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

[Moran]

To add on my earlier comment: still, the title has to reflect the content, to some extent. So, although I don't believe it was Harry's choice, I expect it to fit with the general tune of the book. And the picture was chosen for a reason. Now, the only one who could talk to the ghost writer and choose the episodes to include (with some exceptions, like walking behind Diana's coffin, which I don't think Harry would have been allowed to leave out, no matter his own wishes) is - Harry. So I expect the book to reflect Harry's attitude.

 

[Durham]

I just noticed about the blurb for this book it says:

"It was one of the most searing images of the twentieth century: two young boys, two princes, walking behind their mother's coffin..."

Not sure where to start with this sort of hyperbole. The twentieth century? Really? The century of two world wars & countless other major events both good & bad in world history. This sort of guff doesn't reflect well on the publishers or sellers in my opinion.

I think it speaks to much of the problem with commerce & the British rf. The way it's been co-opted into a huge money making machine that just seems to accelerate & get worse over time. And now one of the family themselves has thrown in their lot with the commercial greed. It makes you wonder where it will all end. I am not optimistic.

 

[Alison H]

Prince Harry could have chosen to remain and gone on to have a very fulfilling military career in his chosen profession, but in the end he was the one who decided to change course.

Of course he could. Prince Andrew had a naval career which certainly outshone anything Charles did in the Armed Forces. Maybe Harry didn't feel suited to a desk job, but that would have had absolutely nothing to do with not outshining William.

 

[Hallo girl]

I just noticed about the blurb for this book it says:

"It was one of the most searing images of the twentieth century: two young boys, two princes, walking behind their mother's coffin..."

Not sure where to start with this sort of hyperbole. The twentieth century? Really? The century of two world wars & countless other major events both good & bad in world history. This sort of guff doesn't reflect well on the publishers or sellers in my opinion.

I think it speaks to much of the problem with commerce & the British rf. The way it's been co-opted into a huge money making machine that just seems to accelerate & get worse over time. And now one of the family themselves has thrown in their lot with the commercial greed. It makes you wonder where it will all end. I am not optimistic.

What has always bothered me about the current attitude towards the boys walking behind the coffin does not relate to what was happening at the time.

Those of us who were around remember the press coverage of the royal family because they choose to remain in Balmoral with the boys, they were slated as uncaring cold etc etc.

I struggle to equate the refusal to bring the boys down too soon, with the same people forcing them to walk behind the coffin.

It was said at the time that the boys would decide for themselves whether or not to walk behind the coffin.

Now the family are being criticised for allowing it to happen. What was said now I am not sure how accurate this is, but Phillip had offered to walk with them if that is what they wanted,

I am interested in Harrys take on the situation, was he forced into it, did he say no and was overruled, did William choose to do it, so Harry agreed as well. It obviously had a profound effect on him regardless of how it was arranged.

 

[Prinsara]

Philip famously said "If you don't do it, you might regret it later; if I do it, will you walk with me?" but it's virtually never brought up that he had had to do it at almost the same age for his sister and her family, who had all died horrifically.

I'm pretty sure both boys, even Harry, could understand that they were not the only ones to have something like this happen and that walking behind their mother wasn't something specially invented for them.

Now I wonder if Harry will touch on any of that, or does his trauma really have to be greater than everyone else's? :/

 

[Hallo girl]

Philip famously said "If you don't do it, you might regret it later; if I do it, will you walk with me?" but it's virtually never brought up that he had had to do it at almost the same age for his sister and her family, who had all died horrifically.

I'm pretty both boys, even Harry, could understand that they were not the only ones to have something like this happen and that walking behind their mother wasn't something specially invented for them.

Now I wonder if Harry will touch on any of that, or does his trauma really have to be greater than everyone else's? :/

It took me a minute or two to pick up on what you said but I do now recall seeing the photographs of a young Philip walking at his sisters funeral. Was that the plane crash ?

 

[Prinsara]

It took me a minute or two to pick up on what you said but I do now recall seeing the photographs of a young Philip walking at his sisters funeral. Was that the plane crash ?

