Two thoughts:
1) One of the core reasons for the ongoing fascination with the Royals (even among republicans) must be that their dramas and turmoils are, in their essence, relatable and force us to confront a range of questions which are relevant for society as a whole. Look at this article: one minute Harry is talking about his frostbitten “todger” (sorry, but a man calling his privates a todger would be good enough reason for me to run for the hills – what is he, 8?) and suddenly we’re engaged in a discussion about where and how to find meaning in life.
2) One of the dominant thoughts in my mind over the last few days is about the role of a partner/spouse and to what extent/in what situations we need to wade into our partners’ affairs. If you love your partner (which I hope all of you who have partners do), then I think most of the time, you just let them be themselves and do what they want. You might disagree with them, but it’s not for you to baby them or tell them what to do. You are a partner and not a parent. That’s how it works in this house anyway and – bar the occasional mild dispute and slammed door – it works nicely.
However, if their actions become either a risk or a burden to you or if they are obviously damaging themselves – I consider that a reason (if not an obligation) to step in and – at the very least – have some choice, strong words with them about it and perhaps spell out some consequences for the relationship if it goes on. The very thought turns my stomach, but if I was Harry’s wife, I’d be stepping right in and intervening right now as neither the book, nor all of this cavorting in the media, nor alienating his family is doing him any good whatsoever. That there is currently no sign of Meghan doing this does rather make me think his best interests aren’t her priority: the dollars are.

Harry has simply forgotten (or more likely been “re-educated” about by his vamp of a wife) what the essence of Britishness is. Despite the onslaught of vapid, opinionated nobodies preaching self-truth on social media, at the heart of what it means to be British, and what the British people still admire, is self-restraint, reserve, stoicism, gratitude for the open and free society we have, underpinned by a sense of fair play and the rule of law. None of these things Harry displays following his years of Californication. As a result he and is views of life and his truth are alien; good reason why he should be left to live as one in tinseltown, forgotten and unmissed.

I felt sorry for Harry and Meghan in the beginning of their marriage (especially Meghan). It must have been difficult adjusting to the straight jacket of royalty (can’t really believe that she didn’t have an inkling about what she was signing up for though – staggeringly stupid).
The reason I felt sorry is for her is that the media shredded her and that must have been difficult. When they announced they were going to leave the UK, I thought good on them… go… build the life you want. Have your privacy. Enjoy. That is not what happened – continually airing your own and your family’s dirty linen in minute detail in public is disgraceful, is not going to mend the family relationships and does not signify any wish for privacy.
I am sick to the back teeth of them.

Oh Giles, can you not see that the whole point of the dog collar is so the parson does indeed obliterate the person? When I talk to a clergyman – or a policeman, nurse, traffic warden, anyone else in uniform – I am addressing the immediately present representative of the institution and I want a response that carries the authority of that institution.
I don’t want to be talking to an ordinary human being with problems and opinions of his own and, quite possibly, fallible judgement. If I’m seeking absolution I need it from the Reverend Giles on behalf of the Church of England, on behalf of God. Absolution from good old Gilesy is worthless.
The tragedy is that Harry doesn’t see that all the interest in him, approving or disapproving, is only because he wore, and still seems to want to wear, the “uniform” of royalty. Harry Doe from Nowheresville, Minnesota, would not be getting a $20M book deal.

I’m bored with Prince Harry. Barring a massacre, he’ll never be King. He’s chosen not to return from abroad.
I find it difficult enough to know what’s going on in my own marriage and our children’s and their families. Let alone make any judgement about the ins and outs of the Royals. I’m sorry Harry lost his mother aged 12 in awful circumstances. So have children in Ukraine, Lebanon, Yemen…(fill in your country of choice).
He complains of being the Spare. Yet born into life-long wealth, security, contacts and a good school, he’ll never go hungry, worry about the rent, affording his children’s clothes or living four in one damp, mouldy room with him & his wife with two jobs each to survive.
He seems unaware of thousands of groomed, drugged, gang raped school girls in England and children scrabbling mining rare metals for mobile phones at 50p a day.

