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

[Alison H]

The comments about wondering aloud about the baby's skin colour were only part of what was said. Meghan claimed that Archie had not been given the style and title of HRH Prince because he was mixed race. That was a blatant lie: he was not entitled to the style and title of HRH Prince because he was a great-grandchild, not a grandchild, of the sovereign, and not in the direct line of succession as Harry was the second son, not the first, of the then Prince of Wales. She definitely insinuated that the Royal Family were racist. I'm very glad that Harry has now chosen to say that the Royal Family are not racist, but that doesn't change the fact that Meghan made the claim in the first place - and lied in what she said.

I'm not a fan of Harry at this point, but one would think he understood how things worked with titles in his own family, especially as his first cousins had already been put in the same situation as his future children would be. If he knew that his kids would be princes/princesses once Charles ascended the throne, why make the statement that it was a decision based on their race?

I think knew that very well, but he also knew that most viewers in America probably wouldn't be familiar with the rules about who was and wasn't entitled to be called HRH Prince. So they made it up to try to make the Royal Family look bad. Meghan just told a pack of lies.

 

[Curbside]

The comments about wondering aloud about the baby's skin colour were only part of what was said. Meghan claimed that Archie had not been given the style and title of HRH Prince because he was mixed race. That was a blatant lie: he was not entitled to the style and title of HRH Prince because he was a great-grandchild, not a grandchild, of the sovereign, and not in the direct line of succession as Harry was the second son, not the first, of the then Prince of Wales. She definitely insinuated that the Royal Family were racist. I'm very glad that Harry has now chosen to say that the Royal Family are not racist, but that doesn't change the fact that Meghan made the claim in the first place - and lied in what she said.


I think knew that very well, but he also knew that most viewers in America probably wouldn't be familiar with the rules about who was and wasn't entitled to be called HRH Prince. So they made it up to try to make the Royal Family look bad.

She said there were discussions about not giving the children titles, even when Charles became king. I took it to mean that they were floating the idea with Harry.

 

[Sunnystar]

There may well have been conversations but the problem could have been the reaction of H&M. They may have seen it as a slight rather than understand the context. It's well known that these sort of conversations have been happening long before MM joined the rf.

To be blunt I don't think H understood what he was told.

I don't think it's so much a matter of Harry not understanding what he was being told, but truly believing that what he was being told and what had happened to his cousins (Louise, James, Beatrice & Eugenie) simply would not apply to his children. That he was still his father's "Darling Boy" who was denied nothing. The more and more I see and hear from Prince Harry, the more I think that it wasn't "What Meghan wants, Meghan gets" so much as "What I want, I get, and I want Meghan to have whatever she wants." In his life, he'd never done or requested something that was so beyond the pale to have stopped him dead in his tracks until he and Meghan concocted their ridiculous HIHO plan. And he doesn't get that he can't just change his story to suit whatever jamb he's in at the moment to elicit the appropriate level of sympathy from Pa or Willy. The HIHO plan pushed the BRF into "tough love" mode and Harry is going to continue down this destructive path until he hits rock bottom. I'm afraid we have a long ways to go before that day arrives.

 

[Erin9]

Wow, never thought I would get to read the text messages between Kate and Meghan arguing over Charlotte’s bridesmaid dress.

This book is a goldmine for the media.

I’d say you’re kidding, but obviously not.

If that was already known to be out, I missed it.

Unbelievable. What a breach of privacy. And- at the end of the day- petty thing to go into years later.

 

[Durham]

I'm not a fan of Harry at this point, but one would think he understood how things worked with titles in his own family, especially as his first cousins had already been put in the same situation as his future children would be. If he knew that his kids would be princes/princesses once Charles ascended the throne, why make the statement that it was a decision based on their race?

To make mischief? To force their hand? Feeling piqued that his children would not be treated the same as his brother's? Any or all of the preceding?

 

[Somebody]

I'm very aware that he wasn't entitled to be a prince from birth, thank you. I was also making the point that there had been precedent within the BRF for the PARENTS to claim they didn't want the title for their children. However, that claim clearly opposes what Meghan said in the Oprah interview later. That there had been conversations between the BRF and Harry about their children not being given titles. So someone is lying, and it's far past time to find out who that is.

But the thing is, Charles can't stop them from having the titles until he issues the LP saying so. It's automatic.

