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

[US Royal Watcher]

"Several friends of Harry, once loyal to him, say they are considering whether to go on the record to debunk some of his claims as “bollocks” and drop counter-bombshells of their own. “Loyalty works both ways,” warns one.

Oh I so hope they do.

Part of me agrees but it will also keep this in the headlines. I think the book is backfiring and there is a saying, when your foe is destroying himself, stand back and let it happen.

 

[kimebear]

As far as I know she had it on loan for some time as she had a lot of engagements, where she could wear it. but when they had a row over the house on the estate he asked for it back. its not really likely IMO that she was borrowing it and sending it back,

"On loan" being the key phrase.

Diana had the tiara in her possession so often as a favor from her brother. She wasn't entitled to use it, and it wasn't the only one at her disposal although it was the one she preferred. IMO Lord Spencer was quite generous about it, and when they quarreled he rightfully asked for his (very expensive) property back to ensure that his own heirs could have access to it in the future.

 

[Erin9]

"Several friends of Harry, once loyal to him, say they are considering whether to go on the record to debunk some of his claims as “bollocks” and drop counter-bombshells of their own. “Loyalty works both ways,” warns one.

If they do, I’d say Harry earned it. I’m quite sure there is a lot Harry’s friends could say about him. I think it’s safe to say Harry left a few stories out of this book.

 

[Sionevar]

Part of me agrees but it will also keep this in the headlines. I think the book is backfiring and there is a saying, when your foe is destroying himself, stand back and let it happen.

As Napoleon put it, 'Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake'.

But I doubt Harry has ever read much about Napoleon...

 

[Erin9]

Part of me agrees but it will also keep this in the headlines. I think the book is backfiring and there is a saying, when your foe is destroying himself, stand back and let it happen.

True. But this would be Harry’s friends. Not the family.

I do agree with you in general. The family don’t need to say anything. And shouldn’t. Harry and Meghan have done a great job of self destructing for some time now.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

I think the only thing left is Meghan’s memoir. I shudder to think of it, should it happen.

IA- they haven’t displayed the talent necessary to really maintain their lifestyle.

I’d say Meghan has no chance in politics, but when I think of the current state of politics….there could be voters who buy whatever she’s trying to sell. I don’t see Nancy Pelosi liking her though.

I think her and Harry’s other big problem is you have to have powerful people (ie connections) backing you. In politics, entertainment, etc. These 2 have incinerated a lot of bridges. Who wants to work with people who are shown to be as indiscreet and petty as they have? Especially when you could possibly work with Charles, Camilla, William, Catherine and other royals.

Politics in the US for Meghan? I agree with you - I do not see it at all - she is way too thin skinned for politics. To remind forum members outside the US, “Suits” was a tv show on a minor cable network featuring a largely unknown cast. I could not tell you the name of a single person (besides Meghan whom I’d never heard of until she started seeing Harry) from that cast. She does have name recognition now, but I can’t see her appealing to the type of voter who might agree with her politically. Also (I may be wrong ) but I believe that the US constitution prohibits any person of noble title holding any public office - unless Congress consents. Does anyone think she’d give up her title?

I am confused - isn’t it a four book deal? So Spare, Meghan’s memoir, and what else? What am I forgetting??

 

[duchessrachel]

The point is not whether the Taliban is teliing the truth or not, but rather that Harry gave the Taliban a propaganda talking point to attack the West. There would have been no Talban statement on Al-Jazeera today about this particular event if Harry had not mentioned it in his memoir just to brag about how tough he was as a soldier.

It is even more pathetic because the same Harry who feels empowered behind an Apache helicopter cockpit is also telling us that he ran to the kitchen when his brother raised his voice on him.




Other European royal houses also had problems with chidren of the monarch who were not the first in line to the throne, see e.g. Laurent of Belgium, Märtha-Louise of Norway; Joachim of Denmark; Caroline of Monaco; Cristina of Spain, and so on. And, in the UK, there are/were princes/princesses who were not first in line and did very well, including Princess Anne and Prince Edward. In fact, George V and George VI themselves were once spares and, although fate ultimately caused them to become monarchs, I believe they compared favorably to their older brothers even when they were only spares. So I don't think we can generalize that spares are systematically a problem, or that the British record in this area is worse than in other kingdoms.

I also think Carl Philip of Sweden is another excellent example of a spare who has behaved impeccably, especially given the changes in primogeniture that happened in Sweden during the time he was born.

 

[Sunnystar]

Also (I may be wrong ) but I believe that the US constitution prohibits any person of noble title holding any public office - unless Congress consents. Does anyone think she’d give up her title?