Yes, the Hesse-Darmstadt crash of 1937. His sister Cecile, his brother-in-law Don, his two young nephews, their newborn baby, and Don's mother. Much, much worse than Diana, in some ways.

(And what about Mountbatten's assassination? That was pretty bad for Philip and Charles, despite being adults, to the point it's heavily speculated it's why William and Harry exist at all.)

 

[FigTree]

Philip famously said "If you don't do it, you might regret it later; if I do it, will you walk with me?" but it's virtually never brought up that he had had to do it at almost the same age for his sister and her family, who had all died horrifically.

I'm pretty sure both boys, even Harry, could understand that they were not the only ones to have something like this happen and that walking behind their mother wasn't something specially invented for them.

Now I wonder if Harry will touch on any of that, or does his trauma really have to be greater than everyone else's? :/

I heard he said that. We also need to remember how much things changed since he did that, to 1997 to now. I actually think he had a very pertinent point. We walk behind coffins in this part of the world. It’s part of the grieving process. Whether it was right or wrong for them I don’t know.

What I do know is that they were 12 and 15, and at the time no one questioned it.

What I do know is that Eugenie was at the funeral at 7 and no one questioned it or thought it unusual.

What I do know is that the fact James is 14 and stood vigil at the coffin was remarked on as brave in the media.

What I do know is that the fact George and Charlotte was at the Queens funeral was commented about and everyone made a fuss about how well they did.

What I do know is that the Queens other three great grandchildren who were old enough to attend, one nearly a teenager, did not to Westminster but to the smaller St George’s.

We expected too much in the past or we underestimate children now. You decide.

I think they may have always regretted it if they didn’t do it. No matter how hard it was.

 

[HRHHermione]

I feel like we won’t have much to do in this thread until either the book comes out or the extracts are published to publicize it. However, I do just hope Harry focuses on himself as much as possible and isn’t cruel to his father and especially his brother.

What gets lost in these conversations about Prince Harry and his “mental health advocacy”is that he’s the younger sibling to someone who was very traumatized by his family’s private issues being put into the public sphere when he was young. Harry was young enough to be protected from much of it, but William was at Eton and watched the Panorama interview live. He also saw how damaging the “cooperative biographies” both his parents participated in were. His reaction has been to draw a very firm line between his public life and his private one which he negotiates with great care.

I hope his brother cares enough about not causing trauma to respect that.

 

[FigTree]

I feel like we won’t have much to do in this thread until either the book comes out or the extracts are published to publicize it. However, I do just hope Harry focuses on himself as much as possible and isn’t cruel to his father and especially his brother.

What gets lost in these conversations about Prince Harry and his “mental health advocacy”is that he’s the younger sibling to someone who was very traumatized by his family’s private issues being put into the public sphere when he was young. Harry was young enough to be protected from much of it, but William was at Eton and watched the Panorama interview live. He also saw how damaging the “cooperative biographies” both his parents participated in were. His reaction has been to draw a very firm line between his public life and his private one which he negotiates with great care.

I hope his brother cares enough about not causing trauma to respect that.

That’s a very poignant point. I don’t know whether William was at Ludgrove or at Eton but a I remember stories in the years since of his house master basically imploring Diana about it and also of him having William come so the two of them could watch it together. Let’s be real, the fact an education professional showed more concern for the mental well-being of the children than the parent strikes me very much as the the other side of those families who need social services input into families.

Harry was immensely protected as the younger sibling, by everyone. Who knows the pain William holds and I give the Middletons, the Queen, Philip, Tiggy and the educational professionals who had a duty of care to him a lot of credit in how he turned out.

 

[camelot23ca]

Philip famously said "If you don't do it, you might regret it later; if I do it, will you walk with me?" but it's virtually never brought up that he had had to do it at almost the same age for his sister and her family, who had all died horrifically.

I'm pretty sure both boys, even Harry, could understand that they were not the only ones to have something like this happen and that walking behind their mother wasn't something specially invented for them.

