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

[Clematis]

I fear that kind of behavior is exactly what the BRF would get if they ever "try" to apologize. H&M would make sure it's not enough and would somehow turn the apologies into even more insults.
I'm glad the RF is silent, it's what they deserve.

Agree completely. Apart from the fact that the BRF has nothing to apologize for - at least not in public, while Harry and Meghan do have to apologize publicly for what they have done - it would be a tremendous mistake to do it. It would only lead to more and more demands for apologies and who knows what else.

"This is not enough. You have to do this and say that" and so on, ad infinitum. God forbid.

 

[Denville]

As far as I remember Harry made similar remarks when he came home from Afghanistan, that it was like a video game, and was criticised by the top brass about speaking about his war service which soldiers do not do and they are not encouraged to see their fellow soldiers, even their enemies as figures in a game...
It was forgotten about then but it seems Harry still retained this idea, and used it to bash his seniors in the army.

 

[valeas]

For example : The spanish army reduced required intelligence level to 70, below 70 one is considered mentally handicapped.
50% of all mankind do have an average between 90 and 110.

Military all over the world deals with a good mixture of different people from various backgrounds , education ...just like in society, usually army manages to integrate all kinds, only few pass out. Army would not work with all being big brains, it needs a mixture, you need peiple who don't think too much and simply do what they are told...

BUT a person like Harry, if not being a prince, had maybe been trained to be a cook or other jobs not going with a lot of expectations and responsibilities.
(I respect cooks highly,, but inside military not so much is required, please understand just a symbol)

But what had happened if Harry had been put to something less than a hero position (his idea) btw less than flying a helicopter what William knows has been out of question for Harry, less than killing Taliban like figures on playstation?

Harry the hero, cooked tons of beans&sausages-what a headline had that been?

So after all, he definitely benefits from his status and now this is the result of bad choices himself and others have made for him.
Not only the army, who probably underestimated how stupid he'd turn out, but others since early childhood.
He never learned to take responsibilities, it's a shame for a man of his age, but to seem unable to reflect and all the mental problems he has got, makes it a dangerous mixture, dangerous mostly to himself.

 

[Granada]

Curryong, just want to point out that The Sussex's Brand is based upon success *mostly* now in America. So the Jimmy Kimmel parody matters. That skit was red hot scathing too. Brilliant. It torched Harry and his creepy obsession with his Mother.

It is IN America where The Sussex's ability to prosper lies.

Building financial success and personal popularity to expand their reach for the Couple thru "Archewell Inc."

So while their website says "Shared Purpose. Global Action." .......they need to be viewed here in The States as credible, likable and genuine.
With leadership and diplomatic skills, to navigate between the Corporate and Celebrity World.

Revealing private family conversations, taping phone calls and screen saving texts for years doesn't go far to enhance your likability and genuine personality characteristics. Just the opposite. Who wants to get into a Business Venture with People like that ?

The oversaturation of them marketing THEMSELVES in the past few months with the Podcast, Cut Interview, Docu-series, and now Book has generated controversy for them due to them constantly complaining and denigrating The Royal Family. Three years of The Sussex's recounting bitterly their recriminations and perceived slights.


That seems to be their ONLY platform. People here in the States are moving on. Their reputation is taking a giant hit here as evidenced by the brutal parody skit.
Jimmy Kimmel knows how to read the mood here. He is especially turned in to the younger under 45 People set, leans left and woke too.
That's the audience The Sussex's need. Depend on actually.
Harry and Meghan must be mortified and worried that they are losing influential People like him too.....

 

[Alison H]

Interest in Harry's ridiculous book is waning now. Issues with the health service, the situation in Ukraine, a scandal in the Met police and even the cold weather are getting far more attention than Harold and his frozen todger.

 

[Denville]

Curryong, just want to point out that The Sussex's Brand is based upon success *mostly* now in America. So the Jimmy Kimmel parody matters. That skit was red hot scathing too. Brilliant. It torched Harry and his creepy obsession with his Mother.

It is IN America where The Sussex's ability to prosper lies.

