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

[Katariina]

President Biden has seen them, or rather Harry, as has his wife Jill whom Biden joked was getting too close to the Prince. The Bidens went to the Invictus Games when they were held in North America. Pres Obama met Harry as well on more than one occasion. .

https://people.com/royals/looking-back-at-jill-bidens-relationship-with-prince-harry/

Those meetings with the presidents happened prior Harry leaving his working royal life. It’s much more unlikely he meets with presidents now. Dr Biden is a bit of a different matter.

 

[Denville]

As far as I know Meghan has not been seen or heard from in any way that is associated with the launch of Spare. I do find this to be departure from her usual behavior of being closely associated in supporting a major project.



.

She left Harry to face his talks with Charles and The queen and Will in 2020, and poor Harry was scared when William raised his voice to him

 

[Granada]

I'm American, so I am quite familiar with American "fluff polls" like Ipsos. So yes Curryong, we will agree to disagree.
But one thing I'd like to update other readers on is that the Biden's have not been seen with Harry and certainly not Meghan SINCE Joe Biden was VP.
No White House invites or private visits either.

And while Harry enjoyed a *warm* camaraderie with The Obama's ( who can forget that fabulous video with Harry, The Queen and The Obama's!) that fizzled too. No invite to President Obama's Celebrity and Political Star studded 60th Birthday Party either.

That PR would have been GOLD to The Sussex's Brand.
President Biden isn't going to meet them. In a working or private capacity since Megxit. And the grenades they keep throwing at The Family.

But interesting enough, President Biden changed his carefully crafted schedule to meet Prince William in Boston last December. The President was in Boston the same time William was, for Earthshot Awards. Nice picture of them at The JFK Memorial Library.

William has the clout and reach, as well as the respect, that The Sussex's can only dream of......

 

[yukari]

This below is an Ipsos poll that has already been posted a couple of days ago. It was taken after Spare came out and found that Harry was well-liked by Americans, especially Millennials and Gen Zsers.

An Ipsos poll taken among Americans about a week ago has some interesting data about the BRF.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/quarter-americans-say-prince-harry-their-favorite-royal

(...).

If you don't mind to elaborate Curryong, how will you read/interpret this poll?

As for my interpretation:
So we have:
Top 5 (with option to pick 3 royals):
Harry 25%
Catherine 22%
William 17%
Meghan 12%
Charles 8%

Top 5 (without choosing any royal):
Catherine 47%
Harry 41%
William 40%
Meghan 35%
Charles 25%

If I'm to utilise Venn diagram (of primary school's Math class), it's likely Harry has more intersection as in in the combination of 3 royals, his name appeared in "Harry-Meghan-other" (Sussexes supporters) and also "Harry-Catherine-William" (remnant of 3 musketeers era pre-Meghan) vs combination of "Catherine-William-other" whereas in any combination, most likely "Harry-Meghan" and "Catherine-William" always came as set.

Why I make this conjecture?
In the individual top 5, Catherine tops it with 6% difference than Harry and there's only 1% between Harry and William (so 7% gap between 1st and 3rd). Meanwhile in "pick 3", Harry tops it with only 3% gap from Catherine and William who's 3rd has 5% gap with C in 2nd (8% gap between 1st and 3rd) and Meghan (4th in both) in the "pick 3" only gets around half of Harry/Catherine (1st and 2nd).

Note, the margin of error is 4% (as mentioned in Ipsos report), so the only solid conclusion Catherine is the most popular in both, while that's not the case for Harry in the individual poll (which with only 1% gap with William, the brothers shared the 2nd place).

As for monarchy abolition, considering the Sussexes' "fight against the institution", would it be so surprising if ones favoring them are pro-abolition? Not to mention, they're American (hello, 1776).

I don't understand Ipsos' purpose for having "pick 3" question for popularity poll. It's not as if this is a market research to decide whether it's better to sell a product in combo/box set or selling it as individual item.

More from the same poll by Redfield & Wilton:
Meghan Markle Is Less Popular in U.S. Than Queen Camilla



I can't find the detail (demographics, etc) of this poll other than that it's conducted on January 16 among 2000 US citizens.

