Woodrose kind-of beat me to it, but I too am not a fan of the phrase "their" truth. That can lead to the same slippery slope of "alternative facts."

Again, I'm not close enough to any of this to have any idea who is telling the truth. The bits and pieces I've heard sound similar to the same sorts of trials and tribulations the rest of us commoners deal with on a daily basis. It's called... life. Sometimes your sister in law annoys the heck out of you, sometimes your elders don't always use the correct terminology that has changed over their life span.

Stay in the royal family, don't stay in the royal family. I don't care. But all this public whining about how bad they have it, is not resonating well with a lot of us who have come from much more difficult circumstances.

"Why shouldn't they be compensated for telling their truth?"

The problem is that some of the things they've said in the past were demonstrably untrue.  And some of the accusations are very broad but curiously lacking in detail:  Harry attacks Camilla for harmful leaks, but provides no examples. Further, he blames his family for hurting him with leaks to the media  - but seems completely oblivious to the harm his own statements to that same media are doing.  There's nothing admirable about selling out your family for money.

The only people who are gaining benefit from his actions are media and publishers and booksellers. Nothing positive will come of it to him, his young family, or his extended family.

Speaking of his young family, they are doing a good job of keeping them out of the glare, but how is it to be raised by parents who have a bad or no relationship with their own families? and don’t mind that everyone knows it. Except for Meghan’s mother, who might be the stabilizing factor in the household. I’d say I wonder how she feels about all this, but only in a musing sense; please don’t write a book!

Although English I don't spend my time reading about the Royals in the tabloids or glossy mags but it is impossible not to notice all the fuss going on between them and H&M.

I think that although H says he wants a reconciliation between himself and his father and brother in 'private' (and how could they be expected to trust his 'word' on that) he has also made a very big mistake in calling out Camilla. For this I don't believe his father will ever forgive him.

Charles may have been considered a twit many years ago when his interest in the Planet/sustainability/tree-hugging/plastic waste etc was considered mildly eccentric, but his fears have proved to be well-founded. He is conscientious, well read and like his sister Princess Anne, very hard working.

"And why didn’t H&M move somewhere like Switzerland, where wealthy and famous and royal often spend plenty of time in peace while still rubbing elbows with the other wealthy and famous and royal?"

I don't  think they were looking for peace; they were looking for brand recognition. That's easier to build in California, with its celebrity culture, than in Switzerland, where royalty and ex royalty are largely ignored.

They could have remained at Mille Fleurs, Vancouver Island making pottery and gardening.

The locals simply knew him as ‘the artisan formerly known as Prince.’

😉

"some of the accusations are very broad but curiously lacking in detail" I saw a few minute snippet on the news last night, and noted the same thing. He doesn't come off as intelligent enough to be persuasive, and the article I skimmed in today's newspaper didn't help me think any better of him. Maybe that's unfair and his book gives sufficient detail to make his case; but I've less than zero interest in reading it.

Jasdip wrote, "Part of the clip of the series, showed her making an exaggerated curtsy, arms spread wide and a deep bow. Harry was sitting beside her on the couch and he didn't look impressed at all, at her antics. She proclaimed she didn't know how to curtsy, yet there's a short video of her doing a proper brief curtsy in one of the episodes of Suits. She says and does whatever suits her, truth or not."

I did not watch the Oprah interview. I did not watch the Netflix series. I did not watch the Anderson Cooper interview. I have, like nearly everyone else, seen snippets here and there when other entities post about them. I did see the clip that Jasdip mentions, and found it rather telling that Harry had such an incredulous look on his face as Meghan was "demonstrating" her exaggerated curtsy. It was very obvious that he knew she wasn't being truthful, but he wasn't going to point that out on camera. I have also seen the little video of Meghan doing a "proper brief curtsy in one of the episodes of Suits." And, I have read reports that say that Harry, in his book, talks about the time when Meghan met the Queen for the first time, and before going in he asked Meghan if she knew how to curtsy. She was, apparently, amazed that she would be expected to curtsy to the Queen in a private setting. Sarah Ferguson was also there, and she showed Meghan how to curtsy. And Harry goes on to say that when Meghan did meet the Queen, she perfectly executed a deep curtsy. So Harry, in his book, outs Meghan for having blatantly lied about that curtsy in the Netflix series.