Building financial success and personal popularity to expand their reach for the Couple thru "Archewell Inc."

So while their website says "Shared Purpose. Global Action." they need to be viewed here in The States as credible, likable and genuine.
With leadership and diplomatic skills, to navigate between the Corporate and Celebrity World.

Revealing private family conversations, taping phone calls and screen saving texts for years doesn't go far to enhance your likability and genuine personality characteristics. Just the opposite. Who wants to get into a Business Venture with People like that ?

The oversaturation of them marketing THEMSELVES in the past few months with the Podcast, Cut Interview, Docu-series, and now Book has generated controversy for them due to them constantly complaining and denigrating The Royal Family. Three years of The Sussex's recounting bitterly their recriminations and perceived slights.


That seems to be their ONLY platform. People here in the States are moving on. Their reputation is taking a giant hit here as evidenced by the brutal parody skit.
Jimmy Kimmel knows how to read the mood here. He is especially turned in to the younger under 45 People set, leans left and woke too.
That's the audience The Sussex's need. Depend on actually.
Harry and Meghan must be mortified and worried that they are losing influential People like him too.....

but what IS their business? IMO it woudl be more honest to sell toasters on the internet, than to sell family private life and make things up. but that's about all they can do..

 

[Tatiana Maria]

By Charles now issuing LP on titles going forward, it can be made clear that it will also apply to future children of Louis, so that would show that the changes are not racially motivated. It's sad that it needs to be pointed out, but apparently it does.

The interview with Oprah Winfrey proved that the existence of Letters Patent which also apply to other children is no shield against accusations of racial motivation.

That Archie was not made a prince at birth was due to the application of Letters Patent (1917) which had already been applied to the children of Prince and Princess Arthur of Connaught, the children of the second Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, the children of the second Duke and Duchess of Kent, and the children of Prince and Princess Michael of Kent.

That is not even counting the numerous other children of princesses and princes who had not been made Princess/Prince themselves: Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor and Viscount Severn, Peter Phillips and Zara Tindall, August Brooksbank, the Earl of Snowdon and Lady Sarah Chatto, and so on.

If it is his intention to deprive Harry's children of the Prince/Princess title, then he needs to man up and do it out in the open. They have not been known as such yet, so the loss will be minimal to them in the long run. Leaving the matter up in the air like this only legitimizes H&M's claims that it's something that is racially based if no other explanation is offered by BP.

I am not sure how depriving the children of the Prince/Princess title "out in the open" would delegitimize the duchess's claim that their not being made Prince/Princess was based on race. As seen in the transcript you quoted, her claim in the 2021 interview was about the simple fact that "they didn't want to make Archie a prince", not whether the decision was made openly or quietly.

Oprah: You certainly must have had some conversations with Harry about it and have your own suspicions as to why they didn’t want to make Archie a prince. What are . . .  what are those thoughts? Why do you think that is? Do you think it’s because of his race?

Meghan: (Sighs)

Oprah: And I know that’s a loaded question, but . . . 

Meghan: But I can give you an honest answer. In those months when I was pregnant, all around this same time . . .  so we have in tandem the conversation of ‘He won’t be given security, he’s not going to be given a title’ and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born.​

Between here and the Danish forum, I feel like I've become the patron saint of second sons and their children's titles. I hate to see these monarchs endanger their relationships with their grandchildren by dealing with their titles in ham-handed manners.

The "ham-handed manner" of the Queen of Denmark was primarily about her insufficient, impersonal communication with her son and mature grandchildren ahead of her actions. The King of Great Britain seemingly let his wish to slim down prince/ssly titles become known through informal leaks many years before his son was even engaged (as you said, "Everyone knows that it has been Charles' wish all along that the monarchy become slimmed down"), and apparently held multiple personal conversations with his son and daughter-in-law about his plans for prince/princess titles before their first child was even born (based on the implications of the Oprah interview). His apparent conduct in this matter has been just the opposite of the Queen of Denmark's.

