselves.

Fiona Hok
Fiona Hok
3 years ago
Reply to  Drahcir Nevarc

Do tell us more. He was dim, or unpleasant, or both?

patriciaendresrn
patriciaendresrn
3 years ago
Reply to  Jem Couture

The biggest problem with all of what they are doing is they constantly lie. There’s documented proof of 17 lies in Oprah interview alone. Many more besides that.
We have a society where if you are in a certain clique you can lie with impunity and still get validation and and people like you giving a pass is one of the most hideous thing to do. To lie about your family.
But they are wokerati so they not only get a pass, they get validation. The most toxic validation is receiving praise and / or sympathy for untruths and slanders.

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago

The trouble is it validates this behaviour in the wider community. Someone claims something is race cist -no matter how absurd or unlikely-watch the institutions jump through hoops. How attractive to those so minded to enjoy complaining & even being praised for their bravery-which President Biden actually did !

Colin Elliott
Colin Elliott
3 years ago

Lie=”their truth”

Dixie Hughes
Dixie Hughes
3 years ago
Reply to  Jem Couture

“H & M are simply people simply human beings with struggles and emotions of their own like all of us.”
No; “All of us,” usually handle those “struggles and emotions” privately.
H&M have an agenda, which is of benefit to themselves alone… 

Colin Elliott
Colin Elliott
3 years ago
Reply to  Jem Couture

They’d be a young couple if both were ten years younger.

Victoria Cooper
Victoria Cooper
3 years ago
Reply to  Jem Couture

Gleeful satisfaction indeed. They relish their moral outrage, enjoy the frisson of sneering at people and their blood quickens as a baying pack at a mob lynching. Their spite and vitriol is only matched by their narrow minded ignorance. Harry and Meghan (who are not faultless, who is?) are the victims and indeed a prized trophy of the cancel culture and identity politics put in motion by the likes of BLM.

Cheryl Jones
Cheryl Jones
3 years ago
Reply to  Jem Couture

No-one forces them to read the comments on social media by us plebs. Why do they need such validation? Could they be……. narcissists? Narcissism appears to at epidemic proportions with the accompanying lack of resilience in the face of criticism. The fact that Meggy was STILL going on about the crying saga TWO YEARS LATER tells something about her inability to shrug off minor issues. I’m amazed she survived the cesspool of Hollywood for so long frankly as she seems ill-equipped to cope emotionally with anything outside of her control, despite her protestations of being ‘strong and empowered’.

Albireo Double
Albireo Double
3 years ago
Reply to  Jem Couture

How absurd. How on earth can you say we know nothing about them?
There has been endless reporting (factual and fanciful) and endless garbage coming out of their own mouths on TV etc. I expect most on here know more about this couple than we know about some members of our own family.
l have heard enough from them in their own words to form an opinion, even before I look at any other reports. My opinion is that they are an utter disgrace to themselves and to the nation.
Strangely, the time I actually did “like” them and really rooted for them and wished them well, was before I knew much about them – when they got together and got engaged and married.
They have converted me to my current view – no one else has.

Albireo Double
Albireo Double
3 years ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

I saw the nicknames “Ginge and Cringe” somewhere. It felt about right, given their current behaviour.

Stephanie Surface
Stephanie Surface
3 years ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

I think he meant “Liberal” ( left wing) as the Americans use the word

Last edited 3 years ago by Stephanie Surface
Paul Marshall
Paul Marshall
3 years ago

Which of course does not mean “Liberal” at all

John Morris
John Morris
3 years ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

yes

Roger le Clercq
Roger le Clercq
3 years ago

Man up not grow up was the phrase used. Subtle yet distinct? Maybe.

Neil Kemsley
Neil Kemsley
3 years ago

Really? You know his father personally?

Fred Atkinstalk
Fred Atkinstalk
3 years ago
Reply to  Neil Kemsley

You might think that : I couldn’t possibly comment.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago

Because some adults are immature.

Colin Elliott
Colin Elliott
3 years ago

Are you th*ck? The meaning is clear; his mental maturity needs to catch up with his physical age.

Dixie Hughes
Dixie Hughes
3 years ago

Petulant toddlers do not get to command HM ships.
Prince Charles commanded HMS Bronnington, whilst fully under a media microscope; hardly a day went by when some crew member wasn’t approached by a reporter wanting to “dish the dirt.” None was found…

Fred Atkinstalk
Fred Atkinstalk
3 years ago
Reply to  Dixie Hughes

“Petulant toddlers do not get to command HM ships.”

They do if their surname is Windsor – though to be fair, he was under the watchful care of his second in command, according to an ex-navy friend of mine.

Dixie Hughes
Dixie Hughes
3 years ago

“By the nose”?
I fear she has a firm grip on those accoutrements, that someone else on here was recently censored for mentioning…

hugh bennett
hugh bennett
3 years ago

Narcissistic personality disorder is i understand a mental condition in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others. who might that fit ?
Borderline personality disorder I believe is linked with a trait for lying, although not pathological, who might that fit?
Of course there is the possibility of a person just being a bit thick and unthinking !!!

Alex Delszsen
Alex Delszsen
3 years ago

There is just no way that Meghan would have had no access to therapy, with Harry having received therapy, and with all her friends, such as Oprah, and her experience as a Californian.
I hate hearing how they nail everything to racism. Meghan was unhappy not being the star couple and the center of attention. Her threat of suicide could have been her way to get her way to get to California and a celebrity lifestyle. Younger people threaten suicide to get their way in relationships here in California quite often.
Finally, Meg and Harry moved to Therapy Central. It is the currency of this area. Harry is having the twenties, heavily therapized life stage of wealthy Californians, but nearly two decades later.
For what it’s worth, they have already brought their trauma into their children’s lives, especially keeping them growing up far from their cousins, let alone airing their trauma drama in such a public manner. I can’t imagine that family get togethers won’t be without strain that will not affect the children. Hopefully, they change their attitudes with real and good therapy, or religious insight, to get them out of their me-centered world.

Last edited 3 years ago by Alex Delszsen
Lee Floyd
Lee Floyd
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Delszsen

A nuanced comment, and welcome.

Ludo Roessen
Ludo Roessen
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Delszsen

Absolutely right… thought she could take over the show…. nope… William and Kate are the stars and that cannot be in her book hence the vitriol….

Jon Redman
Jon Redman
3 years ago
Reply to  Ludo Roessen

I think this is correct. Me-Again stuck around just long enough to notice who was second fiddle.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  Jon Redman

There are more holes in their ”Interview” than lammenthal….self pitying rich couple, 24./7 newsmedia will report garbage, I turn it off…Sooner talk to my cat

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago
Reply to  Robin Lambert

The irony that seems to have escaped Prince Harry is that he wished to escape being on show as a member of the royal family who represent their country. He is now on show with a group of people who have spent their lives trying to gain attention. He is only useful as long as they can share in the spotlight. As soon as the public get bored with listening to celebrity problems where can he go?

Simon Baseley
Simon Baseley
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Delszsen

Re your last paragraph, if you are right, and I think that you are, those of us who remain around to do so can look forward in twenty or so years time to seeing young Archie inviting us to share in his pain at an upbringing by an emotionally incontinent father and a narcissistic mother. 

chris carr
chris carr
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Baseley

There has already been (at least) one article imagining such a therapy session. It wasn’t smart and it wasn’t funny.
It is pitiable enough to see a man washing his dirty linen in public for money. For goodness sake let us leave the child out of it.

Simon Baseley
Simon Baseley
3 years ago
Reply to  chris carr

Yes, I agree, but it isn’t really we who are bringing the child into it, it’s Harry. He has cited what he regards as the shortcomings of his own upbringing as the guiding principles behind the way he raises Archie. It is he who has made his son a hostage to fortune.

DA Johnson
DA Johnson
3 years ago
Reply to  chris carr

This is a good insight that has rarely been mentioned– that Harry is “washing his dirty linen in public for money”. It seems unlikely that Harry and Megan were given those multi-million dollar contracts for their (untested) creative abilities, but very likely for their eager willingness to dish dirt on the Royal family, thus ensuring a large audience and the large revenue stream that follows. The supposed mistreatment by Charles and other family members has turned out to be a valuable meal ticket for the Sussexes.

Jos Haynes
Jos Haynes
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Delszsen

get-togethers? There won’t be any. I doubt if the pair will dare show their faces in the UK in years, if ever. We don’t want ’em back. Keep ’em, California!

Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Delszsen

Agreed, it is very strange that Meghan should suddenly develop suicidal depression aged 39, and on her third husband. Who believes her?

Tina D
Tina D
3 years ago
Reply to  Anna Bramwell

what the hell??? Are you serious? Suicide and depression is not related to age but the trauma one experiences. How strange. Maybe you’ve had a gifted life. This poor woman and what she endured from your vile media…really and truly..i can’t be stuffed anymore ..

Jem Couture
Jem Couture
3 years ago
Reply to  Tina D

Agreed. I always wonder where these hateful judges of good lives and order reside. Or is it an international tribunal of More Holy than Thou.

Kat L
Kat L
3 years ago
Reply to  Jem Couture

nah really they just need to be decent and stop lying. they want to lie low and disappear into their life of easy wealth that is fine with the rest of us. the problem is they won’t stop flapping their lips for attention.

Hilary Easton
Hilary Easton
3 years ago
Reply to  Tina D

Some of the British media is vile, for sure, but it is relatively easy to avoid it. All the time Meghan was in UK I never read or heard one word against her, it was all supportive and welcoming. That’s because I read reputable broadsheets, like the Guardian, Times, Telegraph, and websites like the Conversation and listen to reputable radio shows and podcasts.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  Hilary Easton

Considering BBC faked documents for Martin Bashir in November 1995, that is far more reprehensible ,getting Another troubled Woman, in intimate interview,to ditch dirt ,so beeb must be Punished,they covered up Bashir’s fake documents for 25 years!

Alex Delszsen
Alex Delszsen
3 years ago
Reply to  Hilary Easton

I also read the DM, and they too were supportive and doing the usual commenting on her Royal style. Take a look.

Tina D
Tina D
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Delszsen

DM? alternative reality…methinks.

andy thompson
andy thompson
3 years ago
Reply to  Hilary Easton

How can anyone use the words ‘Guardian’ and ‘Reputable’ in the same sentence?

Paul Rogers
Paul Rogers
3 years ago
Reply to  Tina D

I just wonder if you are aware of what Kate and her parents went through. It was harsher. Much.
Kate didn’t rise to it. She played her anxieties in private and the British respect her for it.

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago
Reply to  Paul Rogers

And yet Harry-who claims he is doing these programmes to raise awareness of mental health issues & how important it is to be considerate to each other-earlier was silent as his wife was really cruel to her new sister in law , a woman Harry has known longer than Meghan & is the mother of his son’s cousins?

Cheryl Jones
Cheryl Jones
3 years ago
Reply to  Tina D

What did she endure exactly? She had an easy ride of it! And as with all the wokeists claims of racism were vastly overblown and mostly self discovered (the Danny Baker saga comes to mind) and the British tabloids while bad are getting blamed for the antics of foreign publications and paparazzi

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago
Reply to  Tina D

I understand Harry blames his father ( in his 70’s) & grandparents ( in their 90’s) for not dealing with Meghan’s problems-not you notice Harry or Meghan’s own mother ( counseller & into yoga , relaxing methods etc)

Hilary Easton
Hilary Easton
3 years ago
Reply to  Anna Bramwell

Having failed at two marriages could well be a result of having serious mental issues like depression surely. A person with suicidal depression is very difficult to live with, no matter how caring you are. It’s not fun.

Alex Delszsen
Alex Delszsen
3 years ago
Reply to  Hilary Easton

I might cry, too, full of hormones, and finding they are useful to get my way where I can stop throwing myself into Harry’s side in London, but walk out in front, surrounded by all my celebrity friends, and bossing the chicken coop cleaner and other newly arrived migrants actually doing the work, while having fake appreciation for my millions and the title that I pretend that I am over (linked not ranked) over oat milk lattes and whatever else monetized venture before launching my presidential campaign/eventual drubbing out of Kate and William in some Woke Revolution coupled with position at the E.U. ;- ) Honestly, expect no end until grabbing the Triple Crown. (Is my best guess on the planning going on.)

Last edited 3 years ago by Alex Delszsen
Alan Osband
Alan Osband
3 years ago
Reply to  Anna Bramwell

Good grief is she that old ? Her Prince turned up just in time

Last edited 3 years ago by Alan Osband
kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago
Reply to  Alan Osband

Her age varies, apparently she was 4 years older just a few years ago ( when she gave interviews ) which would make her 44 now. Probably counts her age in actress years, they get to a certain point then stop. An actress I saw when I was at school ( and not in a juvenile role) is apparently now younger than I am

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago
Reply to  Anna Bramwell

Especially as Princess Diana allegedly tried to throw herself down the stairs while pregnant with William. Meghan knows every little last detail about Diana’s life-her friends say she had all the books and videos and was obsessed with her. She marries Diana’s son, gets clothes made that are copies of Diana’s , wears them at the same occasions & even behaves the same, is she the ghost of Diana (come back rather shorter and American? )-spooky!

Alan Thorpe
Alan Thorpe
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Delszsen

As Thomas Sowell says, if you want to eliminate racism, stop talking about it.

David Brown
David Brown
3 years ago
Reply to  Alan Thorpe

A contender for the title of Wisest Living American. But as he’s 90, possibly not for all that many more years alas.

Last edited 3 years ago by David Brown
Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  Alan Thorpe

& Morgan Freeman

SUSAN GRAHAM
SUSAN GRAHAM
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Delszsen

And he says he will protect his family from that ‘genetic pain’ and yet he is so dim that he can’t see that he has already inflicted such pain on his children. I say ‘his children’ as he is the only familial link. Being a parent doesn’t come with an instruction manual as he will find out, and to say he will not allow anything adverse to affect his children is infantile. He has no idea of what curve balls life will dish out – what will happen when Meghan dumps him for a more lucrative prospect? One thing is for sure – whatever life does hold in store, he doesn’t have the resilience to cope with it. His latest admissions to alcohol and substance abuse, for which his father got him into rehab – begs the question – was he rehabilitated, are there psychotic repercussions, has there been a relapse?

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Delszsen

And wasn’t it convenient that Megs suddenly became a ‘head case’ so that Harry could nuture her. It’s just disturbing all around.

Kat L
Kat L
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Delszsen

i’m sorry but at this point they both have been caught in so many lies and exaggerations that i cant hardly believe this was some nefarious scheme cooked up by the both of them(her really). clue: she never dropped her PR firm or moved her clothes out of storage. clue: moving to LA at the height of COVID infections there. Once they got the wedding and the titles(which they cling to for dear life) they knew they were going to hotfoot it out of there if the firm didn’t acquiesce to their demands for half the glamour but none of the actual work.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  Kat L

HM Queen offered her less Engagements & Should could keep her Acting career ( Not known if she would still get cast)) .She just wanted Wallis Simpson ”Wow A genuine Royal..’@ solution not reality .If you Want ‘Privacy” you do not move to Paparazzi capital of the world,LAngeles….or Sign up to do Spotify Podcasts

andy thompson
andy thompson
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Delszsen

And can you imagine for one moment Megan as ‘a proud woman of colour’ curtsying to a white sister in law?

peterdebarra
peterdebarra
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Delszsen

… so racialist – the London government spent only $30M on her Windsor wedding …

Cheryl Jones
Cheryl Jones
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Delszsen

I’ve been in a relationship with a narcissist who who used drama and histrionics to get his own way including throwing himself on a bed face down and crying and kicking like a toddler. He also threatened self harm more than once to keep me there, blaming me for his behaviour – I ‘didn’t love him enough’, I was ‘cold and heartless’ etc etc When you’re in it you know there’s something not right with them but they have you so discombobulated you think it must be your fault. When you finally wake up and see them for what they really are it is terrifying. The lies they tell are staggering. And they realise straight away when they no longer have you in their thrall and they cut you off without a 2nd thought. And trust me, be glad when they do. I thought at first Meghan was the narc. Now I think they might be 2 disordered co-dependent people with matching sets of neuroses wallowing in their self-created victimhood drama which is why it has escalated to such extremes..

Kevin Thomas
Kevin Thomas
3 years ago

How many “revelations” has he made now? It looks to me like what he and his wife are doing is rationing the gossip out, morsel by morsel, to keep people interested. That suggests they’re being coached and maybe someone should look into this Omid Scobie character who seems to be deeply involved with them. I never had much sympathy for either of them – self pitying celebrity multimillionaire is not a good look – but what Harry is doing now is vile. He is publicly throwing his family under the bus while they are still grieving the recent loss of his grandfather. We all could make criticisms of our upbringing but unless you were actually molested, I think this is a pretty disgusting way to treat your own flesh and blood. I hope they take away his titles, his privileges and his inheritance.