Interesting reflections from Giles. I admit that some of Giles’s own journalistic reflections have constituted an over-sharing of some rather unlikable opinions although the authenticity of his persona makes me generally look on him favourably. It isa pity I can’t say the same of the Spare.

Oh Please.
“what it feels like to be hidden behind one’s role”???
Is there anyone — any adult that is — who does not feel that their ‘authentic self’ (whatever that is) is somehow hidden or obscured or constrained or disguised by the role(s) we all are expected to play? Of course not. The act of personal restraint… that structuring, that obscuration of the ‘natural’ self is essential to life in a civilized world.
But the 2 year old hides nothing. He wears no masks. When he’s hungry, he’s hungry. And if he’s too hungry he cries and grows cranky. When he needs to go to the bathroom he feels no need to actually find a bathroom. He does not care; nor is he at all affected by what the world may think of the fact he just filled his diaper. He’s totally indifferent — until it becomes uncomfortable — and then, that too makes him cry. The always-authentic 2 yr old is hell to get along with, actually. Unless he’s yours in which case he’s pretty much always adorable.
But adults? We all learned long ago that our ‘authentic’ self, the unmoderated, unmitigated, raw-appetite-maw of self must absolutely be ‘hidden’ by the roles we all must play. Want to drive a car? Get a job? Get a date? Find a partner? Buy groceries? Visit the in-laws? Go to a meeting? Make a decision? Reach an agreement? Rent an apartment?Graduate from school? Meet a stranger? Or maybe…have a conversation with someone who does not think you’re perfect? Well then — you’d better learn how to behave. You’d better learn what is expected of you in order to find even a modicum of acceptance in a world which does not have time to parse all of our so-called ‘authentic’ idiosyncracies.
As for the roles played? Few of us are princes or priests…or periwigged charioteers, for that matter. But we are older brothers — there’s a role. Or younger ones. Or sons or daughters or grandsons. We’re all employees. Or maybe students. Or sons-in-law, maybe? or shooting guards? or good neighbors? or bosses? or HOA presidents? or Netflix subscribers? Or lovers, boyfriends, husbands, cheaters, liars, thieves, tinkers, tailors, soldiers, or spies. And each and every one of those is a ROLE which ‘obscures’ the appetites and opinions we otherwise might feel.
But all that is a very good thing. That’s what makes us adults — the conscious structuring of a Self which transcends appetite. That’s what allows us to be competent and effective and actually accomplish something beyond a full belly and warm toes. When Copperfield wondered if he would be the hero of his life, he did not expect or want that heroism to be nothing beyond ‘being the most authentic David’.
Prince Harry may just now be figuring this out.
And maybe he’s learning — perhaps in a very embarrassed way — that the role of prince & brother that he traded away for that handful of Hollywood beans…the media role of ‘outlaw’, ‘rebel’, disgruntled royal, Windsor Insider / Whistleblower, Glamor-Spouse sitting next to Oprah (for now, while his stock value is high)…was a bad, indulgent, and very childish trade that will end only in regret.

Thanks Giles. And yes, have been there with the dog collar (and I didn’t last). Plus I think different US/UK approaches to therapy play into Harry’s story too.

In the US, it’s more shaped by what’s called Self Psychology, which values narrative, unconditional empathy, the self. In the UK, it’s more shaped by Object Relations, which seeks awareness of conflicts and defences, without and within.

The differences shape the two cultures as well, part of the “divided by a common language”. There’s more about it here if anyone’s interested. https://youtu.be/_pVwBVAe9Gg

My father was a forces chaplain. He told a story of going into the bar of the training school for new recruits only to be met by ‘Shhh, it’s the padre. You can’t tell that joke’ or something similar. He claims he went to the bar, ordered a drink, turned to the chap in question and said ‘oh, f**k off’.
He only wore his dog collar when he was working & I suspect had a similar feeling about it as you do.

I once had a boss who was apt to overreact: if someone upset her, she would fire off a furious letter. Sometimes she would send her draft to me – and I would re-write it for her, toning it down. She knew what was needed, and she knew who to ask.
It is sad that Prince Harry (and I could say the same of Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak) seems to have no candid friends whom he can turn to for good advice.