I don’t think he’ll ever issue the LP. Usually their LPs are “from now forward”, not affecting those who are already HRH. Like it happened with the succesion law, Princess Anne didn’t change place in the LoS, it started with George.
Now, if not for the thorny subject of the children’s race (I hope I’m not offending), I believe The Queen would have already issued an LP to say HRH is limited to the direct line: monarch’s children, heir’s children, heir’s firstborn’s children. Were it Cressida instead of Meghan, I have no doubt HLM would have done it before any pregnancy announcement.
For Charles to do it now it would mean either to say “from now forward” and implicitly confirm Archie and Lili are HRH, or to strip them. And in all fairness he should also strip Bea, Eugenie, the Kents and the Gloucesters. So he’ll leave it for William when the time comes.

I vehemently oppose any retroactive stripping of titles as it just seems to be a mechanism in response to poor planning on the part of the monarch. They should concern themselves with looking towards the future and not attempt to change the past.

I don't think anybody has suggested a retroactive stripping that attempts to change the past. At most, some posters have suggested that King Charles might strip the Prince/Princess titles from the Kents, Gloucesters, York princesses and (arguably) Wessex and Sussex children with effect from now forward, as Ghost said, not retroactively.

No they were not entitled to Prince/Princess at birth, which is why it would have been better to issue the LP then instead of waiting for this mess to spiral if the intention was to slim down the monarchy.

Yes, but as you know, Charles was powerless to issue LPs when the children were born, as he was not the monarch at the time. He cannot be faulted for that.

The current method of the Palace seems to be rather effective. It's also noteworthy that of all the Sussex complaints, since Oprah, neither of them has mentioned the titles at all. Clearly it's something Harry and Meghan are not eager to raise, even though they bring up being hard-done by about everything else.

Yes, I find it very interesting that most of the posters here (including myself) expected that very soon after his accession the king would be forced by his son and daughter-in-law and the British or American media to publicly address the children's titles one way or the other and receive a great deal of negative publicity either way, but to our surprise, he has managed to keep the children's title issue out of the headlines for the last four months, and most of the British newspapers have followed his lead in continuing to refer to the children as plain Archie and Lilibet.

 

[TLLK]

If Charles opts to not grant royal titles to his grandchildren and if the Sussexes truly want their children to have titles, they can always reverse their earlier decision and make use the existing ones. Then Archie would be the Earl of Dumbarton (Harry's secondary title as Duke of Sussex) and his sister Lilibet would be known as Lady Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor.

 

[Mbruno]

However, as you pointed out, the Iranian Foreign Ministry is an official arm of government, so they should be held to a higher standard than an individual’s point of view.

No one is claiming that the Iranians have the moral high ground in this case and, to be fair, Harry is not a war criminal. His actions in Afghanistan were compatible with what was expected of him in the service and with the laws of war. It was just stupid of him to give first the Taliban and now Iran a talking point for propaganda.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

I think Harry was actually making a humorous point about being a male and using an Elizabeth Arden product which is known throughout the world as a cosmetics brand. It is a darned good product but I see the humour in the admission. As a point of interest, EA used to use it on her horses as well and I find myself wondering if HLM did the same. I also use it myself for non-cosmetic purposes. And your real point was? The Greek Royal Family is not a reigning family which renders the notion of an Heir and a Spare somewhat redundant!Point well made and the "apologies" keep coming. I guess the prospect of not having his contract renewed by Prime for his two series has brought home the fact that what he said is not just unacceptable but indefensible and his preamble is the product of a sick mind. To claim in writing that your "hate 'anyone' on a cellular level is incomprehensible and to my way of thinking, definitely the product of a sick mind.

Let's not forget that JC was flaming Meghan in the public arena for publicity and not out of a sense of moral outrage as indeed the text of his opinion in confirms. You have to stay in the viewers' eye or they forget you.

I am not for or against anyone in the BRF but, regardless of the dross in the public media, if you cannot find fault in Clarkson's Opinion Piece then I fear your moral compass is off a few degrees.