Last edited 3 years ago by Kevin Thomas
Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
3 years ago
Reply to  Kevin Thomas

I completely agree. I think most people get to adulthood with some kind of qualm about something their parents did in their upbringing. But at the end of the day, in most cases, our parents were just imperfect people doing their best. And we grow up into imperfect people doing our best for our kids, and so on. That isn’t “genetic suffering”…it’s simply living life.

Last edited 3 years ago by Katharine Eyre
Kathryn Richards
Kathryn Richards
3 years ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

 at the end of the day, in most cases, our parents were just imperfect people doing their best. And we grow up into imperfect people doing our best for our kids, and so on. That isn’t “genetic suffering”…it’s simply living life.
Perfectly put, about us imperfect beings.

Liz Walsh
Liz Walsh
3 years ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Whether royalty or not, gifted or not, all parents will always be amateurs.

Helen Barbara Doyle
Helen Barbara Doyle
3 years ago
Reply to  Kevin Thomas

You said it all perfectly

David Brown
David Brown
3 years ago
Reply to  Kevin Thomas

You have to have some sympathy for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, for the way the privacy we were told they valued so highly is so frequently compromised by Harry and Meghan.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  Kevin Thomas

I think £30million trust fund is his to booze &pi*** away ..I think William may take away his titles similar to ,George vI did to Edward v111 in 1936/?

Frances Frances
Frances Frances
3 years ago
Reply to  Kevin Thomas

Totally agree. Back in the day when we were bringing up the offsprings, there was a “guru” out there who advocated total immersion in the offspring’s life (beginning with – as I recall – flashcards shortly after birth). Fortunately I did not encounter this received wisdom until, by said guru’s standards, it was too late (first offspring was six weeks old); I had ruined the child. My reaction was to go with my instincts with that one and subsequent offsprings and – every morning – recite the mantra: “Kids, you have as good a pair or parents as you deserve, and probably better. Be grateful.”. Then I went on with my day. They are now all great adults.
That being said, I am sorry for the royals that this is happening. Even at her unhappiest, Diana always said that Charles was a good father.

Simon Baseley
Simon Baseley
3 years ago
Reply to  Kevin Thomas

Lots more to come, Kevin. “My grandfather made me kill animals, see pages 8,9,10 and 11”. “Harry’s army hell! “The chaps were okay, but my CO didn’t offer any support”. “Megan and Harry’s tantric love fest”. Should be at least a couple of million to be had from that lot.

Jake Jackson
Jake Jackson
3 years ago
Reply to  Kevin Thomas

The only thing less appealing than life as a Royal Christmas Tree Ornament is life as an American Cable TV Professional Victim.

Mike Boosh
Mike Boosh
3 years ago

Whatever happened to the stiff upper lip? It’s sad that his mum died but he’s 36! I’m getting pretty sick of hearing how a man who’s spent his life living in palaces has “suffered”.

James Chater
James Chater
3 years ago
Reply to  Mike Boosh

He is lucky, yes, he hasn’t experienced, as millions have done and do, material deprivation, together with emotional deprivation.
The break up of any marriage will always scar children. But, then losing one parent too… That would hurt most of us, certainly temporarily, if not forever.
Agreed, maybe he should’t be kind of, capitalising on it now, though.

Last edited 3 years ago by James Chater
Niobe Hunter
Niobe Hunter
3 years ago
Reply to  James Chater

A friend of mine’s father died when he was 12. His headmaster refused to give him permission to miss school to attend the funeral: not much support for misery there. He however managed to get a university education when only 5% of people did, to succeed in his professional life, and to have a long and happy marriage. He did not have much money when growing up ( understatement), he worked through the university vacations to help to finance himself.
Harry should be ashamed of himself . He has literally no idea of how the loss of a parent impacts on most people, not just on their emotional, but on their financial and social well being.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
3 years ago
Reply to  Niobe Hunter

You mean a parent who was never there except in the tabloids being photographed with men who were not his father

Kathryn Richards
Kathryn Richards
3 years ago
Reply to  James Chater

I actually don’t believe he experienced emotional deprivation. If accounts are to be believed, his grandmother made sure he had his fair share.

Allie McBeth
Allie McBeth
3 years ago

And his grandfather

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
3 years ago
Reply to  Mike Boosh

Amen to that

Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
3 years ago
Reply to  Mike Boosh

This entire disgusting Harry and Megan thing has revealed just how BAD a force Opra is, how she, under the guise of good and wise mentor, is in fact one of the world’s great Haters. She is all which is wrong in the MSM. Everything she does is to cause more problems in society.

Kat L
Kat L
3 years ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

i don’t like oprah for a variety of reasons however, there was a reason she was invited to the wedding even though she had never met the bride. who really couldn’t see all of this coming from a mile away?

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago
Reply to  Kat L

As a journalist says today ‘Oprah…tickling the lovely royal trout she landed a long, long time ago’-which suggests some people are realizing that Meghan was part of a general plan. Their political aim is to destroy western capitalism and replace it with a new form of feudalism in which they are the top layer. Trump’s 2016 election delayed their plan for a few years but its in full mode again. Obviously if they can bring down the British monarchy this will be a ‘feather in their cap’. Harry is the Edmund character from King Lear happy to destroy his own family.

John Lewis
John Lewis
3 years ago

For all the anger and disgust about Martin Bashir (he forged those bank statements for heavens sake rather than the weasel worded “mocked them up”) and the Saville-like failure of the Tony Hall inspired bbc to acknowledge let alone act on the blatant deception don’t forget that while Harry’s mother was in no small part deceived into granting the interview she then proceeded to deliver a truly historic and calculated tell-all performance.

Her son now shows every sign of welcoming if not positively seeking endless future opportunities to proclaim his unlikely victimhood to the world.

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago
Reply to  John Lewis

It seems that the more successful a person is the more they are isolated and prey to charletons-the royal family’s ancestors were prey to Rasputin.The new person wishes to further isolate their victim and make them suspicious ie the phony bank details which convinced Princess Diana. Harry has unwittingly self diagnosed his problem and Peter Hitchens is right again. Someone from the palace supplied Harry then gave the subsequent stories to the press. Taking the substance can be a problem if the person already has a tendency to paranoia ( which it seems he may have inherited from his mother) and can lead to uncontrolled behaviour such as anger or exhibitionism. Harry was obviously so well known that he seems to have fallen prey to another group who wish to control him. If the rumours about his new wife’s mother are correct he ( and possibly his wife) are being controlled. Looking at any photos of them they have the expressionless face & over bright eyes supposedly characteristic of this problem. It would also explain why it was necessary to both isolate geographically from Harry’s own family but also from everyone in his wife’s family-bar one.

Suzy O'Shea
Suzy O'Shea
3 years ago
Reply to  kathleen carr

Please elaborate on the rumours of the non-royal mother-n-law’s influence or give me pointers where I can find more info ?

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago
Reply to  Suzy O'Shea

On quite a few American sites , they refer to the years when M’s father looked after her as her mother was ‘away’.Obviously I don’t know if these allegations were malicious , but Mr & former Mrs Markle were on seeming good terms until Harry came on the scene. Then suddenly father cut out , when Harry would visit M & her mother ( only) in a house in LA it seems they have something they don’t want contradicted. As far as I understand M’s father used all his winnings to pay for M’s education & this together with his contacts in TV business,plus his brother who was an ambassador gave her intern experience helped her in her career , which she acknowledged many times previous to meeting Harry.-so seems strange to totally cut off both sides family except her mother who ( if rumours were true) would be the last person you would want at a royal wedding.

Eleanor Barlow
Eleanor Barlow
3 years ago
Reply to  John Lewis

‘……while Harry’s mother was in no small part deceived into granting the interview she then proceeded to deliver a truly historic and calculated tell-all performance.’

I think Diana was justified in doing what she did. Charles conducted an affair for virtually the whole of his marriage, it was not what she signed up for. So she used her celebrity to blacken his reputation. Understandable, and what most of us might do if in the same situation.
Harry’s situation is completely different. He has no good reason for washing the family’s dirty linen in public.

mike otter
mike otter
3 years ago
Reply to  Eleanor Barlow

She was a courtesan who signed up to be a brood mare, and it seems she was pretty poor at both.