Similar poll by YouGov for comparison (conducted on January 12- 17 among 1,000 US citizens)

Americans are less likely than Britons to see Harry's recent actions as financially motivated

Detail of the poll result (pdf)



Meanwhile, by IPSOS (conducted between January 11-12 among sample of 916 consist of 379 Gen Zers and millennials, 266 Gen Xers, and 271 baby boomers and older.

A quarter of Americans say Prince Harry is their favorite royal

Detail of the poll result (pdf)

(...)

Honestly if I have to do a market research evaluation in which Harry (and Meghan) as the product I have to sell, I wouldn't put much weight on Ipsos' poll when I have 3 polls (surveys) in my hand. For one, Ipsos' has the least sample number amongst the 3 (in statistics, I would want as many data as possible). The other 2 have previous polls so I can make comparison and see the trend to make better evaluation and form strategy for future marketing improvement.

 

[Alisa]

I'm American, so I am quite familiar with American "fluff polls" like Ipsos. So yes Curryong, we will agree to disagree.
But one thing I'd like to update other readers on is that the Biden's have not been seen with Harry and certainly not Meghan SINCE Joe Biden was VP.
No White House invites or private visits either.

And while Harry enjoyed a *warm* camaraderie with The Obama's ( who can forget that fabulous video with Harry, The Queen and The Obama's!) that fizzled too. No invite to President Obama's Celebrity and Political Star studded 60th Birthday Party either.

That PR would have been GOLD to The Sussex's Brand.
President Biden isn't going to meet them. In a working or private capacity since Megxit. And the grenades they keep throwing at The Family.

But interesting enough, President Biden changed his carefully crafted schedule to meet Prince William in Boston last December. The President was in Boston the same time William was, for Earthshot Awards. Nice picture of them at The JFK Memorial Library.

William has the clout and reach, as well as the respect, that The Sussex's can only dream of......

A few comments on this.

Obviously the US President is going to make a considerable effort to meet the next head of state for the UK especially if he happens to be in the same city.

Harry and Meghan are no longer working members of the royal family. They don't represent the current Sovereign of the UK. As such, no one expects to see them being invited to the White House or for the President to meet them.

Shared interests, politics, and philanthropy are the only sound ways the Sussexes would meet either of the Bidens. For example if they ran into each other at the UN, the One Young World platform, or if Meghan attended some Democrat woman's function...etc.

Alot of people did not attend Obama's 60th birthday celebrations. We were in the middle of the pandemic and the former President was heavily criticized for hosting a "super-spreader" event. That the Sussexes didn't attend does not mean much. Heck even Oprah didn't attend.

 

[Frelinghighness]

Of course Jill Biden worked with Harry when her husband was vice president. He improved her brand at that point, her project was to help veterans. No as Granadas so well put it, they are notorious, not famous, and mainstream Government and business won’t touch them with a 10 foot pole. And yes Biden rearranged his schedule to meet Prince William when he was in Boston.. Notorious, freak show, their 15 minutes is up

 

[Frelinghighness]

Thanks Yukari for showing us how market research is performed! Wow

 

[Alison H]

I'm afraid I can't take anything that refers to "Princess Kate Middleton" seriously. I don't know whether to laugh or cry!

 

[Kaye1850]

A few comments on this.


Alot of people did not attend Obama's 60th birthday celebrations. We were in the middle of the pandemic and the former President was heavily criticized for hosting a "super-spreader" event. That the Sussexes didn't attend does not mean much. Heck even Oprah didn't attend.

But because Obama and Meghan share a birthday (his 60th and her 40th) it’s possible she expected not only to be invited, but to receive star billing.
If so, rather a disappointment ️

 

[Granada]

Alisa, I guess we will have to disagree. Meghan and Harry have certainly dipped their toes into Political Conversations here in The States, BOTH encouraging via Video for People to vote in the 2020 Presidential Election and our 2022 Midterm Elections.

She wrote Op-Ed letter to The Senate and House leaders regarding Paid Leave too.
Meghan lobbied female Senators to work for "Paid Family Leave" after Childbirth. In Nov of 2021, She, according to Democrat Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.... " She wants to be PART of working group to work on Paid Leave long time AND she's going to be".

Except SHE DIDN'T. The Committee never invited her.