Most of us are familiar with American actress Grace Kelly, and how she met Monaco's Prince Rainier when she was filming the movie To Catch A Thief. They married, she became a Princess and was much beloved by the people of Monaco as well as the USA. I think Meghan had a fantasy that this is what would happen when she married Harry. But although Grace Kelly was engaged to another man when she first met Prince Rainier, she had never been married. Meghan, on the other hand, was a divorcée, which has a bit of a stigma to it where royals are concerned, so she wasn't immediately and warmly welcomed to the royal family, as she thought she should have been.

Last night I read a short article via Apple News (can't recall which entity published it), wherein Harry talked about how when he and Meghan moved into Frogmore Cottage, they had buy furniture but had little to no money, so they bought a second-hand couch online and they had to use Meghan's credit card to pay for it! Harry was still a working royal at that time, so I find it extremely difficult (impossible) to believe that he didn't have the money to buy a brand new sofa, much less a second-hand one.

• I have mixed feelings about him. On one hand I feel sorry for him when his mother died, and on the other I think he should stop drawing attention to himself and pursue a quiet life with his family. Too much crying ”poor me.”

Lindsey, I read an article where he says they didn't have money to buy a brand new sofa and had to put it on Meghan's credit card.

Prince Harry Was “Embarrassed” by His IKEA Furniture After Visiting the Cambridges’ Museum-Like Apartment 1A

The interesting thing about needing to use Meghan's credit card to buy a sofa beyond being ridicuously unbelieveable, was that during the Oprah interview Meghan said she didn't have access to anything - her driver's license, credit cards, etc. So she must have applied for one and had it mailed to the palace 🤣 Harry makes it sounds like they're two broke college students.

And if you check the website that Harry said they bought this second-hand sofa, SOFA.COM, note they don't sell second-hand furniture. Most of it is high-end stuff.

Thing I love about William and Kate is the grace and elegance they have without being snobbish. Have no real opinion of Meghan but Harry is so hot in my book. That man is yummy 😋

"Meghan, on the other hand, was a divorcée, which has a bit of a stigma to it where royals are concerned, so she wasn't immediately and warmly welcomed to the royal family, as she thought she should have been."

Given that Charles and two of his siblings have been divorced, as was Princess Margaret for that matter, and of course Camilla, I suspect the Royal Family was more comfortable with the notion than is being portrayed by Harry and Meghan.  I admit, I don't read the tabloids but I thought things were going well, at least up to the wedding anyway.  I think what happened was more a deterioration in the relationship rather than a refusal to initiate one in the first place.It was perhaps more a case of the two sides finding, as they got to know each other better, that they didn't really like each other all that much.  It happens.  

So, I don't really buy the stereotype argument, since that's an easy way to place the blame on only one side, and Harry's own words suggest that Meghan's behavior was far from perfect. And Harry himself was apparently very difficult as well.

Divorce couldn't have been an issue since all of the Queen's kids are divorced except maybe Edward. I watched Harry on Colbert tonight and I think Stephen did the best interview I saw. I like Harry and think he was a troubled kid trying to find himself. I am not that wild about Meghan.

Too many try to hard on this one. Meghan is an outsider. She American. There rest really only adds icing to a cake that was never going to get celebrated by these TRADITIONAL Royal types!!! They aren't that WOKE!!!!!

My husband quotes Harry as saying, "I just want to live like a normal average person."

In a mansion next to Oprah? That's YOUR idea of average? Normal? 🤣

Otherwise....I like them both.

I do feel for Harry. He has probably been wanting someone to just listen to him, understand him, outside of a counselor, and thinks he may have found that in Meghan. And someone, if not Meghan, got into his head about just up and leaving and telling everyone so. and why.

I’m with you on this, @bpath. Hence my comment way up above, ”Meghan leading him around by the nose . …” He’s out of his league with her (meaning he’s not as strong-willed.)

He’s a lost little boy.

I agree with @lily316 that Stephen Colbert did an outstanding interview with Harry last night. Harry does not come across as a lost little boy. If anyone is interested in watching, here is the link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6l0ObY2XVM

Buying new furniture for Frogmore doesn't make sense - They have a bunch of castles that they could have gone shopping in looking for furniture if they're broke.