I did not say that I agreed with Clarkson’s disgusting piece about Meghan. I was unable to access the entire piece but from what people on this forum have quoted from it, it was cruel and misogynistic. Totally unacceptable. My understanding is that he apologized three different times - at least once to both of them. Perhaps his motives were not pure - I do not know this guy. Perhaps he was trying to save his own skin. I do not know nor does anyone else except him if his apologies were sincere or not. His own daughter distanced herself from his awful comments.
While nothing excuses these vile comments he made about Meghan, do Harry and Meghan not see that comments he made (for example) about a female journalist, describing her as a “loathsome toad…an infected pustule on the arse of humanity” are loathsome as well? This is my issue: that in Harry’s book he has been cruel as well but somehow thinks he is justified in his comments.

 

[Denville]

Not to mention his nasty comments about his matron at school, a middle aged woman with health problems - she is still being laughed at by Harry because she was sick and not HOT.

 

[Erin9]

I did not say that I agreed with Clarkson’s disgusting piece about Meghan. I was unable to access the entire piece but from what people on this forum have quoted from it, it was cruel and misogynistic. Totally unacceptable. My understanding is that he apologized three different times - at least once to both of them. Perhaps his motives were not pure - I do not know this guy. Perhaps he was trying to save his own skin. I do not know nor does anyone else except him if his apologies were sincere or not. His own daughter distanced herself from his awful comments.
While nothing excuses these vile comments he made about Meghan, do Harry and Meghan not see that comments he made (for example) about a female journalist, describing her as a “loathsome toad…an infected pustule on the arse of humanity” are loathsome as well? This is my issue: that in Harry’s book he has been cruel as well but somehow thinks he is justified in his comments.

Exactly.

Since the OP was from me- I’d just like to add that I pointedly said what JC said was wrong. No where did I excuse what he said. And, as I recall, the article I linked didn’t excuse what he said either.

Their point- and mine- was strictly limited to JC’s apologies and the Sussexes responses. That’s it.

I found some of Harry’s language frankly disturbing- and as you said- no better than JC’s. I get that he hates the press. There are valid reasons for that.

But his descriptions about them were imo appalling and out of line. And frankly childish. (As were his descriptions about palace employees.) This book sounds like it was written by a very angry, immature teenager who lacks a filter.

Harry seems to think that if he thinks he/Meghan have been wronged- lashing out however he sees fit is justifiable.

 

[Granada]

MARG, I feel obliged to step up for Royalist.in.NC,

I was the one who posted about the funeral for Greek ex King Constantine and the outpouring of grief and support from the wider Royal Family communities.
I thought it a genuinely moving experience and so well done. No drama, just coming together as a Family to honor the Father, Man AND former King. .A few like Spain and Denmark were close family members. Others like Norway, Monaco, Netherlands and Belgium to honor him as an EQUAL, and
apparently respected as a good Man by them.

I simply was trying to say that there are "Spares" in all Monarchies. (In Aristocratic homes too) Prince Joachim of Denmark was one to his brother Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark. Only 2 children, both sons *around* a year or so apart too.

I also mentioned that Constantine's son Pavlos has TWO brothers also, and had the Monarchy continued, would have been Spares too.

Petulant and jealous Harry can't seem to get past it though. Other have and do.

I thought it simply pathetic and disgraceful when Harry actually said "he was brought into the world in case something happened to Willy. In case he needed a kidney or blood transfusion". That is so sick that he thinks that, and preposterously put in his his Book.
What a disgusting insult to his Parents too......Just shows me how emotionally disturbed he really is.

 

[Moran]

I am not for or against anyone in the BRF but, regardless of the dross in the public media, if you cannot find fault in Clarkson's Opinion Piece then I fear your moral compass is off a few degrees.

Since Royalist.in.NC never mentioned that she agreed with Clarkson, I find her moral compass just fine.

Since you aren't for anyone in the BRF, what would you say about Harry's moral compass? Was it finely attuned when he slapped around his RPO? You know, the same security detail that he wailed and raged so vocally for? What does the fact that he still shapes it around "poor little me, me, me, do you see how poorly I was doing" mindset without zero reflection?