Oprah's question was about Archie becoming a PRINCE not about him using a courtesy title. Nobody has ever denied that he was allowed to use that courtesy title. So, the only reasonable explanation is that they wanted him to become a prince (hence the discussions - otherwise there would not have been a need for a discussion) but that was denied. And they decided he wouldn't be known by his courtesy title either... Otherwise, they could have easily used that title themselves.

And it seems nobody is overtly lying but Meghan was implying that he wasn't given security nor the title of prince because of his biracial mother and his potential darker skin - which is not true in any way, shape or form.

I'm not a fan of Harry at this point, but one would think he understood how things worked with titles in his own family, especially as his first cousins had already been put in the same situation as his future children would be. If he knew that his kids would be princes/princesses once Charles ascended the throne, why make the statement that it was a decision based on their race?

Great question: however, Harry didn't say so and Meghan only made the connection without stating it as a fact. And now, Harry is explicitly stating the BRF is not racist. So, they have known all along that this was not the reason, but it did not deter them from trying to gain sympathy by making these false claims.

 

[Somebody]

Denville, totally agree.
And in excerpts from the GMA Interview with Michael Strahan, and I'm paraphrasing, Harry laments that it didnt have to be this way, how it all played out with the rejection of half in-half out.

He also curiously and VERY INTERESTINGLY mentions that he never really sees himself as able to return to work as a Royal in the UK, BUT he states, that "if there is something in the future that WE CAN DO to support The Commonwealth, then that's of course on the table".

So there you have it. I suspect that is the Sussex's newest ploy and offer......

Give us the Commonwealth Ambassador Roles back and ALL the criticism and attacks on the Family and Institution stop. A cease fire. No more Books or Interviews.
A big giant reconciliation that Harry feels would resonate "Globally" Harry laughingly says. I've got to give them credit. They just won't let go or let up on being in some prominent Role. On their terms ......of course.

I never thought the HI-H0 was that anyway... twenty percent in more likely, pomp and circumstance UK appearances but Global Attention as Commonwealth Figures.

Someone previously suggested that this is what they've been aiming for: a role within the Commonwealth... So, it seems that person was right!

 

[Durham]

I don't think it's so much a matter of Harry not understanding what he was being told, but truly believing that what he was being told and what had happened to his cousins (Louise, James, Beatrice & Eugenie) simply would not apply to his children.

Yes I can see that too. Makes perfect sense.

I still wouldn't be surprised that when it was explained to him that it might be in the best long term interests of the monarchy to reduce the number of princes/HRHs etc that he didn't fully grasp why. That's why it may be possible that he just might not have understood what he was told.

 

[Sun Lion]

I’d say you’re kidding, but obviously not.

If that was already known to be out, I missed it.

Unbelievable. What a breach of privacy. And- at the end of the day- petty thing to go into years later.

Rebecca English reporting … and now we have Charlotte crying too.

(I think the things coming from the book will fuel the media for ages, this won’t blow over in a few weeks.)

 

[Erin9]

Someone previously suggested that this is what they've been aiming for: a role within the Commonwealth... So, it seems that person was right!

Yes- I found that part of the interview fascinating too.

It was right up there with his non answer to attending the coronation.

 

[Moran]

Wow, never thought I would get to read the text messages between Kate and Meghan arguing over Charlotte’s bridesmaid dress.

This book is a goldmine for the media.

They're included in the book? Really?

That's beyond the pale.

And he dares bleat about expecting privacy from his father and brother? But he isn't wrong about leaks. Harry and Meghan don't do leaks, they outright break confidences and privacy.

Well, I guess that put an end to the question how much Meghan knew about the book. She gave him the messages. She loved this breach of privacy.

Exactly what I'd expect of her.

 

[TLLK]

I’d say you’re kidding, but obviously not.

If that was already known to be out, I missed it.

Unbelievable. What a breach of privacy. And- at the end of the day- petty thing to go into years later.

This must be the couple's "Happy Birthday" present to the Princess of Wales.

 

[kimebear]

To make mischief? To force their hand? Feeling piqued that his children would not be treated the same as his brother's? Any or all of the preceding?

All very fair points, under the circumstances. But BP is not doing anything to help matters by proving Harry's point about the children not being treated the same now that Charles is King.

I'm sure that the issue of titles for Harry's children doesn't matter to most people with the world's bigger problems going on, but in light of the way Harry is splashing the RF dirty laundry about, addressing the issue of Archie and Lilibet's legal status would be an easy way to cement BP's position without flinging their own mud.