Penny Gallagher
Penny Gallagher
3 years ago
Reply to  mike otter

Courtesan! She was practically straight out of school when she was conned into marrying him, as they wanted an innocent virgin to keep the line pure. Fine except that he was carrying on with a married woman from the day of the wedding onwards, a cruel deception which wont be forgotten. And I think in producing William at least, she did her job admirably. 1 out of 2 ain’t bad and all any of us can hope for!

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
3 years ago

For what it is worth a sister of one of my former colleagues was at school with PD. As he told it, there were two separate circles at the school, the titled and the non-titled. Amongst the titled circle the target was to bag a royal. Prince Andrew was the the number one target. You suspect that PD thought she’d hit the jackpot when shew cornered PC.
So you can see why he might have looked elsewhere, although, as far as I can tell, adultery has always been the prerogative of senor royals (different rules and all that). PD would have known and expected it and was probably glad to be rid of one royal duty at least.

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago

As I understand it the marriage was arranged between the two grandmothers-who were good friends, who obviously thought it would be a lovely idea-without it seems knowing anything about two people involved.Despite her upbring Princess Diana always seemed a sloane ranger-happiest in town wheras Prince Charles is more of a country person. Taking the age difference & the fact they have no interests in common ,into account, not the greatest matchmakers were they?

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
3 years ago
Reply to  kathleen carr

You do not need 20/20 hindsight to see that marrying PC was not something anyone would do because of his personal attributes

Frances Frances
Frances Frances
3 years ago
Reply to  kathleen carr

Which grannies “arranged” this? Both Prince Philip’s and Earl Spencer’s mothers died in the 1969 and 1972 respectively, so that leaves the Queen Mum and Lady Fermoy (maternal grandmother to Diana). And reports had it early on (the Andrew Morton biog) that Lady Fermoy was openly agin the marriage. “The Crown” had it backwards.

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago

I did say as I understood it , it was the 2 women you mentioned. The girl chosen had to have no background ie boyfriends , so very young & Charles had dated her sister. They obviously had a ‘list’ & went through them. The fault was Charles & royal family not letting him marry Camilla. As Prince Philip was thought highly unsuitable , but the ( then Princess Elizabeth) insisted bit cheek objecting to Camilla.

Kathryn Richards
Kathryn Richards
3 years ago
Reply to  Eleanor Barlow

I do wonder how different Diana’s interview would have been had she not been deceived into believing the ‘firm, and Charles’ were out to get her.
The letter saying she was not coerced into giving the interview is downright weird. It is as though it had been dictated by Bashir.

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago

Apparently she initially thought the interview was going to be about her charity work.Showing her these false documents made her feel justified in taking public revenge. Only later did she realise she had caused pain to herself and her sons.As the BBC is a major institution it was reasonable for her to believe what she was told.

chris carr
chris carr
3 years ago
Reply to  Eleanor Barlow

she used her celebrity to blacken his reputation. Understandable, and what most of us might do if in the same situation.”
Most of us don’t have the celebrity, but it’s true that most of us have given in to moments of anger and spite. Have caused hurt and even wished to hurt. Does that make it useful or decent?

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago
Reply to  chris carr

Her step-mother Raine -said Diana was a big fan of Barbara Cartland ( Raine’s mother) stories. I wondered if she thought after the interview Charles would come rushing back to her , beg her forgiveness & happiness achieved? Most women know that a man can’t bear to see them in tears and it makes the man upset & angry.( Meghan seems to play that game on Harry.) Of course it had the opposite affect-the Queen ordered them to divorce

Susannah Baring Tait
Susannah Baring Tait
3 years ago
Reply to  kathleen carr

I seem to remember they called her ‘acid rain’.

Claire D
Claire D
3 years ago
Reply to  Eleanor Barlow

“I think Diana was justified in doing what she did.”
Alternatively, if Diana had maintained a discrete silence on the subject of her marriage she might well be still alive today.

peterdebarra
peterdebarra
3 years ago
Reply to  Claire D

… having deliberately shed professional, legitimate protection she was driven — by a drunk driver — at speed into a sordid Paris tunnel from which, sadly, she did not emerge intact.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
3 years ago
Reply to  Eleanor Barlow

For what it is worth a sister of one of my former colleagues was at school with PD. As he told it, there were two separate circles at the school, the titled and the non-titled. Amongst the titled circle the target was to bag a royal. Prince Andrew was the the number one target. You suspect that PD thought she’d hit the jackpot when shew cornered PC.
So you can see why he might have looked elsewhere, although, as far as I can tell, adultery has always been the prerogative of senor royals (different rules and all that). PD would have known and expected it and was probably glad to be rid of one royal duty at least.

Kat L
Kat L
3 years ago
Reply to  Eleanor Barlow

i read somewhere that she regretted it bitterly later. once you do that it can never be undone. even if he was cheating, i wouldn’t do that in public; what would it say about me as a good wife?

Frances Frances
Frances Frances
3 years ago
Reply to  Kat L

Have read that both realized before the wedding that they were not that well suited, but neither felt could back out. Has Prince Charles reneged, he would have been “nailed to the Cross” by the media who were very loudly promoting young Diana as the perfect potential princess. And as for Diana, when she expressed doubts, her sisters apparently said “Bad luck Dutch. Your face is on the tea-towels so you’re too late to chicken out now.”

Claire D
Claire D
3 years ago
Reply to  Eleanor Barlow

“I think Diana was justified in what she did.”

On the other hand if she had maintained a discrete silence the press would have been less excited by her and she might still be alive today.
(This is a repeat, slightly altered, of a previous comment.)

Ana Cronin
Ana Cronin
3 years ago
Reply to  John Lewis

and she gave permission to her friends to speak to Andrew Morton re his book.

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
3 years ago

Harry’s whinging and my sympathy for him are inversely proportional. You can’t move these days for some kind of headline à la “[Celebrity X] opens up to [interviewer Y] about [issue Z]”. It’s become so banal.
How about staying silent on something? Keeping private and public life separate? Raising awareness about certain issues without drenching us with therapy speak? Now that would be truly radical.

Last edited 3 years ago by Katharine Eyre
Ludo Roessen
Ludo Roessen
3 years ago

I get sick and tired with celebs hijacking the whole mental health issue. They have done a great job to make it all about them… Governments all around the west have ignored many issues involving this over the years and now they seem to woken up to it, these vultures come around, yes they are vultures, to pick the meat off. Same with this one and his wife and at the same time preaching compassion whilst throwing their own family under the bus. I have nothing other than contempt for these people….

Last edited 3 years ago by Ludo Roessen
Nigel H
Nigel H
3 years ago

All the family crisis stuff is one thing, and we feel sorry for him about it. But then again, more kids go through worse, and without effectively bottomless pockets of cash on hand to soothe fevered brows. He could afford to, and probably indeed should have, had more/better therapy.
But to start making critical comments on the First Amendment, something Americans, and indeed a concept many others hold onto dearly – admitting he doesn’t fully understand it, at 36! displays not only a shameful lack of knowledge, but almost downright stupidity to me.
Contrast that with William’s statement on Bashir’s efforts yesterday, they are chalk and cheese. 

Helen Barbara Doyle
Helen Barbara Doyle
3 years ago
Reply to  Nigel H

William spoke very well, he will be a good king when his time comes. Harry is plain jealous, being the spare is not a bed of roses. All this is just him trying to destroy the monarchy, if Harry and Meghan can’t have it no one can.
I reckon it was Kate having a third which pushed Harry further down the line that sparked all the problems. It brought it home to Meghan she was never going to be Queen. Up to then I think she thought Harry would inherit the throne from William.