Now I wonder if Harry will touch on any of that, or does his trauma really have to be greater than everyone else's? :/

Harry has never given any indication that he understands that the decision Charles and the RF had to make about the boys walking in the procession was a complicated one with only bad options to choose from. For example, if the quote above attributed to Philip is correct, he was right; William and Harry walking in the procession was one way they could honour their mother. They could only do it once, and if they sat it out and then came to understand at 25 or 30 years old what a meaningful, or even profound, experience it could have been, that would be a regret they’d have to live with. I’ve always understood that the Royal Family initially wanted a less public funeral, and it’s easy to see why when you look at the footage from the procession. If they’d had a true choice there probably wouldn’t have been such a procession, and the boys could have been fully involved without being subjected to public scrutiny.

There will likely come a time when Harry has to make an important decision on his children’s behalf, under emotional circumstances, without having set the terms of the choice, while knowing that every available option could be traumatizing and that he’ll be it if the children ever go looking for someone to blame. I look forward to hearing his thoughts on the funeral procession after life has gifted him that particular joy of parenthood.

 

[Kataryn]

The comment when he left about carving out a "progressive new role in this institution" struck me as odd/arrogant at the time. I think you're right & he saw much of what members of the rf do as pointless. I'm not convinced he understood what the monarchy is actually for & how the relatives of the monarch fit in.

And he could have left earlier anyway. He had the money to do what he wanted. The irony of course is that his enormous inheritance derived from public funds anyway if you trace it back to its origins. So being the "spare" certainly didn't impact his wealth.

And this book will make him even more money now of course.

AFAIK he inherited his money from Diana and she got it from Charles' private wealth. No public pension for the princess. Or do you mean the money he got for fighting in Afghanistan? For that is the only "public" funds he got . But that's just AFAIK.

 

[FigTree]

AFAIK he inherited his money from Diana and she got it from Charles' private wealth. No public pension for the princess. Or do you mean the money he got for fighting in Afghanistan? For that is the only "public" funds he got . But that's just AFAIK.

The Queen paid Diana’s divorce sum. Who paid that, who knows. The Duchy of Cornwall being as successful as it is, is only a recent thing. He couldn’t afford the settlement.

 

[HRHHermione]

AFAIK he inherited his money from Diana and she got it from Charles' private wealth. No public pension for the princess. Or do you mean the money he got for fighting in Afghanistan? For that is the only "public" funds he got . But that's just AFAIK.

And where exactly does the private wealth of Charles come from?

(Hint: it’s from the duchy established specifically to support the Prince of Wales.)

 

[EllieCat]

Philip famously said "If you don't do it, you might regret it later; if I do it, will you walk with me?" but it's virtually never brought up that he had had to do it at almost the same age for his sister and her family, who had all died horrifically.

And Philip had to do that walk with nazis too, as i understand, not so much loving relatives.

 

[FigTree]

And where exactly does the private wealth of Charles come from?

(Hint: it’s from the duchy established specifically to support the Prince of Wales.)

Either way doesn’t matter because he didn’t pay it. You know the Duchy is a ‘private’ landownership deal right. Tax doesn’t support it but rents do.

 

[FigTree]

And Philip had to do that walk with nazis too, as i understand, not so much loving relatives.

Not the same as it would be now. I’m sure people disagreed with the nazis at the time but Germany was an extraordinarily politicised and polarised country at the time. I’m not sure the outfits would have made much impression on Philip really.

 

[Curryong]

Prince Christoph of Hesse was a keen Nazi, as was his brother. Christoph was married to Prss Sophie, Prince Philip’s sister, and also marched in the Hesse funeral cortège. Philip, much later, spoke to his friend Gyles Brandreth about his brothers in law, stating that it was difficult but that he remembered Christoph, who was killed in a plane crash in 1943, as a softly spoken and gentle person.

 

[Prinsara]

Not the same as it would be now. I’m sure people disagreed with the nazis at the time but Germany was an extraordinarily politicised and polarised country at the time. I’m not sure the outfits would have made much impression on Philip really.

I'm pretty sure Philip had more of an idea of who the Nazis were considering he'd gone to school in Germany for several months, his headmaster at Gordonstoun had fled them, and Cecile and Don had died as card-carrying NSDAP party members. (Harry does watch The Crown, right...?)