Keeping the Sussex children untitled just seems to be an indicator that Charles' view of a 'slimmed down monarchy' includes his own grandchildren, and I can't say I would blame Harry for being upset about that. But I also think Charles is taking the coward's way out by not issuing the LP making it official.

 

[Somebody]

They're included in the book? Really?

That's beyond the pale.

And he dares bleat about expecting privacy from his father and brother? But he isn't wrong about leaks. Harry and Meghan don't do leaks, they outright break confidences and privacy.

Well, I guess that put an end to the question how much Meghan knew about the book. She gave him the messages. She loved this breach of privacy.

Exactly what I'd expect of her.

Harry's current idea seems to be that it is ok to talk directly to the press but not to use a middleman. He even claims that he would never do that - although various reporters refute that and state that they were definitely briefed by H&M's people. And in addition, maybe he should convince his wife that she should no longer do that either as she herself committed to contributing while denying doing so until she had no choice but to admit to doing so in court

And aren't there privacy laws that requires private communication to be kept private - unless permission has been given by all parties to publish (or the common good is at stake etc)?

 

[Saragli]

The fact that the bridesmaids dress saga keeps getting brought up makes sense from a Sussex point of view. From their point of view, they believe that a private family matter was "leaked" to the press in a way that made only Meghan look bad. The palace's insistence on not commenting on it, as it was a private family matter and would only increase attention on it, was taken as the palace choosing sides and sticking with the story at the time that made Meghan look bad.

The Sussex's, from the beginning, had wanted to reply/comment on any story they did not agree with and Harry is basically using this book to do just that. However, it is having the exact effect the palace warned about, putting a magnifying lens on their personal lives and destroying any resemblance of privacy.

Watching the ITV interview was hard. Any sense of challenge from Bradby infuriated Harry. I mean, he was genuinely angry. I can't imagine what it must have been like for his family and palace staff to try to work with him.

 

[Saragli]

All very fair points, under the circumstances. But BP is not doing anything to help matters by proving Harry's point about the children not being treated the same now that Charles is King.

I'm sure that the issue of titles for Harry's children doesn't matter to most people with the world's bigger problems going on, but in light of the way Harry is splashing the RF dirty laundry about, addressing the issue of Archie and Lilibet's legal status would be an easy way to cement BP's position without flinging their own mud.

Keeping the Sussex children untitled just seems to be an indicator that Charles' view of a 'slimmed down monarchy' includes his own grandchildren, and I can't say I would blame Harry for being upset about that. But I also think Charles is taking the coward's way out by not issuing the LP making it official.

I wish the King would release a statement along the lines of, beginning with a precedent and conversations at the time of the Earl and Countess of Wessex's children's birth, the King has decreed that only children of the heir, or heirs heir, shall be titled and styled as HRH Prince/ss of the UK.

 

[TLLK]

She said there were discussions about not giving the children titles, even when Charles became king. I took it to mean that they were floating the idea with Harry.

(…..)
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)

During the Oprah interview they were specifically discussing royal titles ie HRH Prince Archie. A little boy who already could have used his father's secondary title Earl of Dumbarton. Lilibet would have the courtesy title befitting the daughter of a duke which would be Lady Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor.



Creating the Sussex children as "Prince or Princess" would require a Letters Patent from the Queen as neither children were the grandchildren of the monarch (QEII) at the time of their birth.




The children of the Queen's cousins the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent are similarly titled with their heirs-The Earls of Ulster and St. Andrews with younger siblings being known as Lord or Lady (name) Windsor.

 

[Moran]

Watching the ITV interview was hard. Any sense of challenge from Bradby infuriated Harry. I mean, he was genuinely angry. I can't imagine what it must have been like for his family and palace staff to try to work with him.

As I said... he was included in the official announcements that Catherine had had her children. It was always a variation of "the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall, Prince Harry and the members of the two families..." He was always included, as if he were something this special, more special than Catherine's siblings for sure.

You're right, I can also imagine the scenes he'd have caused if he wasn't deemed this special. I can't imagine that this went well with, say, Catherine, but to her credit, she never said anything publicly.

They now repay her by throwing her under the bus. Lovely people.

 

[chelly]

Not sure if Charles can prevent a slimmed down Monarchy even if he didn't want to. There isn't alot of working royals right now.