The other female Senators shot that down. It came to nothing. Senator Colin's from Maine dismissively and scathingly said, "She introduced herself as The Duchess of Sussex on a phone call, which is kind of ironic" .....ouch....and went on to say she wanted to hear from her Maine constituents on the matter.

If you don't think Harry and Meghan expected to be rubbing shoulders with Political and Social Elite, like Bill Gates, The Clooney's, or Obama's fine. Many of us here do. The Elite's in the US minus Oprah, have not embraced them either. I expect that won't change either.
ESPECIALLY with their now known habit of sharing private conversations. That they tape and record unbeknownst to the other People involved.

I wonder how Courtney Cox REALLY feels about Harry telling the World in his book that She supplied Drugs to her Guests, Magic Mushrooms, at a House Party in 2016. And how he "tripped" on them.

At that time her daughter was 12. They are illegal in California.

They positioned themselves via Archewell Foundation as Game Changers, Globally recognized Humanitarians and Philanthropists. Unfortunately, it hasn't worked out that way for them in the least.
The only thing that changed is the balance in their Bank Account. Big $$$$$$. How ? By selling out The Royal Family at EVERY opportunity.

Quickly becoming laughingstocks, and irrelevant. But we can sleep easy, at least we know, thank goodness, phew.... thanks to Harry, that William and Harry are circumcised.

Harry is now the butt of skits on late night shows mocking his "oversharing todger stories with Freudian overtones". Not a good look for someone who wants to be recognized as a Champion of mental health issues either.

 

[kimebear]

The Ipsos poll is a perfectly legitimate poll. Certainly more so than magazine polls in the UK and US that declare that the Sussexes popularity is sliding, just to help get clickbait.

ALL polls are paid for by someone and, fairly or not, they generally reflect the desired outcome of whoever is holding the purse strings. In the US this is most often seen in political polls that are commissioned by the different campaigns or strategy groups where they are heavily weighted in favor of the party of the customer because the illusion of a candidate being "ahead" in the race sways undecided voters.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Ipsos poll was commissioned by the book's publisher.

 

[Alisa]

Alisa, I guess we will have to disagree. Meghan and Harry have certainly dipped their toes into Political Conversations here in The States, BOTH encouraging via Video for People to vote in the 2020 Presidential Election and our 2022 Midterm Elections.

She wrote Op-Ed letter to The Senate and House leaders regarding Paid Leave too.
Meghan lobbied female Senators to work for "Paid Family Leave" after Childbirth. In Nov of 2021, She, according to Democrat Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.... " She wants to be PART of working group to work on Paid Leave long time AND she's going to be".

Except SHE DIDN'T. The Committee never invited her.

The other female Senators shot that down. It came to nothing. Senator Colin's from Maine dismissively and scathingly said, "She introduced herself as The Duchess of Sussex on a phone call, which is kind of ironic" .....ouch....and went on to say she wanted to her from her Maine constituents on the matter.

If you don't think Harry and Meghan expected to be rubbing shoulders with Political and Social Elite, like Bill Gates, The Clooney's, or Obama's fine. Many of us here do. The Elite's in the US minus Oprah, have not embraced them either. I expect that won't change either.
ESPECIALLY with their now known habit of sharing private conversations. That they tape and record unbeknownst to the other People involved.

I wonder how Courtney Cox REALLY feels about Harry telling the World in his book that She supplied Drugs to her Guests, Magic Mushrooms, at a House Party in 2016. And how he "tripped" on them.

At that time her daughter was 12. They are illegal in California.

They positioned themselves via Archewell Foundation as Game Changers, Globally recognized Humanitarians and Philanthropists. Unfortunately, it hasn't worked out that way for them in the least.
The only thing that changed is the balance in their Bank Account. Big $$$$$$. How ? By selling out The Royal Family at EVERY opportunity.

Quickly becoming laughingstocks, and irrelevant. But we can sleep easy, at least we know, thank goodness, phew.... thanks to Harry, that William and Harry are circumcised.

Harry is now the butt of skits on late night shows mocking his "oversharing todger stories with Freudian overtones". Not a good look for someone who wants to be recognized as a Champion of mental health issues either.