Excellent article, thank you once again Giles.
But the advantage for the man or woman of wearing the dog collar is that we the public can see who they are, know that they have been trained in a certain way, that they speak in matters of faith with some authority. Maybe we should judge by words or deeds, but it helps to have indicators to speed up the acceptance process.
About twenty years ago, working in the CIty, I grew a beard (which I have kept). I was amazed how it changes one’s reception amongst others – among working men there is a seeming real camaraderie of beardies and unshaven. In the City there was often an initial suspicion which I was nervous of, being an ambitious type. But then I realised it got me remembered (there were practically no beards in the City) and that on the whole was a big advantage. Maybe I should have tried a dog collar as well!

But the question I always ask – since everyone (literalyl) says ”its HIS truth” – is ”Really Harry? are you and M not over egging the pudding just for sensational effect, on the basis your targets cannot/will not answer back?” (and fo coruse to sell your myth to the highest bidder)

You provide scant (no) evidence of your claims, many of which are actually proved to be incorrect in the first instance – you even contradict your own words and blame the press for changing them – how do you expect us to believe you?

1 example: you said effectively ”I killed 25 chess pieces” (how you know that is another matter) then you say you didnt say that, it was all taken out of contenxt and blown up by the media. well sincce you are such a litigeous person – why dont you sue them?

With trepidation I challenge a beneficed Clergyman but I feel The Revd Fraser has misunderstood the first line of Psalm 121 “I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills: from when cometh my help”. It is not a comma but a colon in the middle of that line in the psalm. As Fraser has put it, it implies that the Psalmist is expecting his help to come from the hills. In fact the first line is, if you like, a gesture of despair and “From whence cometh my help is a question born of that despair, answered in the next verse my “my help cometh even from the Lord, the followed by re-assurances of the nature and reliability of that help.

I’m Australian, and I had never read the expression “batsqueak” before today. I don’t know whether it is common UK colloquialism or a new coinage, but I like it a lot. I’ll use it, if I may.

“As the psalmist put it: “I will lift up mine eyes to the hills, from whence cometh my help.” 
come now, you should know better. It reads …from whence cometh my help? My help cometh even from the Lord.

Is not Prince Harry a living metaphor for the Church of England?

My father flew operations in Bomber Command. They wore inter alia silk underwear, a heated electric suit (which usually didn’t work), sheepskin trousers and jacket, and several pairs of gloves to avoid frost bite.

Really interesting article, thank you. I think we all to a certain extent put on an image, to reflect what we aspire to be, or to hide what we are not. A uniform reflects a role than is greater than the person wearing it, which should encourage humility but can bring out the worst in us too. It wasn’t that long ago that we grew up with our role models, people we wished to emulate. I was very fortunate to have a whole galaxy of them – parents, grandparents, teachers, and (with a head in books) a raft of literary and historic heroes. And my favourite saints. I don’t expect to emulate them, really, but at least looking upwards stops you looking downwards and is that the distinction between Giles’ older world and Harry’s new world?

“God doesn’t really mean some big quasi-person from whom you receive instructions; it means something more like an understanding of things — universe, human existence — as seen from the widest possible angle.”
so no point in praying and going to church, then.

The whole saga has generated a plethora of Psychology/Therapy genre type journalism (as well as a lot of rubbish too of course). Whether that’s the sort this Author conveys where Giles admits Harry has stimulated some self-reflection, or the common nature of sibling tensions, parental relationships, the need of all of us to have ponder a ‘digital diet’ and even how soldiers handle guilt. Watch out for much more this weekend too as more get to actually read the book.
Regardless of what one thinks about Harry’s version of ‘his truth’, is a broader reflection and the discussion stimulated on some of these human dynamics entirely unhelpful? I suspect not although there are limits to self-absorption’s well-being benefits. Anecdote of course but I’ve already seen some fractured families and siblings reflecting they are not alone in much of this is and that can be of some solace.
So whether intended or not, and I think some was intended but not all, the more thoughtful may find something in this saga to take that is positive.