 

[Erin9]

Rebecca English reporting … and now we have Charlotte crying too.



(I think the things coming from the book will fuel the media for ages, this won’t blow over in a few weeks.)

That’s just wrong. Horribly, horribly wrong. What a breach of privacy.

Poor Charlotte. I can’t imagine how the entire family feels about Charlotte crying being a part of this book. (That dress must have just looked hideous.)

I was sure Meghan’s fingerprints were all over this book. Here’s the proof. Her texts.

 

[Ghost]

All very fair points, under the circumstances. But BP is not doing anything to help matters by proving Harry's point about the children not being treated the same now that Charles is King.

I'm sure that the issue of titles for Harry's children doesn't matter to most people with the world's bigger problems going on, but in light of the way Harry is splashing the RF dirty laundry about, addressing the issue of Archie and Lilibet's legal status would be an easy way to cement BP's position without flinging their own mud.

Keeping the Sussex children untitled just seems to be an indicator that Charles' view of a 'slimmed down monarchy' includes his own grandchildren, and I can't say I would blame Harry for being upset about that. But I also think Charles is taking the coward's way out by not issuing the LP making it official.

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.

 

[A Tudor]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "texts" between Kate and Meghan are nothing more than the media putting together Harry's recollections in a message format, not the actual screen prints, right? It's not the actual conversation, just Harry's version of it.

 

[Sunnystar]

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 fone it before any pregnangy 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.

And by the time William comes to the throne, it's very possible that Archie and Lili will be over the age of 18 and spent so little time in the UK that William can point to that as the reason for limiting the use of HRH to basically his kids and George's kids.

 

[Lilyflo]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "texts" between Kate and Meghan are nothing more than the media putting together Harry's recollections in a message format, not the actual screen prints, right? It's not the actual conversation, just Harry's version of it.

That's what I think too. It's wrong of Harry to relay the conversation and a dirty trick by the press to recreate it as a real image of the texts. Catherine must be steaming.

 

[kimebear]

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.

Everyone knows that it has been Charles' wish all along that the monarchy become slimmed down, so he needs to be the one to wield the hatchet on titles going forward and not pan it off on William. 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.

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.

 

[Prinsara]

Perhaps Archie and Lili's titles aren't the biggest issue right now, when their parents are such unknown quantities.

 

[kimebear]

Perhaps Archie and Lili's titles aren't the biggest issue right now, when their parents are such unknown quantities.

One of the new King's priorities should be getting his own house in order because the upheaval just reflects poorly on everything else, and let's not pretend that the 'no titles because of racism' cloud hanging over BP doesn't taint the start of Charles' reign when a simple clarification could rectify it.

 

[camelot23ca]

That’s just wrong. Horribly, horribly wrong. What a breach of privacy.

Poor Charlotte. I can’t imagine how the entire family feels about Charlotte crying being a part of this book. (That dress must have just looked hideous.)

I was sure Meghan’s fingerprints were all over this book. Here’s the proof. Her texts.

Well, and the obvious question is whether all the texts are included or just the ones Harry thinks make Kate look bad?

It’s crazy that we’re still talking about this all these years later - who cares who cried? It was a wedding, things get crazy even between people who usually get along (which we now know Kate and Meghan didn’t) and this story would have been forgotten if Harry and Meghan had let it go. Yes, it might have been frustrating if Meghan felt she was portrayed unfairly, but this was around the time that she was also getting endless amounts of positive media coverage, most of it obviously overblown even then, even more so in retrospect. Why Harry and Meghan have chosen to focus on this one somewhat negative story about such a stupid thing is a mystery, especially since it only makes them look worse the longer they keep talking about it.

I’ve never found Harry attractive, but there’s something especially unappealing about a man in his 30s enthusiastically jumping in the middle of fight between his wife and sister in law about the fit of a child’s bridesmaid’s dress.

 

[Lilyflo]

Re: the bridesmaids dresses not fitting because they were made from measurements rather than the actual girls. It's tricky to fit clothes when you have bridal attendants from overseas but it seems even more complex if they aren't ready to try on until four days before the wedding. Considering they were designed and hand-sewn in Paris by Givenchy, you'd think whoever took the measurements would have been more skilled at it.

 

[Hallo girl]

She said there were discussions about not giving the children titles, even when Charles became king. I took it to mean that they were floating the idea with Harry.

What evidence is there that the discussions and the considerations were around race or skin colour as Meghan inferred.