So Harry and family are coming back!

MissAdventure

I'd say if Andrew's behaviour hasn't humiliated or destroyed "the firm", nothing will.
Why is none of this mentioned, by those who feel so strongly protective of the royals?

It really wouldn't make any difference if you mentioned Andrew. There is a narrative on GN about Harry and Meghan which will never change no matter what they do. If you think about it, it probably mirrors much of the narrative about Edward V111 and Wallis Simpson. How very dare they walk away from the institution.
I don't look at Harry and Charles as members of the institution, I look at them as father and son. Children make huge mistakes, even adult ones, and they get forgiven. Adult children who have been scathing about their parents often get a wake up call when they realise the mortality of them. As far as I am concerned, nothing is more important than the relationship with your child and I find the way Charles is allowing his minions to handles this completely abhorrent. There is a way he could do this to protect the monarchy and be a decent parent. Many of us have in-laws who may be less than we wish but we suck it up to protect our relationships. As the elders we have a duty to be the role models in times of conflict. This is, of course, just my opinion which won't change regardless of the arguments against it. I strongly believe that without communication you can't resolve and it takes a momentous calamity before I give up.

Smileless2012

Well it isn't top secret about William now is it. Harry was entitled to write about his own circumcision in 'Spare' but not his brother's.

As for 'the older woman' she felt she'd been outed by Harry due to the amount of detail and wanted to take control of her own narrative.

It's snitching. Not a pleasant trait.

Well it isn't top secret about William now is it. Harry was entitled to write about his own circumcision in 'Spare' but not his brother's.

As for 'the older woman' she felt she'd been outed by Harry due to the amount of detail and wanted to take control of her own narrative.

And merlotgran Harry didn't name the woman he had his first sexual encounter with. She willingly, as an older woman, came forward and announced herself.

Circumcision has been an upper class tradition for a long time in this country. It's well known KC was. Although not necessarily a royal tradition Queen Victoria was all for it. Princess Diana wanted to break with it but both William and Harry were circumcised. I don't think it's top secret.

Smileless2012

There have been numerous posts on threads about Andrew and I don't remember anyone ever saying that what he's been accused of is of little consequence.

This one is about H & M.

"This one is about H & M"

Yes, I know I mentioned AMW in response to a post, but talking about him is deflection.

ferry23

As much as I abhor the way Andrew MB has behaved - long before Epstein - he hasn't publicly bad mouthed his family, nor has he aired his family's dirty linen in public.

Perhaps because he is the dirty linen?

Indeed merlotgran.

Maybe William would prefer the world not to know that he has been circumcised and maybe the girl who Harry had his first sexual encounter with in a field at the back of a pub might have preferred her identity to remain a secret but Harry only cares about privacy when it’s his own.

MissAdventure

I'd think so, especially with his health being not so good.
Harry is still his boy, after all.

Absolutely, we love our children unconditionally.

That doesn’t mean we like them all the time or agree with…

And that's a new one to me... what's Will's intimate medical info? A birthmark near his bellybutton.

Yeah, and if you dare to disagree with any of them, they'll take you to the tower 🤣

I've not seen anything like the amount of threads that Harry and Co attract about other ex royals.

I'm not aware that anyone is ignoring Andrew's deeds. He has been thoroughly disgraced and stripped of his titles etc. If he is going to be the bar for any criticism of others then they'll be getting away with an awful lot!

Harry is being more than a moany little sod, he has violated his family's privacy especially by revealing intimate medical information about William. He published a book rubbishing them and containing many irregularities/lies? Gave several interviews in USA that were inappropriate. Of course he's not worse than Andrew and I don't believe anyone has said he is, but he's no innocent lad either.

Why do there have to be comparisons with AMW every time there!s a thread about Harry and Meghan?

There have been numerous posts on threads about Andrew and I don't remember anyone ever saying that what he's been accused of is of little consequence.

This one is about H & M.

I know Andrew is a whole different issue, but is an abuser of young women really worse than Harry being with Meghan having two little children and being a moany little sod worse?

Strange old world.

I'm surprised women can ignore "uncle andrew" as of little consequence.

Sorry, but I doubt very much that Harry wishes to spend time with his father; he would not have launched immediate attacks about the level of protection due to him, via 'sources close to the Sussexes' if he wished for that.

He may have come to make a film about his mother but I doubt he will receive much co operation from the immediate royal family because they can never trust him.
Stupid Boy.

I'd think so, especially with his health being not so good.
Harry is still his boy, after all.

MissAdventure

I'd imagine Harry wants to spend some time with his father.

I agree,

I suppose the King wants to spend time with Harry and his children.

I think they have been informed that they can’t be half in and half out. Not part if the firm as they wanted. Now have what they want as no one is interested, luckily they are very rich, but very rich is never enough for some.

As much as I abhor the way Andrew MB has behaved - long before Epstein - he hasn't publicly bad mouthed his family, nor has he aired his family's dirty linen in public.

MissAdventure

I'd say if Andrew's behaviour hasn't humiliated or destroyed "the firm", nothing will.
Why is none of this mentioned, by those who feel so strongly protective of the royals?

Could it be because this has nothing to do with Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.

That’s a whole different issue.

I'd say if Andrew's behaviour hasn't humiliated or destroyed "the firm", nothing will.
Why is none of this mentioned, by those who feel so strongly protective of the royals?

I feel sorry for those they've betrayed and sought to publicly humiliate and destroy.