Interesting article - Harry the trauma exhibitionist.

Yes, it is WR. I'm sure every country is very proud of its veterans and servicemen, but -trying to phrase this delicately- I don't think some countries are really much bothered by the mental health/support aspect to the extent that Harry is trying to make it into. The concept is universal, but it might be that Harry's words are lost in translation, or that other countries don't see him as quite as much the expert in this field as he thinks he is?

henetha

I've got a lovely photo of my first grandchild when she was one hour old.

So do I. I didn't publish it on all the newspapers and magazines of the world however.

Well, lets face it, no one would be interested if we did. Royal babies are of international interest, our bundles of joy only have a limited audience.

There wasn’t all this talk about mental health at the Invictus Games , now it’s top for discussion, Harry didn’t suffer injuries,
he has to find something to Twitter on about so his childhood and even then lies.

Annie,that actually is a real problem with Harry, his inability to tell the truth. So much so, that no one would believe him, or only tentatively, if he were to be truthful. I suppose in the celebrity world that is the norm, but in the real world it can be a handicap.

Anniebach

I would like to share the following- much talk of Harry’s grief little of William’s, this brought to mind

My daughters were age 5 and 7 when their much loved daddy was killed, I didn’t know until years later, my elder daughter said to her little sister ‘we haven’t got daddy know, I will be daddy and look after mummy and you’,

Did William try to fill a need for Harry ?

Annniebach it must have taken courage to share this poignant story here.
Only those of us who know the full story can truly understand your courage.
Thinking of you.

Jaberwok I agree, he really is a compulsive liar,

Aldom thank you, I did so because it caused me to think of
William, so protective of Harry yet only 2 years between them,
Diana wrote in her book how she would cry in the bathroom and William put tissues under the door when only a child,

Anniebach

Aldom thank you, I did so because it caused me to think of
William, so protective of Harry yet only 2 years between them,
Diana wrote in her book how she would cry in the bathroom and William put tissues under the door when only a child,

You know, I always thought that was a strange thing to say, as surely the bathroom was one place which would have plenty of tissues ( as well as a well-fitting door!)?

Daddima yes , i didn’t think of that. She did tell many lies.

Jaberwok

Well, lets face it, no one would be interested if we did. Royal babies are of international interest, our bundles of joy only have a limited audience.

You don't really see the baby. It's the mum thats on display wearing wearing all dressed up, full face of make up and high heels. The Queen didn't do it so we're treating women worse than in 1948.

The ones who did that probably had straightforward births, unlike some of us, and had they been in NHS hospitals they would have been discharged the same day. The difference is that they had people to do their hair and makeup and bring nice fresh clothes to wear. They stood outside the hospital for a very short time for photos as people throughout the world were interested in the new babies and then went home to be waited on hand and foot, again unlike most of us. I don’t see any great hardship there. It’s the done thing nowadays in the royal family. In the late Queen’s day new mothers stayed in bed for days (if they could).

But it should a choice and Meghan received a lot of critiscm for not doing it.

She had to make it a drama, Harry. Said ‘there will be no announcement’ then the press were called for him to make. An
announcement.

She chose to walk in the corridor of a palace holding the baby,
getting more attention that way.

The photograph outside the hospital is for the waiting public, Megan snubbed the public.

The difference is that Catherine et al know what duty is and that there is a quid pro quo for the money they receive from the taxpayer. This is an example of it. A short appearance to satisfy everyone and then she was left alone. Meghan never understood that and was determined to do things her way. Lies were even told about her being in labour and the venue was shrouded in secrecy though she was happy to share details of the candles, photo etc later and to share distastefully intimate details of her miscarriage later (for $$$?). When she did appear with the baby his face was deliberately obscured. If the taxpayer is giving you a hefty chunk of money each year they expect something in return.

Why do the public need to see the baby. They survived the Queen not displaying Charles on the hospital steps.

Nowadays people’s expectations are very different. This is the age of 24/7 worldwide news. I’m sure you were as interested as everyone else.

The Queen had home births

Germanshepherdsmum

Nowadays people’s expectations are very different. This is the age of 24/7 worldwide news. I’m sure you were as interested as everyone else.

No

The only babies I'm interested in are my family and friends. I don't expect a woman who has given birth to parade around like a performing seal for me.

My cousin lost a baby within a few hours of being born, I ended up with a crash team as I'd lost so much blood. A woman's right to privacy far overrides the selfish sectio of the public thatt need to see the top of a baby's head

And bear in mind a tweet had gone out comparing Archie to a chimpanzee a couple of days before. I think Meghan was feeling pretty devastated as even her innocent baby was subjellct to racist abuse

My mil's first comment when the picture of Archie appeared was "I expect the Queen is very relieved he's not black". I was gobsmacked. I didn't previously regard mil as racist and up to that point it hadn't occurred to me that anyone would consider this to be a problem

So you didn’t watch the news and see the pictures? That’s surprising.

If you recall, I said I assumed that those having photos taken had had straightforward births, unlike some of us. I’m not about to play top trumps as to who amongst us had the worst birth experience. Bringing your cousin’s bereavement into this is unnecessary and distasteful.

What has loss of a baby in childbirth to do with photographs
outside the hospital?

Germanshepherdsmum

So you didn’t watch the news and see the pictures? That’s surprising.

If you recall, I said I assumed that those having photos taken had had straightforward births, unlike some of us. I’m not about to play top trumps as to who amongst us had the worst birth experience. Bringing your cousin’s bereavement into this is unnecessary and distasteful.

So a lot of people on this thread have talked about their bereavement and I'm talking about mine . There is absolutely nothing distasteful about discussing death.As usual you try to twist my words. I'm pointing out why a woman's right to privacy is more than the public's right to see the baby. It is blatantly obvious that I am not playing top trumps.

I think the news was on for one of the Catherine's baby. I can't remember which one.

RW
I don't expect a woman who has given birth to parade around like a performing seal for me

Lucky for you that they didn’t do that then. You wouldn’t have seen that even if you were interested, but since you weren’t, you’ll never know.
Most people, royal or not are delighted to show off their new baby. No one I’ve seen parades in the manner you describe, or did you just make that up?