Was Harry's moral compass finely attuned when he, a man nearing his 40s, clearly enjoyed his recollections of mocking a disabled matron? A matron with the same condition his cousin that he claims to care so much for underwent a surgery for?

Do you find it possible that this mindset of Harry's (added to the description he made of the three men working for The Queen who were only doing their job) might have contributed a little on his view of what is bullying and what is acceptable? In other words, that for a man who finds it acceptable to slap his security guard the behavior of Meghan towards staff might be just fine but others could find it bullying?

[.....]

 

[kimebear]

The interview with Oprah Winfrey proved that the existence of Letters Patent which also apply to other children is no shield against accusations of racial motivation.

No. What it proved was that Harry & Meghan, who knew perfectly well about the LP, were banking on their supporters not knowing, so that they could make baseless claims of racism to bolster their sympathy.

'Oprah: You certainly must have had some conversations with Harry about it and have your own suspicions as to why they didn’t want to make Archie a prince. What are . . .  what are those thoughts? Why do you think that is? Do you think it’s because of his race?

Meghan: (Sighs)

Oprah: And I know that’s a loaded question, but . . . 

Meghan: But I can give you an honest answer. In those months when I was pregnant, all around this same time . . .  so we have in tandem the conversation of ‘He won’t be given security, he’s not going to be given a title’ and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born.'


The way Meghan responds to this question, it sounds like it's the same person talking about not giving Archie a title as well as having concerns about how dark his skin might be.

As you point out yourself, Charles wasn't yet the monarch, so would have had no authority on titles, and both Meghan and Harry have said that the conversation about skin color wasn't with The Queen. In other words, Meghan intentionally framed her answer with insinuation and innuendo to tie the topics of titles and race together, when one had nothing to do with other. Incredibly dishonest.

His apparent conduct in this matter has been just the opposite of the Queen of Denmark's....

And it might just work out well for Charles. Whereas Queen Margrethe's decree was seen as unnecessary and cruel by many, as public opinion of Harry and Meghan continues to rapidly plummet, their own actions and words can be pointed to in order to justify denying Archie and Lilibet the prince/princess titles without lending any weight to the bogus racism claims.

Although at least Harry is still very attached to the idea of titles, or he would not have answered Anderson Cooper's question about renouncing their titles “And what difference would that make?”

 

[An Ard Ri]

Interest in Harry's ridiculous book is waning now. Issues with the health service, the situation in Ukraine, a scandal in the Met police and even the cold weather are getting far more attention than Harold and his frozen todger.

The Iranian criticism has sadly put the book back in the headlines and I was hoping that it would just go away!

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

Thank you!

Thanks so much to Denville, Erin9, Granada, and Moran for their support - I really appreciate it

 

[Granada]

Royalist.in.NC. right back at you and your great posts !
I learn so much here at R.F. During these gloomy Winter days it is a much enjoyed diversion !

 

[Nico]

85,000 books sold in France so far.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1615404769694126084

With devastating reviews lol

The interviews aired in France as well. The consesus being that Harry does not seem very bright.

Yes King Constantine’s funeral was moving. It was also a funeral at which the vast majority of the BRF (even though there were familial links) were conspicuously absent!

Sheesh , They definitely can't do anything right ..

 

[lirienn]

Is it the right thread? I believe Harry is like public enemy because what he did. Written and talked in interviews. The politicians had to intervene, Invictus would be with upgraded security. Yet he has audacity to ask for apology. I wonder what now and how he feels. Different thing that lipstick drama.

 

[Denville]

With devastating reviews lol

The interviews aired in France as well. The consesus being that Harry does not seem very bright.



Sheesh , They definitely can't do anything right ..

mm, i don't quite see why its necessary for most of the British RF to go to the funeral. They sent a representative,

 

[gerry]

Here's a review of the book in The Guardian by Tina Brown
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...view-magical-thinking-in-montecito-tina-brown
I love this review and I generally enjoy her writing, particularly her acerbic wit.