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago

Harry does seem to have promised Meghan something-that William wanted to opt out and H & M would eventually become monarchs? Her attitude towards the Queen’s extraordinary kindness towards her just seems one of entitlement-she put a rug over me , she gave me jewellery etc pretty rude way to talk about any old lady but about probably the most famous old lady in the world is arrogance itself.As Harry is just basically one of 7 grandchildren who are of no dynastic significance he seems to believe he is more important than he is. Imagine if Zara Phillips or one of the others started behaving in this manner?

johngsymes
johngsymes
3 years ago
Reply to  kathleen carr

Zara Phillips just gets on with real life.Harry and Megan just get on with showbiz – the perpetual Oprah show they consider life.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  johngsymes

Thats Princess Anne’s influence,?like her father she values Normality (she didn’t give HRH to her two Children,made sure they weren’t estranged from their father,refused Police escorts for her Children) and Pours Scorn on Climate bilge…((especially by Charles,her brother)

Last edited 3 years ago by Robin Lambert
Frances Frances
Frances Frances
3 years ago
Reply to  Robin Lambert

Robin – what are you talking about? When Princess Margaret married Anthony Armstrong-Jones, he did take a title for the sake of his children. However, is there any indication Mark Phillips wanted a title? Perhaps he agreed with Anne that this was not the road they wished to travel. Estrangement – don’t know what you’re talking about there, but the children were both of an age to decide when and how to communicate with both parents when the final split happened.

Last edited 3 years ago by Frances Frances
Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago

Cloth ears…Princess Anne did NOT burden her offspring with HRH titles or police Protection (Even after her 1974 Kidnap attempt by Gunfire in the mall)I haven’t talked about Anthony Armstrong Jones or princess margaret…

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago
Reply to  johngsymes

Thats also the unfairness of public perception. On the same day Diana died , so did Mother Teresa , who of course devoted her life to charity,but who gets the most attention? Similarly I would think Princess Anne actually spent more time on charities than Princess Diana but the press prefer someone who is more ‘showy’.

James Newman
James Newman
3 years ago

Yup, too much Disney.

Suzy O'Shea
Suzy O'Shea
3 years ago
Reply to  Nigel H

Nigel H

Totally agree with all your comments about harry. The boy has not even the mental acuity of an ant. For even they know not to attack their family.

Disagree on Martin Bashir though. Part of a campaign to whitewash the very mad and immoral behaviour of Princess Diana in her man-chasing hobby. She wanted to give that interview to Martin Bashir as revenge against Charles’s own earlier interview with Dimbleby. So there were three of them in that marriage were there? She obviously was not counting all of her lovers otherwise you could have more than doubled that figure.

Regarding Hewitt, to whom Harry bears a striking resemblance, perhaps your source for the chalk and cheese difference between the two brothers lies there. I’m sure the Palace’s medical staff did DNA matching at the time of his birth, but then he would not be the first cuckoo to have been raised in a royal nest.

And Charles repudiating Diana after the birth of the second son most certainly would not have looked well for the house of Windsor, especially given his own straying past with Camilla.

Last edited 3 years ago by Suzy O'Shea
Kathryn Richards
Kathryn Richards
3 years ago
Reply to  Suzy O'Shea

Hewitt didn’t meet Diana until after Harry was born (easily verifiable). Harry bears no resemblance to him other than the colour of his hair (a Spencer trait)
In fact Harry now looks more like Charles than William does.
But please don’t let facts get in the way.

Penny Gallagher
Penny Gallagher
3 years ago

He also looks very like Prince Philip in his youth, I actually thought one of the photos was of Harry by mistake.

Lindsay Gatward
Lindsay Gatward
3 years ago

There is rather ironic information that the Queen, in order for Diana to fit in with the very horse oriented Royal Family, decided Diana should learn to ride and have private riding lessons away from London to avoid adverse comment on her progress or lack thereof by the ‘family’. Hewitt was selected as a friendly cavalry officer who could give these lessons discreetly at riding stables where his mother lived. These lessons coincided with Diana’s pregnancy and at a time when Charles had schedules elsewhere. (It was probably great fun for them enjoying the prime directive in spite of responsibilities or maybe extra frisson because of them!) – Anyway if Harry knows his father is Hewitt it is extra reason to explain his total loss of self belief and adoption of subservience – Harry had so many delicious choices while seeking a bride a bit like his mother, as so many do, but sadly managed to get hooked by one where his mothers faults are magnified to infinity?

Kat L
Kat L
3 years ago

he doesn’t look anything like him or his mother…that only leaves….?

Ana Cronin
Ana Cronin
3 years ago

Hewitt himself has confirmed he was in a relationship with Diana 18 mths before Harry’s birth

Kat L
Kat L
3 years ago
Reply to  Ana Cronin

so what? he doesn’t look anything like him, he does however look an exact replica of charles.

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago

However if Diana could be shown false documents and believe them , why not Harry?

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago
Reply to  kathleen carr

Wonder how many political decisions are also based on ‘dodgy dossiers’? People who have the money and contacts to get numerous opinions seem instead to rely on the same small group , as we are seeing at the moment with sage. Is there something in the British class system that makes them too trusting of each other-‘he’s my mate’ ‘he’s one of us’ -so he can’t also be a complete manipulative charlaton?

Fiona Hok
Fiona Hok
3 years ago

And Hewitt was a dead ringer for Earl Spencer in his youth. Diana went for someone like her father.

chris carr
chris carr
3 years ago
Reply to  Nigel H

“All the family crisis stuff is one thing, and we feel sorry for him about it.”
I don’t.
I went to a minor public school that I was not suited for. It was a mistake. A very generous mistake by my parents. The costs limited, for example, their chance of a better car or of choosing the more expensive items in restaurants. They made the best choice they could with the information they had. What else can we do?
This prince is making a fool of himself and I am sorry for that, but not for “family crisis stuff” with adolescent whinge. Been there, done that, don’t want the t-shirt. Don’t like the instant cringe to adolescent whining.
PS: Is “better therapy” not an oxymoron?

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  Nigel H

And Cain slew Abel and dwelt in the land of nod ..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Jake Jackson
Jake Jackson
3 years ago
Reply to  Nigel H

I have to say, as an American, that Hankus angered (as opposed to amused) me only once — when he disparaged the first amendment. Good thing he didn’t happen to do that on my acreage in the countryside, because I just might have been tempted to introduce him to the second. Yeah, yeah, a glaring contradiction right out of Monty Python, but I’m not a machine. So I screwed up and shot a royal for freely speaking against free speech? As hypocrisy goes, I’ll take it. LOL

Andy Yorks
Andy Yorks
3 years ago

“Who destroyed Prince Harry ?” Himself.

iambetsytrotwood
iambetsytrotwood
3 years ago
Reply to  Andy Yorks

Just like his late Mother. V sad.

Last edited 3 years ago by iambetsytrotwood
Kathryn Richards
Kathryn Richards
3 years ago

I am sick of hearing how losing his mother at a young age, and having to walk behind the coffin at the age of 12 has scarred him for life.
I wonder how the children in Syria, Yemen, and every war torn country, cope with seeing one of their parents killed, and then seeing them buried.
I do understand that living in luxury does not insulate anyone from trauma and depression, but this public denunciation of people who obviously do love him (plenty of photos of him with various members of his family over the years) and in particular his brother is obscene.

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago

He is not a good advert for ‘talking helps’ therapy is he? My father’s mother died when he was ten, he never talked about her. I once watched a television show where the audience had all suffered a bereavement , it quickly turned into a keeping up with the Jones , ‘my daughter died’ ‘both my daughters died’ etc. I wonder if Harry knows how he feels about his mother , he has talked about her so much?

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
3 years ago

Point of information. Late Tsarist attempts to introduce private ownership into the peasant communes did not – repeat not – “fail miserably”. What wrong-headed histories have you been reading? Why do you imagine there were so many “kulaks” for Stalin to murder had not the Stolypin reforms had some effect? Why do you imagine that the Tsarists had solved famine before the first war – only to see the Reds reintroduce it on a genocidal scale? Why do you imagine that Tsarist Russia could supply its own grain by the same point? How do you think they managed to export butter to the west? Why was the Rouble the strongest currency in Europe? Why was the Tsarist state the fourth largest economy in the world? Why, by 1916, were they producing enough shells to sustain a world conflict? Why by the same date did they have both Ottoman Turkey and Austria Hungary on the run? Don’t peddle these stupid, socialist myths and lies if you want to be taken seriously.

James Chater
James Chater
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

But the Bolsheviks must have had a deep ‘fertile soil’ on which to sow their seeds. There wouldn’t have been a revolution otherwise, surely.
‘Tinkering’ was never going to be enough. Murdering the Romanovs though, was a crime of monstrous deranged proportions.