I've watched a few of Harry's interviews (two with Meghan and the last on 60 minutes) and just ordered his book from Amazon. It's funny how when the Enquirer writes stories about the hateful fights between Camilla and Kate, or Kate and whomever, or one royal and another, everyone is all over it and believes everything, but when Harry defends his wife: the woman he married: the mother of his children... people call HIM a liar when he's telling his story FIRST HAND! He is telling his story from HIS side not a seedy rag magazine that "insiders" have told.

I've always loved Harry, even as a child. And in his wild child years. I saw something in him that you never saw in any of the other royals: a man who doesn't belong in that lifestyle. A man who wanted to be his own man. Can you imagine being in your 30's and your family still telling you what you MUST wear and getting permission to keep your beard for your wedding day? Being told you curtsie your grandmother? Man, I don't even make my grandson give me hugs and kisses because it makes him uncomfortable (he gets that from me btw). He's always wanted to live his life his way and his wife gave him the encouragement to do just that.

I am 100% team H&M. I wish them all the best, and they've never been "broke". LOL How do you be broke and buy the home they have now................. and why shouldn't they buy new furniture that is in THEIR taste, not some other old royals taste?

btw; here's the Steven Colbert (sp?) interview. It's about 38 minutes long.

harry+colbert

Seagrass, thanks so much for this link. I enjoyed it very much

I don't (and won't) follow People Magazine/National Enquirer- type voyeuristic stories but it's hard to not at least be aware of the existence of the continuing buzz.

I don't look at the royal family with any particular affection or respect and I perhaps see them at the bottom end of those spectrums. I haven't paid much attention to other interviews or media appearances so this one is a fresh look for me. Harry struck me as an interesting, charming, affable, and down to earth person. Could that all be a deliberate act? Sure. But I don't think so.

So many others in that royal family seem to be so greatly removed from reality and normal conduct that it's refreshing to see one who at least gives the appearance of normalcy. There is very little of that apparent in that family. Or even among so many others who live in the public eye.

I credit his mother for raising a man whose feet are on the ground.

@seagrass_gw Cape Cod...I watched it. Great interview! I like Harry even more....now.

@Elmer J Fudd I wish we had a <3 option for that very last line in your last comment.

I totally agree Diana was responsible for raising two nice sons. She was a caring affectionate mother who doted on her boys. I still remember sweet little Harry marching behind the carriage with the flowers on the back saying, Mummy.

What a great interview …two people who have a sense of humour

Some years ago a friend snorted that Diana was something like "an airhead bimbo" and so on. I believe I brought up her charity work in response - specifically I think her walk through the land mines that time - and this was shrugged off. Eventually I did a little looking into the subject and wrote down this selection from somewhere. Maybe Wikipedia:

"Her overall effect on charity," according to Stephen Lee, director of the UK Institute of Charity Fundraising Managers, speaking a year after her death, "is probably more significant than any other person's in the 20th century." [Emphasis mine]

Diane's efforts on the charity (and AIDS) front w certainly very influential in the UK. I think I'd have to be looking at people like Bill Gates as being pretty important and effective as well, though. And of course Charles himself founded the Prince's Trust, which is a major charity in the UK, focusing on young and disadvantaged people. I know the hope and expectation had been that Harry and Meghan could use the platform of the Royal Family to pursue their own charitable interests, and its more than unfortunate that it all went so wrong.

I think many Brits are disappointed with the route Harrry has taken to find peace and happiness in his life and the disruption it has caused. I also think many who are disappointed nevertheless also recognize that Charles is a First Class Buffoon.

I don’t think Charles is a First Class Buffoon at all. While he has made some huge mistakes, he has also done much that is to be admired.

For First Class Buffoonery you might look a little closer to home.

The last Oval Office occupant was not there, despite his thinking to the contrary, by virtue of anything resembling famial, historical or other entitlements

One was supposedly running a country and one is not, so I don’t see the comparison…

10 opinions on King Charles III

https://www.newsweek.com/will-charles-good-king-ten-experts-weigh-1741846

The monarchy is dying and Charles is downsizing things but I think Charles will fulfill his duty well.

He lived most of his life in the predicament of being the Prince of Wales.

On that he really didnt do much, so in a sense, more in common that you suggest. Both figureheads.

It will be interesting to see if Charles follows the actions of Scandinavian royals, retitling or removing titles of those not in the direct line of succession.

"I also think many who are disappointed nevertheless also recognize that Charles is a First Class Buffoon."