Thanks for sharing this wonderful review…Tina Brown is indeed a brilliant observer of the Prince and his problems!

 

[Moran]

Thanks so much to Denville, Erin9, Granada, and Moran for their support - I really appreciate it

Right back at you! You didn't support JS's disgusting attitude - and I do agree that Harry owes some apologies as well. Many, many apologies.

I fear to think what the BP might be suppressing. In a way, Harry's description of William's behavior makes it clear that William at least tried to protect staff. But the BP and KP are different entities. I suspect the BP took the approach of looking the other way and hushing employees to protect Harry and Meghan. Not that they had this much of a choice, of course. Imagine the shouts that would have emerged if Meghan was "fired" from official duties. She would have been the brave victim of racism and Harry would have been a collateral damage because he had married her and stood against his family to defend her.

 

[Lori138]

Here is a review from a local paper on the memoir.

https://ee.winnipegfreepress.com?selDate=20230118&goTo=C002&artid=0

 

[Somebody]

If Charles opts to not grant royal titles to his grandchildren and if the Sussexes truly want their children to have titles, they can always reverse their earlier decision and make use the existing ones. Then Archie would be the Earl of Dumbarton (Harry's secondary title as Duke of Sussex) and his sister Lilibet would be known as Lady Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor.

Technically, I would say that if they would start using their titles, they could also opt for prince/princess, as that is their legal title (unless, Charles made a different decision that yet is to be published). Nonetheless, they could indeed, just like Edward's children decide to use courtesy titles based on Harry's ducal title.

The interview with Oprah Winfrey proved that the existence of Letters Patent which also apply to other children is no shield against accusations of racial motivation.

That Archie was not made a prince at birth was due to the application of Letters Patent (1917) which had already been applied to the children of Prince and Princess Arthur of Connaught, the children of the second Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, the children of the second Duke and Duchess of Kent, and the children of Prince and Princess Michael of Kent.

(...)

I am not sure how depriving the children of the Prince/Princess title "out in the open" would delegitimize the duchess's claim that their not being made Prince/Princess was based on race. As seen in the transcript you quoted, her claim in the 2021 interview was about the simple fact that "they didn't want to make Archie a prince", not whether the decision was made openly or quietly.

(...)

Yes, I find it very interesting that most of the posters here (including myself) expected that very soon after his accession the king would be forced by his son and daughter-in-law and the British or American media to publicly address the children's titles one way or the other and receive a great deal of negative publicity either way, but to our surprise, he has managed to keep the children's title issue out of the headlines for the last four months, and most of the British newspapers have followed his lead in continuing to refer to the children as plain Archie and Lilibet.

Even Harry and Meghan seem to follow his lead. As far as I am aware they haven't referred to them with any title, so far.

No. What it proved was that Harry & Meghan, who knew perfectly well about the LP, were banking on their supporters not knowing, so that they could make baseless claims of racism to bolster their sympathy.

'Oprah: You certainly must have had some conversations with Harry about it and have your own suspicions as to why they didn’t want to make Archie a prince. What are . . .  what are those thoughts? Why do you think that is? Do you think it’s because of his race?

Meghan: (Sighs)

Oprah: And I know that’s a loaded question, but . . . 

Meghan: But I can give you an honest answer. In those months when I was pregnant, all around this same time . . .  so we have in tandem the conversation of ‘He won’t be given security, he’s not going to be given a title’ and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born.'

The way Meghan responds to this question, it sounds like it's the same person talking about not giving Archie a title as well as having concerns about how dark his skin might be.

As you point out yourself, Charles wasn't yet the monarch, so would have had no authority on titles, and both Meghan and Harry have said that the conversation about skin color wasn't with The Queen. In other words, Meghan intentionally framed her answer with insinuation and innuendo to tie the topics of titles and race together, when one had nothing to do with other. Incredibly dishonest.[/QUOTE]

But doesn't that proof that LPs being issued is no guarantee that no racist insinuations are made? I would classify that under 'accusations of a racial motivation' - so, imho Meghan definitely did do so; although she may have phrased slightly differently; but it was clear to each and everyone that she accused the BRF to be racially motivated in not making Archie a prince (which he wasn't entitled to - just like other great-grandchilderen of a monarch who aren't children of a direct heir).