Last edited 3 years ago by James Chater
Simon Denis
Simon Denis
3 years ago
Reply to  James Chater

As always, in the cities. And not a majority. Even in the turmoil of the revolution and the war, they got just a quarter of the seats in the constituent assembly, which they promptly broke up. True, the peasants took land from the larger landowners as a result of the revolutions – February and October – but, like the French of 1789, their aim was to become owners themselves – simply of smaller plots. To that extent, Stolypin had changed the “commune” driven culture which had held them – and Russian agriculture – back. The really fertile soil for “revolution” – an incoherent concept in any case – was the intelligentsia, increasingly captured by an angry dogmatism from the 1820s on – witness Dostoevsky, Chekhov, Turgenev, all of whom testify to the self-radicalising “group think” of this parcel of rogues. It was from among these fantasists and narcissists that the sadistic ambition to “start society all over again” was born. Otherwise, the disruptions and sufferings of the war brought the Bolshevik’s chance. Without such strains, the Tsarist state stood every chance of a long and glorious future – democratic, too, as the reforms of 1905 had developed a momentum of their own.

Last edited 3 years ago by Simon Denis
James Chater
James Chater
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

Thank you for the informative response. I need to revise deeper. Richard Pipes and Orlando Figes?

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
3 years ago
Reply to  James Chater

Pipes, Pipes, Pipes! And Robert Service – biographies of the three major Bolsheviks; also Donald Rayfield – “Stalin and his Hangmen” – and Geoffrey Hosking, “Russia, People and Empire”. Figes is ghastly. He anonymously badmouthed Service a few years ago; quite why is a mystery, unless it was political. He routinely demonstrates the usual left-liberal weakness towards the hard left. Start with Pipes’ masterly “Russia under the Old Regime” and Hosking’s history of Russia from 1557 to 1917. These give the deep background. Leonard Schapiro’s “Russian Studies”, probably out of print but wonderful, is another source of useful information. The diaries of Paleologue are an excellent eye-witness account of the period leading up to the crisis of 17 and Joseph Noullens, French ambassador to Kerensky’s regime, is even better – he was a more serious sort of man than his predecessor. Sadly, Sir George Buchanan, our man in Petrograd, was little more than a stuffed shirt and his memoirs show it. More recently, McMeekin’s “Russian Revolution” is a gripping read – punchy, principled and unanswerable. Dostoyevsky’s “The Devils” or “The Possessed” is haunting – prefigures all the insights of Orwell in “84”. For my money, Magashak’s translation is the most readable. Hope this is enough to be going on with.

Bill W
Bill W
3 years ago
Reply to  James Chater

”the Bolsheviks must have had a ‘fertile soil’ on which to sow their seeds.”: I am not sure there has to be “fertile soil” in order for committed revolutionaries to overthrow the existing regime.

Jon Redman
Jon Redman
3 years ago
Reply to  Bill W

Aspiring revolutionaries tend to oppose reform because it makes revolution less feasible. The last thing the French revolutionaries or the Bolsheviks wanted was for the lives of the proles to improve under the existing regime.
They were all middle class themselves anyway.

Bill W
Bill W
3 years ago
Reply to  Jon Redman

Ages ago, I was taught reform, in a ore revolutionary situation, was very dangerous because it accelerated the process of rising unfulfillable expectations.

Jake Jackson
Jake Jackson
3 years ago
Reply to  Bill W

That is exactly what happened in America in the 1960s.

Suzy O'Shea
Suzy O'Shea
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

Simon Denis: Thank you for your contribution, which is well-informed. If private ownership did not exist in the country, how could the Russian nobility lay claim to their estates. So the author’s stance is silly in the extreme.

David K. Warner
David K. Warner
3 years ago

There is no mystery here. Archetypal posh twit turns out to be a twit, to the surprise of no one.
The ‘Harry Formerly Known as Prince’ does not require psychotherapy or the indulgence of flatterers. What he requires, like his Hanoverian forbears, is to be subject to the piercing scrutiny of a Gillray print, and thereby be exposed to a differing view of himself as to the one he has constructed out of his vastly overpriced self-validation.
Still, if he wants to vent his soul in public even further, I hear his mum’s old mucker (at least according to him), Martin Bashir, is on the rock’n’roll after recently leaving his post as BBC religious affairs editor, so perhaps they can put together a sequel to old Mart’s money making (for him at least) 1995 blockbuster, which, it now appears, was partly based upon works of fiction. Tony Hall might be able to arrange it, as he may well soon have more time on his hands as well.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago

or Cruikshank or Hogarth,Gillray all top satirists &Artists/ Cartoonist

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago
Reply to  Robin Lambert

They would have had Bashir weeping ( actually they would have been much ruder ) golden coins as he blubs ;But I loved Diana’.with fake bank statement littering the floor, one of which he is using to wipe his eyes.The various DGs and editors would be tip-toeing out of the room.

chris carr
chris carr
3 years ago

“The wisest advice anyone could give him would be to avoid the media as much as possible, never say anything about his relationship with his family, not mention political subjects and instead concentrate on uncontroversial good causes.” Disastrous advice from the financial point of view. How would he get the millions he and Megan and little whatshisname need?
“No one ever says: “I’ve decided I’m now X or doing Y or living with Z but I don’t particularly want to talk about it and don’t expect anyone else to go along with it.” Millions of us say that, we just don’t say it on television.

Tiny C
Tiny C
3 years ago
Reply to  chris carr

Reality TV is all about giving people lots of money to talk about themselves. Why shouldn’t Harry do the same?

chris carr
chris carr
3 years ago
Reply to  Tiny C

No reason at all, so long as it’s all about money.
Who watches reality TV?

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago
Reply to  Tiny C

He already had lots of money and he isn’t talking about himself , he is talking about the Royal Family. He isn’t famous for himself but the family he was born into-which he is now exploiting as people are curious about their private lives. Hopefully he didn’t set up any secret cameras-‘look heres a sweet picture of granny taking her bath’- wouldn’t put it past him-if the price is right.

Peter Ian Staker
Peter Ian Staker
3 years ago

‘Journalists tend to have chaotic personal lives filled with debt, disastrous relationships and a desperate need for popularity, which is why you should never let them near the levers of power.’
Remind me what the PM did before politics?
It is not just the audience that pushes him, it is Meghan who thinks this is a healthy way to deal with issues and conveniently keeps them in the spotlight, making money.

Suzy O'Shea
Suzy O'Shea
3 years ago

Peter Ian Staker.

Exactly!

That man of no morals and no character, Blo Jo, Boris Johnson, should never have been chosen as leader of the Conservative party.

Only the extremism of the Brexit mob, wishing to hide away their fortunes in off-shore tax-havens, soon to be outlawed in the EU, facilitated this disgraceful debacle! The Conservative party has now forever covered itself in ignomy for its selfish greed!

Simon Baggley
Simon Baggley
3 years ago
Reply to  Suzy O'Shea

Damn forgot all about my off-shore tax haven – I’m sure the millions who voted to Leave the EU gave it alot of thought

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Baggley

Yes I’m sure my overdraft would get me a better rate of return placed in a cayman islands account. Boris was chosen as he is good at stunts-zip wire etc that get people’s attention. The ‘get brexit done’ was basically an ad ( thanks Mr Cummings) which had no substance to it. We presumed it meant something , it didn’t , it meant give me a massive majority & I will carry out my sponsor’s plans.That his sponsor has no interest in uk doesn’t worry him, as he is a journalist-who have their feeling surgically removed before they can start work.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
3 years ago
Reply to  Suzy O'Shea

“The greed of the Patrician Class and the savage impulse of the masses.”

Lindsay Gatward
Lindsay Gatward
3 years ago
Reply to  Suzy O'Shea

Looking ever more likely it is the EU which will be outlawed or disbanded or civil wared what with Schengen being abandoned and the Euro etc etc – Separately it looks so obvious that BoJo jumped on the Brexit bandwagon as an opportunist way to become PM and would have done but for Gove. Farage gave him another chance when May was humiliated at the local and EU elections.

Sue Sims
Sue Sims
3 years ago

Oh, I think that Ed West chose his words very carefully here!

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago

Harry’s a grown man. He walks a path of his own choosing. Let’s not rob him of agency by asking who else might be responsible. It is likely that in a pre-social age, none of this would be occurring. Harry would not believe his own BS or get the rock star treatment or find himself entangled with a B-list actress whose most discernible talent appears to be marinated in imagined victimhood.
William seems to have avoided the need for ongoing self-indulgence and “look at me” antics. Perhaps it’s his place in the succession line, perhaps it’s growing up and finding a partner who keeps him level-headed, maybe it’s just differences in personality. For all we know, Harry just wants to matter and since his odds of the throne are almost non-existent, he seeks attention in other ways.