Meghan doesn't hold any title. She is merely styled as HRH The Duchess of Sussex due to her marriage. Harry is the one who holds the title. She doesn't need to give up anything, though I do wonder what her letterhead as a Congresswoman or Senator would look like... Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor? Meghan Markle??? Whichever, she'd be referred to in Congress as "The Gentlewoman Meghan LAST NAME of California" or maybe as "The Gentlelady Meghan LAST NAME of California" depending on who was doing the addressing - I heard both "Gentlewoman" and "Gentlelady" last night while I was watching the last two votes for House Speaker, lol.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Politics in the US for Meghan? I agree with you - I do not see it at all - she is way too thin skinned for politics. To remind forum members outside the US, “Suits” was a tv show on a minor cable network featuring a largely unknown cast. I could not tell you the name of a single person (besides Meghan whom I’d never heard of until she started seeing Harry) from that cast. She does have name recognition now, but I can’t see her appealing to the type of voter who might agree with her politically. Also (I may be wrong ) but I believe that the US constitution prohibits any person of noble title holding any public office - unless Congress consents. Does anyone think she’d give up her title?

I am confused - isn’t it a four book deal? So Spare, Meghan’s memoir, and what else? What am I forgetting??

Harry wouldn't have to renounce his title so I am not sure she would consider losing it a big deal in exchange for a political career, and her politics seems in line with the area she lives in. I doubt that would be sufficient though. There are a lot of politically savyy people in that area and she is very thin skinned.

With respect to the book deal, I'm not sure that it is a 4-book deal, if so, there is The Bench. It's possible that Meghan could right her own autobiography but I can't believe people are that interested in her life before she met Harry. There are other possibilities, such as another cook book or self-help book.

 

[Sunnystar]

Harry wouldn't have to renounce his title so I am not sure she would consider losing it a big deal in exchange for a political career, and her politics seems in line with the area she lives in. I doubt that would be sufficient though. There are a lot of politically savyy people in that area and she is very thin skinned.

Looking over the Wikipedia entry for CA24 (where Montecito is located), it looks like it's a Lean D, but all that means is that with a solid R candidate and a bad D candidate, it could flip. It would certainly be a nasty race with a LOT of money from both sides.

I'm undecided on whether or not Meghan could win, but that's not a discussion for TRF.

 

[Alison H]

The TV news bulletins are all leading with the pressure on the Health Service due to flu and Covid, but some of the Sunday papers are leading with Harry, mainly with the potential security issues caused by his "chessboard" comments.

 

[Queen Claude]

It is not hard for me to believe that someone, either a royal or a courtier, suggesting that there are too many "C" royals and throwing out the idea that Catherine change to Katherine. But just because someone thought it and said it out loud does not mean that it was either not seriously considered, or given serious consideration but ultimately overruled and Catherine kept the original spelling of her name.

The thing that is interesting to me is that I recall reading the Princess of Wales is referred to in private as Catherine and not Kate* but Harry refers to her as Kate in his book. I wonder if he was always an outlier and referred to her as Kate, or if he referred to his sister-in-law as Catherine in their private interactions.

* IIRC she was referred to as Kate in one of the phases of her life, I think that it was when she was a student but I don't recall if it was St. Andrews, Malborough or another school.

 

[tommy100]

Camilla apparently gave Catherine a gold bracelet with a "C " on it. Hardly what someone hoping she would change her name would do.

Strikes me as a throw away remark someone may have made - she was more commonly known as "Kate" so I could see Charles or Camilla saying something like "is she spelling it with a K or C - we already have lots of Cs!" as a joke that Harry has taken far too seriously. No one is going to make any one change their name, just as Charles hasn't adopted George as his regnal name as many suggested.

http://www.dianasjewels.net/braceletscatherine.htm

https://www.hellomagazine.com/fashi...let-gift-kate-middleton-sweet-story-revealed/

 

[camelot23ca]

I don't think they will be in a strong negotiating position. In my opinion, Harry and Meghan will not be able to sustain their lifestyle. I've seen estimates that his security alone costs $5 million a year. Even if the true number is half that, I don't see how they can sustain it. They fly around in private jets and have a lot of housing costs (mortgage, taxes, maintenance). His deals with Netflix, Penguin and Spotify are profitable, but there are many expenses, including taxes, employees, production costs, etc.

I think there is enough interest for one more blockbuster book, but I also believe in the law of diminishing returns. Objectively, they have not demonstrated sufficient talent to develop lucrative careers without relying on his connections. There are rumors that Meghan is considering running for public office but even if she were successful, she would not be able to make serious money until she left office.

I think Charles would give them a home in the UK and a comfortable allowance. If they demand more than that, I think Charles and William will say no and weather whatever mud is sling at them.