Please re-read my previous post. I never said the Sussexes never dabbled in US politics- of course they have.

As for the Archewell Foundation- it has done quite well despite being an infant organization. It has already received multiple honors and recognition.

Re Courtney Cox- Her ex husband and father of her daughter has been very vocal about his own drug use and struggles. I doubt she care one bit Harry's memoir says so long as the memoir did not implicate her as a bad and unfit parent. Again given that Coco was not mentioned in the environment when the drug use was occuring. I highly doubt she cares.

 

[Alison H]

All publicity is good publicity: Boots the Chemist (a large chain of shops in all major towns and cities) has reported an upsurge in sales of Elizabeth Arden cream. I just hope that people are using it on their hands and faces and nowhere else!

 

[duchessrachel]

It's fascinating how involved Americans are with the British Royal Family. It's impossible to imagine anyone conducting a poll on how popular, say, the Spanish Royal Family or the Swedish Royal Family and their individual members are in the UK. Major news items about them are reported in the press, and there's quite a bit about them in magazines like Hello, but people just aren't that involved with them.

It's actually quite weird that pollsters are asking Americans whether they think the British monarchy should be abolished. No-one would poll Britons on changes to the American presidency.

I am an American and I agree with you on that. It is none of our business regarding the abolishment of the Monarchy. It is very pretentious that some Americans think we do have a say so. I love the Royal Family and the Monarchy, but decisions on their future are none of my business.

 

[yukari]

It's fascinating how involved Americans are with the British Royal Family. It's impossible to imagine anyone conducting a poll on how popular, say, the Spanish Royal Family or the Swedish Royal Family and their individual members are in the UK. Major news items about them are reported in the press, and there's quite a bit about them in magazines like Hello, but people just aren't that involved with them.

It's actually quite weird that pollsters are asking Americans whether they think the British monarchy should be abolished. No-one would poll Britons on changes to the American presidency.

I am an American and I agree with you on that. It is none of our business regarding the abolishment of the Monarchy. It is very pretentious that some Americans think we do have a say so. I love the Royal Family and the Monarchy, but decisions on their future are none of my business.

TBF, I remember YouGov UK once did a survey of what Brits thought about Obama and Trump.

As for recent 3 polls about BRF, if you see the breakdown in those 3 polls the numbers of "don't know" and neutral are rather high. Take the Ipsos' poll for example. In "pick 3 royals", the numbers of "don't know" and "none" combined (18%+21%) is even higher than Harry's (25%). Even for the question of would abolishing monarchy will make it better, there's 29% "don't know" vs 18% "better" (pro-abolition) and those sentiment happens in all demographics including amongst Gen Z (34% "don't know" vs 20% "better") which shows different trend in the favourability poll. The other two polls also show similar pattern.

So what it tells me if I compare it to the similar poll in UK? IMO, it menas that in general Americans opinion towards monarchy is not as "involved" as Brits, or in other words Americans is either don't know or don't care much about BRF.

 

[QueenJen]

Will either H or M (or both) pay US taxes on proceeds from this book? Any idea how that would work?

 

[yukari]

ALL polls are paid for by someone and, fairly or not, they generally reflect the desired outcome of whoever is holding the purse strings. In the US this is most often seen in political polls that are commissioned by the different campaigns or strategy groups where they are heavily weighted in favor of the party of the customer because the illusion of a candidate being "ahead" in the race sways undecided voters.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Ipsos poll was commissioned by the book's publisher.

I agree.
And the same can also be said about book sales. In fact, I'm reminded of NY best-seller scandal few years ago.

New York Times pulls YA novel from bestseller list after reports of fake sales

The convoluted world of best-seller lists, explained

People can buy books in bulk and technically it's a valid sells, right? I remember few years ago watching an interview of a local best seller author and he said that when he published his first novel, he used to frequent book stores and bought 5 copies of his own book, his mother and friends also did it. They then gave those books for free to other to "promote" his works. TBF, it's common practice even amongst publishers to give free samples so the recipients can then write review of said book to promote it. And as for this author, his novel is actually good and for the next novels his writing has improved a lot so it's no wonder if it ends up as best-sellers.