EllieCat is right, though. Neither of Philip's parents could give him much support at the time, and his other relatives only so much. And there were no Nazis in London in 1997.

If Harry treats his mother's funeral like some unimaginable crime and the worst thing that ever happened to anyone, it will just be an example of how narrow his view is. If he actually explores a bit of the very real genetic pain in the family, that might be interesting.

 

[FigTree]

I'm pretty sure Philip had more of an idea of who the Nazis were considering he'd gone to school in Germany for several months, his headmaster at Gordonstoun had fled them, and Cecile and Don had died as card-carrying NSDAP party members. (Harry does watch The Crown, right...?)

EllieCat is right, though. Neither of Philip's parents could give him much support at the time, and his other relatives only so much. And there were no Nazis in London in 1997.

If Harry treats his mother's funeral like some unimaginable crime and the worst thing that ever happened to anyone, it will just be an example of how narrow his view is. If he actually explores a bit of the very real genetic pain in the family, that might be interesting.

Didn’t say he didn’t know who they were, I said the imagery and revulsion around them was not what it is now.

Intergenerational trauma. No such thing as genetic pain. Usually referring to societies with high issues of repression and prejudice: Jewish. Irish etc.

As a family do the royals have elements because of role they play well then sure. And one of central components is that you never really know who will be affected. It bypasses many people.

Or really it’s just a heightened form of generational difference in a Harry’s case.

Harry will spend his time as a parent avoiding the mistakes he feels were made to him. He’ll then make entirely new mistakes with his children. Let’s hope they forgive him.

 

[MARG]

I find myself astonished at the amount of criticism Harry's book has engendered considering it is yet to actually be published! The false flags are stunning; yes Prince Philip walked behind his Aunt and her family's cortege however, times were different and he knew it was expected which, considering he was 16 years of age, is hardly surprising. Harry was just 12 years of age and not yet even classed as an adolescent when he walked behind his mother's coffin.

All the conversations about Zara, Eugenie etc. being second children is totally irrelevant. Harry, as his uncle Andrew before him was the Spare to the Heir to the throne. As such he inhabited the same world as William in the knowledge that he was destined for absolutely nothing except being his brother's spare and that would not change until such time as his brother married and produced his own heir and preferably spare as well.

As a spare Harry was never encouraged to have any aspirations other than being his brother's stopgap and, on occasion, scapegoat. He was in no way educated or prepared to "earn his own way" than those before him and if we look back just a little we can see how Prince Edward, originally fourth in line to the throne, was hounded by the media.

Sophie had her own moderately successful design career but the moment she and Edward married they were accused of using the BRF to make their fortune. They were both hounded unmercifully until the sad little announcement that they had both decided to forgo their careers and join the family firm like the firm actually needed two more full-time workers at that time.

So here we wait for Harry's biography to be published. We know what he said it would be, i.e. his truth and his feelings growing up to be the man he is today. I am holding out for the book since it will be the first personal account of a Spare. How the world, the country, and his family treated him, and how he felt about it. It will also possibly show what advice and support he got from his family to try to create his own niche.

With all the "leaks" from all the usual suspects, I can only surmise that there are more than a few people who feel threatened by Him and what he may say about them, both family members and courtiers, and the pre-emptive character assassination seems to support that.

 

[VictoriaB]

I think there’s a big difference between James, Eugenie, Charlotte and George standing vigil for their grandmother or attending the funeral of their Aunt or great grandmother and Harry and William walking behind the cortège of their mother.

People on here have spoken of the children of the Kennedy family - well JFK jr died young - some have suggested that he took ridiculous risks - and many of RFKs children had problems with drug use. The older female children - Caroline and Katherine have coped well but I would venture the same expectations weren’t placed on them as girls as were put on the boys of their generation.

As for Harry’s memoirs, given the easily disproved comments made to Oprah, I won’t hold my breath expecting a version from Harry that holds up to even the barest scrutiny.