I find the idea of Meghan running for public office absurd, but at this point nothing would surprise me. If she did run, and especially if she won, their financial pressures would increase substantially. Even a Senator (let’s dream big) doesn’t make enough to make a dent in the Sussexes’ living expenses. She wouldn’t be able to take on any new business ventures, or play an active role in their current ones, and if there was even a hint of current or past financial irregularities both the press and the opposition would be all over them. I don’t see either Meghan or Harry being able to withstand any serious pressure or scrutiny - I think they’ll stick to their current frivolous lifestyle for that reason alone.

 

[Prinsara]

More backlash about Harry and the drug use. https://archive.ph/jDsgk

"Obviously, the drugs have not worked. They have had a detrimental effect on his ability to make proper decisions. He needs to shut up, apologise to his family and hope that one day, they will take him back in."

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The thing that is interesting to me is that I recall reading the Princess of Wales is referred to in private as Catherine and not Kate* but Harry refers to her as Kate in his book. I wonder if he was always an outlier and referred to her as Kate, or if he referred to his sister-in-law as Catherine in their private interactions.

* IIRC she was referred to as Kate in one of the phases of her life, I think that it was when she was a student but I don't recall if it was St. Andrews, Malborough or another school.

From the couple's official royal wedding website in 2011:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110405145543/https://www.officialroyalwedding2011.org/static/faqs

Should I use Kate or Catherine?

Miss Middleton uses both names equally, and she has never expressed a preference for either Catherine or Kate since her engagement to Prince William. Catherine is the name that Miss Middleton grew up with in her family, and Kate is the name that she tends to use in a work context.​

Meghan doesn't hold any title. She is merely styled as HRH The Duchess of Sussex due to her marriage.

Under English common law a wife does legally hold the same rank and title as her husband, if it is higher than the one she holds in her own right.

Also (I may be wrong ) but I believe that the US constitution prohibits any person of noble title holding any public office - unless Congress consents.

It only prohibits public office holders from accepting (while in office) a noble title.

"8. No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no person holding any office or profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/art1.asp​

 

[southwind]

There's no way either the Queen or Kelly would have brought the Vladimir in for consideration. It was either the Greville or something we haven't seen before.

You're forgetting one piece of jewelry with emeralds Diana had used as a tiara, that maybe had benn in reserve for someone else. Yes, the new princess of Wales has used it weeks ago.

I really want to know what are the exact words used in the book to try to identify the tiara. There are so much different information.

 

[Prinsara]

It only prohibits public office holders from accepting (while in office) a noble title.

"8. No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no person holding any office or profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/art1.asp​

I think that interpretation is incorrect. There are no members of Congress (or the other two branches) who hold foreign titles. I'm not even certain if there are any with (dual or more) foreign citizenship, when that is held to be a security risk.

 

[Sunnystar]

I think that interpretation is incorrect. There are no members of Congress (or the other two branches) who hold foreign titles. I'm not even certain if there are any with (dual or more) foreign citizenship, when that is held to be a security risk.

Isn't Rep Victoria Spartz from Indiana a dual citizen of the US and Ukraine? I know she's a naturalized US citizen and emigrated from Ukraine.

 

[Prinsara]

Isn't Rep Victoria Spartz from Indiana a dual citizen of the US and Ukraine? I know she's a naturalized US citizen and emigrated from Ukraine.

I don't know how Ukraine views it (some countries don't allow you to renounce citizenship or don't care if you gain citizenship elsewhere), but to become a naturalized US citizen you have to take an oath renouncing your foreign allegiances (to any "prince or potentate", as keeps being brought up with Harry), so from the American perspective the Representative is just a US citizen.

 

[kalnel]

I think that interpretation is incorrect. There are no members of Congress (or the other two branches) who hold foreign titles. I'm not even certain if there are any with (dual or more) foreign citizenship, when that is held to be a security risk.

There are quite a few members of Congress with dual citizenship. Ted Cruz is one of the more famous cases.

The Constitution stipulates that you have to have been a citizen for at least nine years, but it doesn't require you to give up any other citizenships. Some states may have laws requiring only U.S. citizenship, but it's not a federal law.

Meghan wouldn't be prohibited from running for any office she wants, including the presidency. I can't imagine many voters picking "Duchess of Sussex" to represent them, but stranger things have happened.

 

[Leopoldine]

Regarding the book -- I see the DM has raised the issue of Harry's admitted use of narcotics as a problem regarding his visa.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11610559/Prince-Harry-barred-visa-risk-drugs-admission.html


Admins, I hope this link is okay.

 

[rominet09]

More backlash about Harry and the drug use. https://archive.ph/jDsgk

"Obviously, the drugs have not worked. They have had a detrimental effect on his ability to make proper decisions. He needs to shut up, apologise to his family and hope that one day, they will take him back in."

Very good article.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

So this is the man he has become.

I honestly think it is the man he has always been. People say that Meghan was not made/suited for Royal life, fine.

But neither is Harry, who was born into it.

You have people like Grace Kelly and Daniel Westling, born commoners, who embody every quality one thinks a Royal should have.