Zap Zenn
Zap Zenn
3 years ago

He’s blinded by social science and seems unaware of the power he is dealing with. “Fish don’t see the water”. A photo opportunity is not the same as living a lifestyle. Living in the shadow of your older brother does not compare well with living in the shadow of eviction for non payment of rent. These thoughts pester me when the privileged start seeking my sympathy. Get real.

Simon Baseley
Simon Baseley
3 years ago

We all know that at some point in the future, quite probably when the pair of them have wrested as much money as they can from Harry’s apparently tragic background and his spouse’s suicidal thoughts and the corporate sponsors have exhausted this particular seam of riches, they will have to deal with each other. Once or twice, it may have occurred to Megan that her husband is a bit thick. Conversely Harry may have had his own feelings that his wife is a little selfish. In the early part of any relationship when things are very wonderful and intense and especially if there is a sense of unity inspired by perceived opposition, the tendency is for couples to ignore the other’s modest defects. If the relationship is strong and founded on mutual respect, good manners and a shared purpose, these apparent shortcomings are surmountable. If not, those dormant criticisms emerge and provide seeds for disharmony and discontentment. In the case of H&M the question is which do we think is the more likely outcome?

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Baseley

I wonder when he’ll come across her Diana collection and realise they didn’t meet by accident ? That rather than get away from that mob he saw on the day of his mother’s funeral ‘who didn’t know her’ he’s married one of Diana’s biggest fans?

Fred Atkinstalk
Fred Atkinstalk
3 years ago

What do we want from the royals? From the monarch, we want a competent head of state, preferably one who carries out those duties without gaffes or causing international incident. To be fair, HM the Q seems to do that pretty well. Anything beyond that is probably the public looking for amusement at a freak show, because we should all know that because of their peculiar living circumstances, they are not ‘normal’ people, and we (the plebs) should not really expect to judge them by our standards, nor to look to them for role models, and they (the nobs) should not expect sympathy for their perceived woes.

I don’t think the Queen, or Prince Phillip, or Charles, or Diana, were particularly good parents. I don’t even think that they were good parents for their circumstances, but that is their, and their children’s problem. I don’t really care much, as long as I don’t have to admire their personal qualities or be moved by their traumas. They are no more meaningful to people like me than the cast of any other soap opera (and about as realistic as The Archers.) If Harry thinks that his antics are going to earn him admiration or true sympathy, then he is fooling no-one but himself. I suppose if there is a real tragedy, it is that he does not seem to have realised this.

Last edited 3 years ago by Fred Atkinstalk
Tiny C
Tiny C
3 years ago

He’s not looking for the Brits or even every American to admire him. He’s in Democrat country and will probably fit in very well. It doesn’t stop him being a good parent or being happy. It does give him money he doesn’t have to grovel for. People bang on about how he’ll regret the division with his family but if they were ever that close they’d have protected him more. William will see his kids attacked by the media in the same way. I love my family but we’ve moved apart because of circumstances and to be honest most of the time we don’t miss each other. We like different things and follow different politics. We grew apart. Harry couldn’t be the spare forever.

Steve Garrett
Steve Garrett
3 years ago

If I were clever enough, I would draw a parallel with the Oedipus and Electra complexes. Harry is trying to kill (metaphorically) his father, and in Meghan has found a surrogate mother/lover, who, in turn, is more than willing to mother him. He will forever remain in a state of arrested development if he cannot become a man himself, on his own two feet. Meghan has a love-hate relationship with her father, but unable to express those emotions directly to him, instead projects and encourages Harry to kill his own family; then she can treat Harry as she would like to treat her father – as a child. A very real case of co-dependency.
Harry talked about “breaking the cycle”, he was referring to his own upbringing, but only the paternal side; Diana’s parental responsibilities conveniently forgotten and instead she being “pedastalled”. What Harry is actually doing is keeping the cycle going – copying his mother in adopting victimhood and sticking it to the Windsors. The “model son”.
Oh, and by the way, not drinking Monday to Friday and then drinking a week’s worth in one day at the weekend, is probably got more to do with joining the Army than with “stopping the pain” – methinks.

Ian Perkins
Ian Perkins
3 years ago
Reply to  Steve Garrett

With insights like that, you could be charging the pair of them $1000 an hour for therapy!

Steve Garrett
Steve Garrett
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian Perkins

Crikey, can you imagine? I’d be scared some of their wokeness would be transferred onto me! Anyway, I think Oprah already has that job 🙂

Konstantin Kouzovnikov
Konstantin Kouzovnikov
3 years ago
Reply to  Steve Garrett

Haha, very cool! Especially at the end: if one drinks, he should drink right… your psycho dynamics exercise is even better!

Steve Garrett
Steve Garrett
3 years ago
Reply to  Steve Garrett

If you further factor in that Charles always craved love from his mother, and alas never got it, he naturally replaced her with a surrogate older woman – Camilla. Diana’s father was quite old, but he up and left when she was 7, to live with the wicked stepmother; her brother has philandering tendencies, and is a serial husband [he’s also very litigious, so I hope he doesn’t read this 🙂 ] so, very naturally she was driven to marry an older man (both in age and outlook). It’s all one big clusterfcuk!

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago
Reply to  Steve Garrett

Camilla is only 6 months older than Charles you know & I think he was very close to his grand-mother who lived to a grand old age, so not as lacking in affection as often said , wheras Diana was classic child of a broken home. Instead of Diana there were numerous ‘girls in pearls’ who loved animals & the countryside pursuits the royal family go in for , whom they could have chosen. Perhaps it time for Charles, as he is a writer like his daughter in law, to write about Diana as Ted Hughes did about Sylvia Plath?

James Chater
James Chater
3 years ago

So much roughage and protein in this piece. Coming to respect UnHerd increasingly for its honest provocation.
‘Man hands on misery to man.’ ( Larkin, ‘This Be The Verse’)
Received just a few head-pats – the dogs, cats and ponies got all the kisses. Middle classes, eh?
Seriously. The leading royal sprogs will all probably turn out OK, though. So Mr Larkin could well be wrong.

Last edited 3 years ago by James Chater
mike otter
mike otter
3 years ago

Perhaps he’s just given to mewling and puking? Mind the way his wife was supposedly suicidal because no-one was stroking her ego is suggestive. To me its suggestive of altered brain chemistry, though it may just be bad luck in the DNA lottery, as neither can be said to have had a deprived upbringing. So i am back on the notion they had depraved upbringings and thats where the problems originate. Its well known in Hollyweird that Johnny Yen will make frequent appearances with the liquor and the drugs and the sex machine, and Harry certainly did a real striptease. So i guess the depression and mania may be the result of poor life style choices. If everyone who lost a parent young or was brought up by Holly-wired weirdos or emotionless Brits was a screw up there may be some merit to Harry/Megan’s whinging, but there are enough happy people from unhappy origins to falsify this notion. Also their greed is probably not helping – ever met anyone who’s both happy and insatiably greedy? thought not.

objectivityistheobjective
objectivityistheobjective
3 years ago

It’s interesting how Meghan goes to England and is critical of and tries to destroy their institutions of the Royalty. And Harry comes to America and is very critical of the 1st Amendment. These are self-absorbed narcissist who can only view the world through their own perspective with zero understanding of anyone else’s point of view while also be weak.

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago

It has been suggested they may like to try the British territories in South Georgia-apparently the Henderson Islands can be nice this time of year.

iambetsytrotwood
iambetsytrotwood
3 years ago

The late Princess Di wasn’t as vocal as Harry. That’s the main difference. Both have shown ambivalence towards the press, their own position and it’s privileges. Harry needs to be less vocal and stop treating the press as his personal therapist. The best Royals do not let us suffer their views. We do not have a clue what they think which is just as well. Harry is continuing his late mother’s bitterness which seeks to bring the monarchy down – unless someone, somehow gets him to zippit. Like his late mother, he would rather the role of victim than move on. It is all getting rather predictable.

Grant Evans
Grant Evans
3 years ago

Who destroyed Prince Harry? He did.

Mary McFarlane
Mary McFarlane
3 years ago

Goodness I am so tired of these two! He did it to himself is the answer ..