As for "Spare", I do think there's genuine interest towards this book, generally scandals and controversies sell well. But I have my doubt that the sales numbers is genuine/organic. One of the reason is the half price cutting on the day it's released raised a question. I pride myself as an avid reader (my books spending is thrice my clothes spending) and I've never encountered first day half-price cut for a supposed "highly anticipated" book (really, it would work wonder to my bank account if it were a common occurrence).

 

[Moran]

The best indicator of the impact of this book on Harry and Meghan's popularity cannot be seen in polls, I think. IMO, we're going to see it by their next projects. "Spare" has generated interest, I have no doubt. That's due to the interest in the RF itself and not necessarily support for the Sussexes. Their side projects, the ones they started all on their own after leaving, never reached the popularity of the RF gossipy ones. So the book sales only mean that Harry might see an improvement in his bank account. That's all. It says nothing about his personal popularity. That's only to be seen with a non-RF related project.

 

[Curryong]

Well there was plenty of interest in the last year in the Invictus Games in the Netherlands with Harry there. Even the British tabloids covered it, albeit with gritted teeth. And the next IG is in Düsseldorf in September.

 

[TLLK]

The best indicator of the impact of this book on Harry and Meghan's popularity cannot be seen in polls, I think. IMO, we're going to see it by their next projects. "Spare" has generated interest, I have no doubt. That's due to the interest in the RF itself and not necessarily support for the Sussexes. Their side projects, the ones they started all on their own after leaving, never reached the popularity of the RF gossipy ones. So the book sales only mean that Harry might see an improvement in his bank account. That's all. It says nothing about his personal popularity. That's only to be seen with a non-RF related project.

I would be curious to see if Heart of Invictus which is IMO one of their more noble projects, will bring in as many viewers as the more gossip oriented, "tell all" program, Harry and Meghan.


Heart of Invictus -https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14491228/

Follow a group of competitors, from around the globe, all service members who have suffered life-changing injuries or illnesses, on their road to the Invictus Games The Hague

Harry and Meghan. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt23900194/

Explores the span of their relationship, from the early days of the couple's courtship to the challenges and controversies that prompted them to step back from the royal family.

 

[kimebear]

I agree.
And the same can also be said about book sales. In fact, I'm reminded of NY best-seller scandal few years ago.

New York Times pulls YA novel from bestseller list after reports of fake sales

The convoluted world of best-seller lists, explained

That wasn't an isolated incident either. Celebrity 'bestsellers' are notorious for being financial windfalls for big names who put their stamp on ghost written novels regardless of how well the books organically sell. If you have certain wealthy supporters buying cases of books that they give away like candy, the book is still generating revenue.

If I had to guess, I would say that the IPSOS poll was a trial balloon by the publishing house to test the waters among the key demographics for how well a sequel would sell. You'll notice in the poll methodology that it doesn't specifically cover people who have actually read Spare, which, if they had, would probably change the opinion of many of them.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

The Ipsos poll is a perfectly legitimate poll. Certainly more so than magazine polls in the UK and US that declare that the Sussexes popularity is sliding, just to help get clickbait.

I bought and have read Spare, and I’m perfectly capable of making my own mind up about the Sussexes thanks . Let’s just say, I couldn’t disagree with you more.

Ipsos is a respected polling firm and is rated a B- by www.fivethirtyeight.com. Newsweek is also a legitimate poll. Regardless of which is correct. there is no question that the Sussexes are more popular in the general population than they are on this board.

Millions of people watched their Netflix series - so far it is running to a documentary about a cannibal (and yes, that is snark). Millions have bought the book, but the reported sales are to bookstores, where the books may or may not sell. About 12 million tuned in to 60 Minutes, aapproximately 2 million more than average.

I don't think any of this is sustainable. There will always be some interest in them because of their ties to the British royal family but I don't think they will be A-listers in five years unless they change course.

The media in the US is beginning to turn. Harry probably has some additional content for another book and there is possibly another reality series. But without new content, they are going to get stale. Invictus alone will not generate enough interest for them to be major players on the world stage.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Speaking of Harry being a joke, has anyone heard "Living as the Spare". It's a short clip with the music of Bon Jovi's "Living on a Prayer".
I also am hearing back and forth about Spotify, multiple publications say it didn't get much traction and there won't be a season 2; I've seen no proof for that last part.
The Netflix program about leadership did really bad.