MARG, I feel obliged to step up for Royalist.in.NC,

I was the one who posted about the funeral for Greek ex King Constantine and the outpouring of grief and support from the wider Royal Family communities.
I thought it a genuinely moving experience and so well done. No drama, just coming together as a Family to honor the Father, Man AND former King. .A few like Spain and Denmark were close family members. Others like Norway, Monaco, Netherlands and Belgium to honor him as an EQUAL, and
apparently respected as a good Man by them.

I simply was trying to say that there are "Spares" in all Monarchies. (In Aristocratic homes too) Prince Joachim of Denmark was one to his brother Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark. Only 2 children, both sons *around* a year or so apart too.

I also mentioned that Constantine's son Pavlos has TWO brothers also, and had the Monarchy continued, would have been Spares too.

Petulant and jealous Harry can't seem to get past it though. Other have and do.

I thought it simply pathetic and disgraceful when Harry actually said "he was brought into the world in case something happened to Willy. In case he needed a kidney or blood transfusion". That is so sick that he thinks that, and preposterously put in his his Book.
What a disgusting insult to his Parents too......Just shows me how emotionally disturbed he really is.

Pavlos doesn't only have 2 brothers; he also has 2 sisters. The elder being first in line to the throne (so, the heir) until he was born.

So, like CP in Sweden, she was born as the heir but ended up being the spare (for a little while), then to spare of the spare; and kept moving down with almost 2 decades later the birth of her brother and then the birth of her brother's children. Before Constantine's death she was down to 9th place in the line of succession.

And as was pointed out, there are indeed many spares (and sometimes spares of spares) in Europe - starting from the most recent generation:

• Spain: Sofia (previous generation: Elena)
• Monaco: Gabriella (heir for a few minutes!) (previous generation: Caroline)
• Belgium: Gabriel (previous generation: Laurent - purposefully replaced by Astrid; prior to that Albert: ended up on the throne!)
• Luxembourg: spare for last generation yet to be born - but Amalia was the heir for her generation for several years (previous generation: Felix)
• The Netherlands: Alexia (previous generation: Friso (by the time he was removed from the line of succession, Amalia had been born); generation prior: Irene but by marrying without consent, Margriet was suddenly expected to fulfill that support role for her eldest sister)
• Denmark: Isabella (previous generation: Joachim; prior to that: Benedikte)
• Norway: Sverre Magnus (previous generation: Märtha Louise)
• Sweden: Oscar (previous generation: Carl Philip - was himself the heir for the first 7 1/2 months of his life)
• Liechtenstein: Georg (previous generation: Maximilian)

Most of them seem to be doing fine and found a fulfilling life: enjoying the privileges of their membership of their respective royal family but not always as much of the burden as their sibling who is the heir (or heir's heir).

 

[Alison H]

Not to mention all the dukedoms, earldoms, baronetcies etc etc which all require heirs.
Most families have more than one child. It's not just about having an heir and a spare. It's just family life. Surely not even Harry could think that he was only conceived in case William needed a transplant - does the book actually say that?

 

[Ghost]

Technically, I would say that if they would start using their titles, they could also opt for prince/princess, as that is their legal title (unless, Charles made a different decision that yet is to be published). Nonetheless, they could indeed, just like Edward's children decide to use courtesy titles based on Harry's ducal title.



Even Harry and Meghan seem to follow his lead. As far as I am aware they haven't referred to them with any title, so far.



'Oprah: You certainly must have had some conversations with Harry about it and have your own suspicions as to why they didn’t want to make Archie a prince. What are . . .  what are those thoughts? Why do you think that is? Do you think it’s because of his race?

Meghan: (Sighs)

Oprah: And I know that’s a loaded question, but . . . 