And I think you are wrong.  Charles is a well-educated, well-read man who took up environmental, ecological and social issues before they were "causes de jour."  He earned a reputation for eccentricity because he espoused views that were ahead of their time but are now accepted as  mainstream. Hardly your typical "buffoon."  Even his model village, Poundbury, is no longer the standing joke it once was, at least according to the Guardian, which is hardly a pro monarchist publication.

Did he make mistakes in his personal life? Absolutely. Is he detached, entitled, somewhat eccentric? Yes.  Will he ever have the popularity his mother did? Doubtful.  But he is doing reasonably well in the UK polls these days as he deals with the transition and the ticking time bomb that is Harry&Meghan. So I suspect your " many" is fewer than you think.

As for being a figurehead, so are all other consitutional monarchs,the Governors General in Commonwealth countries,  and many presidents.    Having a head of state who is above the fray of day to day politics is a system that works well across much of the democratic world.

I always think of the film footage of Charles as a little boy with his grandmother waiting for his mother and father to arrive home from a tour. When his parents get off the train he has no idea who they are. His mother was often absent from his life when he was young. Quite sad really.

Thank goodness for his grandmother.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3WHnMi3TJk

It will be interesting to see if Charles follows the actions of Scandinavian royals, retitling or removing titles of those not in the direct line of succession.

bpath, I think he will.

Saying Princess Diana's contribution to charities was "more significant than any other person's in the 20th century," is far from accurate and not even remotely close to being true. And what she actually donated to charity, and not the foundations set up in her name was very little in comparison to the real heavy weight philanthropists of the 20th century.
The 800 lb gorilla in the room was Andrew Carnegie who through the 19th and 20th century was the biggest philanthropist of all time giving more than Gates, Warren and the other top 10 givers combined, adjusted for inflation. Andrew was giving away money in the 19th century but what he gave away in the 20th century still beat all the light weights of the 20th century. I don't mean to deflate the significance of the Diana's good deeds but Carnegie takes top spot in the giving category.

My vote for the greatest Brit goes to Winston Churchill and I still can't understand why the British people give Diana the 3rd spot on the top 100 greatest Britons list ahead of Darwin, Shakespeare, Newton and even Elisabeth II at number 24. Diana just wasn't that great.

Kevin my vote goes to Harry Styles.💕

roxsol, of the 10 people asked in that Newsweek piece, the vast majority didn't answer the question posed to them, Will Charles Be A Good King?

Careful evasion, an unwillingness to commit, societal/political correctness?

"His ability to be apolitical will be the first test to see whether he can live up to the position, and as difficult as that may be for him, I believe he will be able to do it."

"He is the right man at the right time, and has already risen to the occasion."

Just two of the responses ^

I read most of the responses as being positive.

Whether you like him or not, he has the job. I think he will do well. He is far from being a buffoon.

He became very close to his mother as he got older and I think he was wise enough to understand that she was thrust into her job and came to understand her absence. He admired her for her sense of duty. It is admirable of him.

 Interesting that not one of the ten implied that Charles was a first class buffoon. Quite the contrary.

I like Harry (Mountbatten-Windsor) but I really think he has put his family (wife and kids) into the spotlight. I would think the LA reporters are scrambling right now for any candid shot of them. Isn’t that what he wanted to avoid?

I wish them well.

You're suggesting I read it too quickly? It was a yes or no question, how many said Yes? I must have missed all such answers, didn't find any. Lots of prevaricating, though.

Nighty night.

I remember little Charles actually shaking hands with his mother when she arrived home from a trip.

“The last Oval Office occupant was not there, despite his thinking to the contrary, by virtue of anything resembling famial, historical or other entitlements”

The scariest part of that is that he was actually chosen by the voters in sufficient states to get into office.

Wait for it . .

(I knew this thread would be entertaining.)

🫣

Saying Princess Diana's contribution to charities was "more significant than any other person's in the 20th century," is far from accurate and not even remotely close to being true. And what she actually donated to charity, and not the foundations set up in her name was very little in comparison to the real heavy weight philanthropists of the 20th century.

He wasn't talking about amount of money given. That's why the phrasing used was "effect on charity". And not "contribution to charities" - note in particular he said "charity" and not "charities".

If you're going to dismiss what somebody else posts as "far from accurate and not even remotely close to being true" it works best to make sure you actually understand what they said beforehand.

Roxsol, that was a great video. Thanks for posting it!