 

[HRHHermione]

With all the "leaks" from all the usual suspects, I can only surmise that there are more than a few people who feel threatened by Him and what he may say about them, both family members and courtiers, and the pre-emptive character assassination seems to support that.

I don’t think that’s entirely fair. I think that a memoir from Prince Harry would be receiving a very different reception four years ago. If it were his first time speaking out and he was doing so from a quiet and private life, I think there’d be a lot of interest and also a kind of base level trust that he could tell his story in a way that was truthful and interesting but still protective of the privacy of others.

This book is being received after a lot of other things. After the Oprah interview, where a lot of outright falsehoods went unchecked. After the abrupt exit from royal life before a path had been agreed to with his grandmother and father, along with the website that made it very clear Harry and Meghan intended to maintain the privileges of royal life (security, funding, military honors) but without any checks on their commercial endeavors. I think a lot of people have come to expect the worst from Prince Harry because he has, in many cases, exceeded everyone’s worst expectations.

Personally though, I’m rooting for your version. I hope his book is lovely. I hope it tells his story while giving grace to his family and respecting their privacy, knowing they can’t answer back. We’ll know when the extracts start coming out.

If anyone in publishing has a good idea of when to expect those, that would be nice. I would guess maybe the first in mid December to stir interest, a second in early January, and a third a day or two before the book hits shelves.

 

[Lee-Z]

Although i hate to quote from the dm or telegraph, this is a quote that 'a source' said about the book:
"You can’t always live your life trying to make your family or your siblings happy. You have to choose your own happiness."

And i fully agree with that...and if Harry is going down this route from now, more power to him.

I just still don't see why 'choosing your own happiness' means 'causing your family unhappiness'...
so i hope he refrains from that from now on, and all the blurbs that are coming out are just 'sources' trying to spin up some interest for the book

 

[Kataryn]

And where exactly does the private wealth of Charles come from?

(Hint: it’s from the duchy established specifically to support the Prince of Wales.)

Hermione, do I really have to explain to you what "public funds" are and what a trust under govermental control is, which was set up to benefit one person and that person only?



You seem to think that all the money the government controls has to go to support the people living in a country and that's true insofar as the Royal family is a part of the people as well. But it depends on how the government can (and wants to) deal with that money.

"Public funds" are eg taxes and while some of them go back to benefit the small people in a country, most is used by those who administrate them to make their own life and their environment comfortable. Few people think of the small people and their needs, that's why children of poor people in the Uk go hungry to school today. Some who think even though they don't have to open up "charities" themselves or pay for them for PR purposes - in any case it is to help people who wouldn't need charitable help if the money was distributed in a way that was "just" for everyone. But I degress and it's never going to happen anyway.

Because the people who rule in the name of all the people have no interest to do so for the poor. Why should they? All the laws that were established from Anglo-Saxon time were based on the idea that there are people who need protection and protectors who for their protection get a better life. The class system! And as those people who are in the upper classes have wanted to keep their children there, too and their money within the control of their family. Understandible, isn't it?



But - after 1000 years(and more), and while living in a very mobile society when it comes to money, we have some really rich nobles (like the duke of Westminster), then really rich industrialists, some financial wizards - all being rich because the laws protect their money and their inheritances. And now there is the Prince of Wales as the Duke of Cornwall. As you said, his duchy was created to support him financially. That's exactly the same as the duchy of Westminster, the money of the Rothschilds, the Guiness beer-money etc. It doesn't really matter who administrates these Royall estates, their whole reason to be is to support certain Royal persons. So we are talking about the former Prince Charles' private wealth, it is not public money but an estate formed over 700 years ago under the law of the land to supply the Prince of Wales with an income. An income, which is as private as the income of any rich Briton. King Charles III. has a public job and gets public funds to do it (for security, cars, travels, staff etc.) but he has a private estate as well (now: Lancaster and the estates he inherited from his mother) and with that he can do as he wishes within the laws. Laws that are not to shuffle money to the poor but to keep Charles, his family and staff comfortable.