Meghan: But I can give you an honest answer. In those months when I was pregnant, all around this same time . . .  so we have in tandem the conversation of ‘He won’t be given security, he’s not going to be given a title’ and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born.'

The way Meghan responds to this question, it sounds like it's the same person talking about not giving Archie a title as well as having concerns about how dark his skin might be.

As you point out yourself, Charles wasn't yet the monarch, so would have had no authority on titles, and both Meghan and Harry have said that the conversation about skin color wasn't with The Queen. In other words, Meghan intentionally framed her answer with insinuation and innuendo to tie the topics of titles and race together, when one had nothing to do with other. Incredibly dishonest.

But doesn't that proof that LPs being issued is no guarantee that no racist insinuations are made? I would classify that under 'accusations of a racial motivation' - so, imho Meghan definitely did do so; although she may have phrased slightly differently; but it was clear to each and everyone that she accused the BRF to be racially motivated in not making Archie a prince (which he wasn't entitled to - just like other great-grandchilderen of a monarch who aren't children of a direct heir).



Pavlos doesn't only have 2 brothers; he also has 2 sisters. The elder being first in line to the throne (so, the heir) until he was born.

So, like CP in Sweden, she was born as the heir but ended up being the spare (for a little while), then to spare of the spare; and kept moving down with almost 2 decades later the birth of her brother and then the birth of her brother's children. Before Constantine's death she was down to 9th place in the line of succession.

And as was pointed out, there are indeed many spares (and sometimes spares of spares) in Europe - starting from the most recent generation:

• Spain: Sofia (previous generation: Elena)
• Monaco: Gabriella (heir for a few minutes!) (previous generation: Caroline)
• Belgium: Gabriel (previous generation: Laurent - purposefully replaced by Astrid; prior to that Albert: ended up on the throne!)
• Luxembourg: spare for last generation yet to be born - but Amalia was the heir for her generation for several years (previous generation: Felix)
• The Netherlands: Alexia (previous generation: Friso (by the time he was removed from the line of succession, Amalia had been born); generation prior: Irene but by marrying without consent, Margriet was suddenly expected to fulfill that support role for her eldest sister)
• Denmark: Isabella (previous generation: Joachim; prior to that: Benedikte)
• Norway: Sverre Magnus (previous generation: Märtha Louise)
• Sweden: Oscar (previous generation: Carl Philip - was himself the heir for the first 7 1/2 months of his life)
• Liechtenstein: Georg (previous generation: Maximilian)

Most of them seem to be doing fine and found a fulfilling life: enjoying the privileges of their membership of their respective royal family but not always as much of the burden as their sibling who is the heir (or heir's heir).[/QUOTE]

I would add Princess Anne for the first ten years of her life.

 

[Granada]

I wonder how Courtney Cox felt about Harry recounting that he dropped Mushrooms, (that he says that apparently were for everybody there in the Fridge), at her house in 2016. That was the night when he was hallucinating -talking to a toilet.

I'm guessing, hoping he ran it passed her.
Still, she has a teenage daughter, who would have been around 12 or so then.....but then this is a Hollywood Crowd so maybe She's fine with that.
Its funny though, it the first I've heard of her and drugs......

 

[Erin9]

I wonder how Courtney Cox felt about Harry recounting that he dropped Mushrooms, (that he says that apparently were for everybody there in the Fridge), at her house in 2016. That was the night when he was hallucinating -talking to a toilet.

I'm guessing, hoping he ran it passed her.
Still, she has a teenage daughter, who would have been around 12 or so then.....but then this is a Hollywood Crowd so maybe She's fine with that.
Its funny though, it the first I've heard of her and drugs......

I don’t really think this goes with CC’s image personally. Like you- I’ve never associated her with drugs. My guess would be she’s less than thrilled about Harry’s lack of discretion.

 

[GraceOMalleysGhost]

Even if CC's image did include "partying" in that way, it probably still would be frowned upon to discuss it with the whole world. It reminds me of the dorky kid in high school who parties with the cool kids one night and then tells all his friends about it the next day. It's the last time he ever parties with the cool kids.