Martin Smith
Martin Smith
3 years ago

Harry is a mess but losing your mother in tragic circumstances at an early age is obviously highly distressing. Interesting though that his brother, who’s circumstances maternally are exactly the same, seems to have dealt with it more maturely, but perhaps he has a more stabilising wife to love him rather than a drama queen. Who knows. But what gets to me is the idea, taken now as axiomatic, that the Windsor psychodrama ‘killed’ Diana. What killed Diana was a drunk speeding driver and, even more so, not fastening her seat belt.

Last edited 3 years ago by Martin Smith
Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  Martin Smith

Only the bodyguard survived,he wore his seatbelt..

Martin Smith
Martin Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Robin Lambert

Quite.

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago
Reply to  Martin Smith

Diana was in a new relationship & let Dodi(? ) make the decision probably to allow him feel more manly & be in charge as he was less famous than her or his father.She was used to proper drivers and security all her adult life and probably only realised when she was in the car things were going wrong. Its ridiculous to suspect someone of deliberately trying to kill her as there were so many variables that could go wrong.

Martin Smith
Martin Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  kathleen carr

Yes of course, no conspiracy could have included all those variables. And an interesting possible perspective on why the driver was chosen. But nevertheless, all Diana needed to have done was fasten her seat belt. At high speed through Paris tunnels why didn’t she? There’s the tragedy. The rest is just chatter.

Jake Jackson
Jake Jackson
3 years ago
Reply to  Martin Smith

Like most people, I had considerable sympathy for Hank until all of this. Any therapist who advised this course of action should be banned from that profession.

Brian Dorsley
Brian Dorsley
3 years ago

Prince Harry looks terribly lost and lonely. As cliche as it sounds I hope he is able to come out of this and find himself.

Jonathan Oldbuck
Jonathan Oldbuck
3 years ago
Reply to  Brian Dorsley

He’s certainly lost and lonely. Until recently I had a tiny bit of sympathy for him and just thought of him as too thick to make his situation better. Now he’s becoming malignant and destructive to his own family I am beginning to despise him.

Andy Yorks
Andy Yorks
3 years ago

He really is to be despised. Dumping on your own family when he knows they can’t reply is cheap and mean. Eventually he will learn that not everything wrong in his life is someone elses fault. A lot of it is his own.

Jon Redman
Jon Redman
3 years ago
Reply to  Andy Yorks

Being ginger is James Hewitt’s fault, though, so he’d have a point there.

Kathryn Richards
Kathryn Richards
3 years ago
Reply to  Jon Redman

Oh, for heavens sake. Stop spreading that lie. Hewitt has stated (and it is easily verifiable) that he didn’t meet Diana until Harry was 2 years old.
They met at a party in 1986. Harry was born in 1984.
Being ginger has more to do with being a Spencer.

Jon Redman
Jon Redman
3 years ago

Er, that’s not what Hewitt says. He says he met her in 1981.
You still believe 40-year-old Palace propaganda. Bless! You didn’t believe the bulimia rumours, or the Camilla rumours either, did you? Am I right?

Stewart Slater
Stewart Slater
3 years ago

Is keeping schtum really the wisest choice for Harry? He has an expensive lifestyle which needs to be funded. He has no discernable skills which people are willing to pay top dollar for, so he’s doing the one thing in which he has a competitive advantage – talking about the Royal Family. Whether, in later life, he comes to regret it remains to be seen (and humans do have a remarkable ability to rationalise their actions) but the one thing his strategy is not, is irrational.

James Newman
James Newman
3 years ago
Reply to  Stewart Slater

Yes, very much agree.

As a business model, ‘trashing your famous parents’ is very self limiting and hence not sustainable. Like peeing in bed to keep warm, to use the business expression.

He may be aiming for a big year or two before fading into relative obscurity.

Stewart Slater
Stewart Slater
3 years ago
Reply to  James Newman

I suspect he is – a couple of years of big pay days should set him up nicely. The question for the Royals is what comes out before he “retires”. To keep getting the big bucks, he has to keep offering the big revelations…

Jake Jackson
Jake Jackson
3 years ago
Reply to  Stewart Slater

For the American entertainment market? Sexual abuse is next. Count on it!

William Harvey
William Harvey
3 years ago

There is a great line from the first series of True Detective thats appropriate for Harry.. it is delivered by Woody Harelsons character.

” there was a time when men didn’t air their b#lls**t in public… it just wasn’t part of their job description”

God knows what the squaddies he led in Afghanistan think about his whinnying now.

Fred Atkinstalk
Fred Atkinstalk
3 years ago
Reply to  William Harvey

Was he in a leadership role in Afghanistan? I thought he was in a helicopter, not the infantry.

Fennie Strange
Fennie Strange
3 years ago

Prince William flew helicopters, I don’t think Prince Harry ever did, but I could be wrong.

Fred Atkinstalk
Fred Atkinstalk
3 years ago
Reply to  Fennie Strange

I Google’d it – we’re both right. It appears he did a stint in Scimitar reconnaissance vehicles, and then trained as a gunner for Apache helicopters, and did that as a second stint.

One offical website makes great play of the difficulty of getting into Sandhurst to train as an officer, but I don’t think that’s true for Harry, given his academic gifts : I suspect the gruelling interview process was “What’s your surname? Windsor? You’re in!”

I was discussing this with a friend who was ‘on the ground’ in Afghanistan during his first stint. His only comment was “I wonder how they fitted his SAS bodyguard into the Apache?”

Anne Bradshaw
Anne Bradshaw
3 years ago

Most people having had a less-than-satisfactory upbringing decide that they will do things differently when they have their own children. And they do so by demonstrating their care and concern openly. It’s not necessary to shout about your way of parenting from the treetops because it’s obvious to any onlooker. And isn’t it the point to give a sense of stability and love to the children themselves? Not to impress everyone else with how sensitive or perfect a parent you are. Harry’s children are already in the limelight; why add this burden to their lives?

Last edited 3 years ago by Anne Bradshaw
Michael Dawson
Michael Dawson
3 years ago

I enjoyed the article, but the most interesting part for me was about Russian and French audiences deliberately giving the wrong answer on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?. Russia especially really is an odd country. They seem to resent anyone doing well without obvious effort – or even doing well at all – yet Putin is remarkably popular, despite presiding over a kleptocracy and hugely enriching himself in the process. Explain that!

Eloise Burke
Eloise Burke
3 years ago
Reply to  Michael Dawson

They believe in the divine right of a dictator. Hostage syndrome.

Sharon Overy
Sharon Overy
3 years ago
Reply to  Michael Dawson

They don’t actually like him, but they know that Russia needs a strong-man in charge. He fits the bill well.

Stephanie Surface
Stephanie Surface
3 years ago

Sadly expressing the most inner feelings on social media seems to be the fashion of the younger generation. They seem to think the more people know about their resentment, hurt or even their success, they will be affirmed and validated. But the opposite happens. The readers either make fun of their feelings or are jealous of their success, so the cycle of hurt and hate is maintained. I totally don’t understand that anybody thinks exposing yourself to absolute strangers would solve anything.

Last edited 3 years ago by Stephanie Surface
Rick Schmidt
Rick Schmidt
3 years ago

Prince Harry is responsible for his own choices in life only enhanced by the advantageous circumstances of his birth.

Craig Brown
Craig Brown
3 years ago

Harry has become entertainment in the style of those tawdry reality shows, at least in the US. His problems and confessions will have to become more and more lurid to hold the audience’s attention. Once he can’t squeeze any new victimhood out of his posh upbringing, he’ll be tossed aside and the crowd will move on to another diversion. He may not realize it, but he’s really gotten himself into a spot.

Alex Delszsen
Alex Delszsen
3 years ago
Reply to  Craig Brown

I actually think they climb up the woke ladder. Like when Kamala called Biden a racist and he then rewarded her. They will fail up to government, on her coattails, I am afraid.

Jake Jackson
Jake Jackson
3 years ago
Reply to  Craig Brown

Yep, what does he have to sell? Not acting skills, that’s for sure. Same for his D-list wife. In the end, it’s all about being the damaged son of a dead princess and Daddy Chuckles, and the “shocking details.” That’s Jerry Springer material, with a short half-life.

The wife is using him as a stepping stone — which might work for her for a while, but I quite strongly doubt for him, unless perhaps PornHub waves a few million under their “royal” noses. LOL