The only thing that has changed over the century is the "Crown Estate", which used to be the king's private wealth, too, at a time but was used to fund the king's activities, but George III. decided it was easier for him to exchange the Crown Estate for money from the Civil list (which payed for the upkeep of his palaces and life, but left him with private money as well). Every king and queen regnant after him has given the revenues of the Crown Estate to the government, Charles did it on saying explicitely that that money should be used to the benefit of all people in his kingdom. But never forget: it's still a gift of the Head of the ruling family and if the Britons vote to abolish their monarchy, the laws will give the Estate back to said Head.



So even the "Souvereign Grant" is just a part of what belongs to Charles anyway but was given for the people's benefitWhich makes king Charles one of the most charitable people in the Uk but the revenue is still his gift to the people, not something the people own.



The UK is a country where private wealth is something anyone wants. But people forget nowadays that this put them into the category of a protector of the poor and it just is not done to pay taxes and forget about that. The richter, the educated people should control the government so it cares for the poor in a proper way instead of merely protecting their own wealth. But that's no topic for this forum.

 

[Hallo girl]

I find it interesting that Prince Harry did not use his first Christian name of Henry in the title. However, some people are only aware that he is referred to as Harry and not Henry.

When his name was announced at the time of his birth, it was stated clearly that his name was Henry but would be called Harry. He has always been Harry,

 

[Marengo]

Although i hate to quote from the dm or telegraph, this is a quote that 'a source' said about the book:
"You can’t always live your life trying to make your family or your siblings happy. You have to choose your own happiness."

And i fully agree with that...and if Harry is going down this route from now, more power to him.

I just still don't see why 'choosing your own happiness' means 'causing your family unhappiness'...
so i hope he refrains from that from now on, and all the blurbs that are coming out are just 'sources' trying to spin up some interest for the book

A link to the article of this quote was sent to us by Tatiana Maria:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...e-book-couldnt-spend-life-trying-make-family/

 

[Alison H]

Kataryn, you make a lot of generalisations about the UK, none of which are accurate.

The UK has had a welfare state since the days of Lloyd George and Asquith, when Edward VII was on the throne. Suggesting that public funds are used by "rich people" to make their own lives more comfortable is inaccurate and really rather offensive.

The UK has also had universal suffrage since 1928. Many Members of Parliament are from working class or lower middle class backgrounds: the government is not "controlled" by rich people at all.

And none of this really has anything to do with Prince Harry, so maybe it could be left there.


From the Telegraph article:

While it may not have been his motive, the book is expected to take aim at members of the Royal family by delving into the cycle of "genetic pain and suffering" that he has previously described, for which he appears to blame his father, the King.

Oh, not this again. So it does sound as if the book is another moan-fest, and attacks the King, who has only just spoken of his love for Harry and Meghan.

 

[Addapalla]

I find myself astonished at the amount of criticism Harry's book has engendered considering it is yet to actually be published!

Due to the popular and polarizing practice of doubling-down, what are the chances of this book's premature critics being capable of expressing an objective thought when it is published? Current trends suggest they will go cherry-picking for the items that bolster their preconceived opinions and long-held prejudices.

.

 

[Granada]

Marg, I just want to correct one thing in your post. Philip at 16 walked behind his sister, (not Aunt) Cecilie's funeral cortege.
And, as for your opinion regarding Edward and Sophie joining the Family as full time members..... ( "like the Firm actually needed two more full time working members at that time ") I respectively disagree.

I believe they were needed, as it turned out, when they became full time working Royals in 2002. In that year both Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother died as well as Princess Margaret. Personally, that must have been incredibly difficult for The Queen, although of course neither was working members by that time.

Diana dead since 1997 and Andrew and Fergie divorced and unpopular. Anne divorced but remarried too, but sadly her unbelievable work ethic wasn't as appreciated then, as it certainly is now.
And Charles, he was unpopular and still mired in the aftermath of the Diana - Camilla debate. So bringing in the ONE still married couple to do engagements, low key as they were and are made sense.

Im a big fan of the Wessex's and I'm sure the Queen and Philip did appreciate having them come in. And as you rightly point out it was a great opportunity to start fresh after the " Fake Sheikh " debacle. Who was actually a investigative reporter for The News of The World tabloid newspaper.