And then you have Harry, born Royal, who wouldn't seem out of place as a bartender in the Bronx.

All of this is sad, but none of it is surprising for me. I was never charmed by "Harry the Lad" from the beginning.

 

[kimebear]

You're forgetting one piece of jewelry with emeralds Diana had used as a tiara, that maybe had benn in reserve for someone else. Yes, the new princess of Wales has used it weeks ago.

I doubt very highly that the fashion conscious Meghan would have worn a headband with her wedding veil since, according to reports at the time, the Queen was upset with Diana over wearing an heirloom piece like that in the first place, making it unlikely to have been offered in the capacity of a wedding tiara.

 

[Prinsara]

There are quite a few members of Congress with dual citizenship. Ted Cruz is one of the more famous cases.

The Constitution stipulates that you have to have been a citizen for at least nine years, but it doesn't require you to give up any other citizenships. Some states may have laws requiring only U.S. citizenship, but it's not a federal law.

Meghan wouldn't be prohibited from running for any office she wants, including the presidency. I can't imagine many voters picking "Duchess of Sussex" to represent them, but stranger things have happened.

Ted Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship years ago, and in any case was an American citizen by birth and never required to take the oath. I imagine any other legislators with dual citizenship keep it fairly quiet due to the security services watching them.

And seriously? You cannot run for the US Congress with your foreign title. (For one thing, any opponent would justifiably hammer you.). She'd have to go back to Markle or pick a last name.

 

[Erin9]

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

I hope it’s okay to post this. It’s an opinion article by Patti Davis, Ronald Reagan’s daughter. She once wrote a tell all, that she’s come to regret- and was able to apologize for.

I do disagree with her regarding taking Harry’s words at face value, but otherwise it is a thoughtful article from someone who has done this.

I like this part a lot:
Years ago, someone asked me what I would say to my younger self if I could. Without hesitating I answered: “That’s easy. I’d have said, ‘Be quiet.’” Not forever. But until I could stand back and look at things through a wider lens. Until I understood that words have consequences, and they last a really long time.


https://archive.ph/2023.01.07-19274...on/prince-harry-and-the-value-of-silence.html

 

[HRHHermione]

I hope it’s okay to post this. It’s an opinion article by Patti Davis, Ronald Reagan’s daughter. She once wrote a tell all, that she’s come to regret- and was able to apologize for.

I do disagree with her regarding taking Harry’s words at face value, but otherwise it is a thoughtful article from someone who has done this.

I like this part a lot:
Years ago, someone asked me what I would say to my younger self if I could. Without hesitating I answered: “That’s easy. I’d have said, ‘Be quiet.’” Not forever. But until I could stand back and look at things through a wider lens. Until I understood that words have consequences, and they last a really long time.


https://archive.ph/2023.01.07-19274...on/prince-harry-and-the-value-of-silence.html

I thought that was a very thoughtful and kind opinion piece, from someone who understands the damage a public person can do to themselves and others by putting too much in the public sphere. I will be interested to see how I feel reading the actual book, but so many of the excerpts make me sad- because Harry is so convinced that his father and brother don’t care about his happiness despite them directly telling him they do. He seems lost. Patti Davis seems to recognize that.

 

[Erin9]

I thought that was a very thoughtful and kind opinion piece, from someone who understands the damage a public person can do to themselves and others by putting too much in the public sphere. I will be interested to see how I feel reading the actual book, but so many of the excerpts make me sad- because Harry is so convinced that his father and brother don’t care about his happiness despite them directly telling him they do. He seems lost. Patti Davis seems to recognize that.

I just read the excerpt of Charles, William and Harry after Philip’s funeral. (And after Oprah.) William tries to reach out to Harry- using their mother as a way to show his sincerity- and say that he does care, wants him to be happy. And Harry rejected him. Didn’t believe him.

I just felt so sad for William. (And Charles.) He tried.

And then, after William’s efforts, this private moment was put in a book. And so many more moments that were just nasty, cruel and hurtful- to him, Charles, Catherine, their kids…..

Harry does seem very lost. Very angry.

I thought Patti’s piece was one of the best I’ve read on this sad mess of a book.

 

[duchessrachel]

I just read the excerpt of Charles, William and Harry after Philip’s funeral. (And after Oprah.) William tries to reach out to Harry- using their mother as a way to show his sincerity- and say that he does care, wants him to be happy. And Harry rejected him. Didn’t believe him.

I just felt so sad for William. (And Charles.) He tried.

And then, after William’s efforts, this private moment was put in a book. And so many more moments that were just nasty, cruel and hurtful- to him, Charles, Catherine, their kids…..

Harry does seem very lost. Very angry.

I thought Patti’s piece was one of the best I’ve read on this sad mess of a book.

Could you link to this excerpt? Thanks.