 

[yukari]

Speaking of Harry being a joke, has anyone heard "Living as the Spare". It's a short clip with the music of Bon Jovi's "Living on a Prayer".
I also am hearing back and forth about Spotify, multiple publications say it didn't get much traction and there won't be a season 2; I've seen no proof for that last part.
The Netflix program about leadership did really bad.

Yesterday The Telegraph reports that Ostroff (who signed up Sussexes' deal) is leaving Spotify amidst mass layoffs so there's a possibility that there will be no more Spotify project for the Sussexes if the company decides to cut their losses.

 

[Toledo]

Thanks for the post Yukari!

I'm in the USA and I would factor in the reasons of their popularity is personality based. Both Harry and Meghan do well with the public, and he has a good of humor when he's on a roll. It doesn't matter if what they say is not based on facts, it's how they say it that matters on TV.

Also factor in the USA media loves a victim story, and when the story is proven otherwise there is no backpedaling nor corrections. The original story, lies and all, stands uncontested. I'm not surprised they are popular with younger generations because at that age, decades ago, I too was against the established system and gravitated towards these type of media heroes and victims.

But now, older and been-there-done-that, I can see the bigger picture and not get influenced by the likes of TV reporters going easy on the interviews about Spare. They are not selling his book; they are selling their show for USA TV ratings with poor Harry vs the Firm storyline.

 

[Curryong]

Speaking of Harry being a joke, has anyone heard "Living as the Spare". It's a short clip with the music of Bon Jovi's "Living on a Prayer".
I also am hearing back and forth about Spotify, multiple publications say it didn't get much traction and there won't be a season 2; I've seen no proof for that last part.
The Netflix program about leadership did really bad.

Harry and Meghan were hardly seen in the Netflix Leadership doco series. They introduced the subjects of each show and that was all. So they can hardly be blamed for that failure. Their own documentary series was the second most successful Netflix ever showed.

And Spotify are experiencing mass layoffs (again not the Sussexes’ responsibility) so if for economic reasons Meghan doesn’t get any second podcast series, that will be a shame iMO , but she will hardly be Robinson Crusoe in that situation. Though no doubt the British tabloids and other commentators will be gleefully tying her to it all.

 

[Toledo]

I would be curious to see if Heart of Invictus which is IMO one of their more noble projects, will bring in as many viewers as the more gossip oriented, "tell all" program, Harry and Meghan.

Heart of Invictus -https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14491228/

Harry and Meghan. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt23900194/

Here's the answer.

Published on January 12, 2023 10:45 AM
Prince Harry's Next Netflix Series on His Invictus Games Is Coming to Screens This Summer

Excerpt - and do notice Meghan's name is now before Harry's.


Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's next Netflix project is hitting the streaming service this summer.

Netflix announced on Thursday that Heart of Invictus, a series following competitors as they prepare for Prince Harry's Invictus Games, will air in the summer of 2023.

"This new series from Archewell Productions follows a group of extraordinary competitors from around the globe — all service members who have suffered life-changing injuries or illnesses — on their road to competing at the Invictus Games," the streaming service wrote on Twitter in a thread announcing several sports-related programs. The caption accompanied a photo of the Duke of Sussex shaking hands with an athlete.

 

[Curryong]

That’s some journalist at People magazine reporting about the series, not an official announcement from Invictus, that’s putting Meghan’s name before Harry’s.

 

[tausi]

President Biden has seen them, or rather Harry, as has his wife Jill whom Biden joked was getting too close to the Prince. The Bidens went to the Invictus Games when they were held in North America. Pres Obama met Harry as well on more than one occasion. .

https://people.com/royals/looking-back-at-jill-bidens-relationship-with-prince-harry/

Before he left the royal family! Huge difference!

 

[tausi]

Those meetings with the presidents happened prior Harry leaving his working royal life. It’s much more unlikely he meets with presidents now. Dr Biden is a bit of a different matter.

Exactly!! Things have changed now!

As we have seen, they didn’t attend Obama’s big party or any White House correspondents dinner or any big events.

Harry and his wife are what Hollywood refer to “damaged goods” at this points!