well, here it is, Harry interview itv 9pm

Glorianny

OnwardandUpward

What if it's not Louis's family scapegoating him but members of the public labelling him?

Do you even remember being 4?

It's the family choosing to expose him to the public view .

Can't see what my memories have to do with it.
All 4 year olds misbehave most of them aren't sitting in front of a huge crowd and don't have their actions recorded for posterity.
Having seen the damage done to his brother through public exposure throughout his childhood you would imagine William would be a little more protective.
How will Louis feel when the clips of his 4 year old behaviour are played back to him in his teens?

We are now in the realms of fantasy. When they were four or so there were also similar ‘misbehaving’ pictures of the other Windsor children, sticking their tongues out, acting up etc. it’s just what children of that age do, it’s not specifically scapegoating Louis. Honestly, what people don’t know they make up on this thread.

This thread started out as a good discussion regarding Prince Harry’s ITV interview.

I think it is very dangerous to diagnose mental health issues through the medium of TV, especially as I doubt any posters are close to PH or any other members of the RF.

Well said, Casdon.

Glorianny

For all of those commenting about his desire for money you do know that £1.6mill is going to Sentebale from this and £300,000 to Well Child. So arguably it is a philanthropic venture.

And how much to Penguin Random House?
We have the option of not spending £14 and directing a donation of our own choosing.
Barnados does great work with young children who are the main carers for parents.
My point is that we the ordinary, the little people, the subjects have agency in our own lives.

G
As I said autistic isn't a term I would use,
but you’re happy to use terms like dysfunctional and scapegoat child for a family you don’t know anything about except what you read in the media.
You don’t see that as being the slightest bit hypocritical . . .

OnwardandUpward

Do you not think W&K have enough to deal with at the moment having all the nonsense from H? Obviously not since you condemn their parenting and their youngest child.

(While completely ignoring that H has put his actually at risk from the Taliban and admits to taking drugs still.)

Thankfully we don't still live in an age where kids "should be seen and not heard".

I don't think "kids should be seen and not heard" I do think children should be protected and sheltered from public scrutiny until they are old enough to recognise what is involved. I think it is exploitation to use your children to further or promote any organisation or institution. There are very strict laws for children involved in other activities that expose them to the public to prevent such exploitation. I don't understand why royal children can't have the same protection.

The widow’s mite comes to mind.

Mollygo

G
As I said autistic isn't a term I would use,
but you’re happy to use terms like dysfunctional and scapegoat child for a family you don’t know anything about except what you read in the media.
You don’t see that as being the slightest bit hypocritical . . .

Except I tend to research slightly more than just today's media. Someone accused me of knowing a lot about the RF. I probably do. Historically they have been highly dysfunctional. I think even Charles thought his parenting inadequate.

Glorianny

For all of those commenting about his desire for money you do know that £1.6mill is going to Sentebale from this and £300,000 to Well Child. So arguably it is a philanthropic venture.

Glorianny are you seriously saying that Harry's motivation for selling his story for millions and millions was so he could give a smidgeon to charity, and not for personal profit? If philanthropy was at the heart of it the proportions would be reversed, and I doubt a true philanthropist would deliberately set out to humiliate and betray their own family.

GrannyGravy13

This thread started out as a good discussion regarding Prince Harry’s ITV interview.

I think it is very dangerous to diagnose mental health issues through the medium of TV, especially as I doubt any posters are close to PH or any other members of the RF.

And I think it’s dangerous to assume that this presentation is in any way normal.

The rambling discourse is being foisted on a receptive public but everything about it is strange. And the effect on anyone listening to it is not healthy for the listener either. Three seconds before I reach for the off button.

G I don't understand why royal children can't have the same protection
Because the general public, like you, want to see them and read about them. It’s part of the job and they do it well.
The down side is that people also feel they have the right to criticise and judge them and you couldn’t do that if they didn’t appear.

I can't understand why H's children have to be put at risk by the things he says and does. (Mainly his mention of Taliban and drugs.)

Although, just as Harry will have been harmed by reading about his parents problems and shenanigans in the media, he will now put his kids through similar when they are older and reading of the "disastrous" family they were born into.

At some point as a parent if you don't like what was done to you, you don't repeat the behaviour, surely.

Mollygo

G I don't understand why royal children can't have the same protection
Because the general public, like you, want to see them and read about them. It’s part of the job and they do it well.
The down side is that people also feel they have the right to criticise and judge them and you couldn’t do that if they didn’t appear.

I don't want to read about them. I'd be quite happy if I never saw them again until they were 18, and not even then if they said "No"
Children to my knowledge are legally not permitted to work until they are 15, so how can it be their job?

OnwardandUpward

I can't understand why H's children have to be put at risk by the things he says and does. (Mainly his mention of Taliban and drugs.)

Although, just as Harry will have been harmed by reading about his parents problems and shenanigans in the media, he will now put his kids through similar when they are older and reading of the "disastrous" family they were born into.

At some point as a parent if you don't like what was done to you, you don't repeat the behaviour, surely.

Do you have any idea what either of his children look like? The only photo you see are old ones.
One of the laws in California is that it is illegal to publish photos of children. So they can't be exploited.

Only as you say from older photos, though it will be obvious who they are. Fine if they only ever stay in California, which would be ideal for the RF too.

It was at a concert for his gtgranny that I saw Louis getting bored and acting like a typical 4-year-old. His mother treated it much the same way as any other mother of three would treat a boy of that age who was acting up in public.

1) The event was the equivalent of an extended (very extended!) family party which everyone was at - if he had been left out of that he would have felt excluded and got-at, and, who knows?, (tongue-in-cheek emoticon here) in future decades he could be using an account of it to explain why he was dissing his family in a multi-million pound book deal?

2) Most four-year-olds get bored easily, show of, play the giddy goat, and sometimes they embarrass their parents in public. Parents cope with it in various ways. That doesn't mean the child is a "scapegoat". Louis isn't one, and the many photographs of Harry don't show him as one. In fact he was said to be his greatgrandmother's favourite.

Right now if anyone is scapegoating their family, it's Harry.

They are sitting ducks, taking the potshots, because they know he will make anything they say public, so they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. I think it's very cowardly of Harry.

arguably it is a philanthropic venture has to be one of the funniest things I've ever read on GN.

As for 'scapegoating' the one scapegoating is Harry. The scapegoated person is blamed for the wrong doings, mistakes or faults of others. H's being criticised by some for what he is doing. I've not seen any criticism of him by his family.

The damage done to Prince Harry was not public exposure but the death of his mother. At the back of his book Harry acknowledges a whole list of various therapist. One said he has never recovered from losing his mother. So I don’t think you can or should compare him with Prince Louis. Hopefully Louis will never experience such trauma.

Smileless2012

^arguably it is a philanthropic venture^ has to be one of the funniest things I've ever read on GN.

As for 'scapegoating' the one scapegoating is Harry. The scapegoated person is blamed for the wrong doings, mistakes or faults of others. H's being criticised by some for what he is doing. I've not seen any criticism of him by his family.

Well it's certainly not "philanthropic" to his own family.

It's not W's fault for being born first, or KC. It's a fact that insecure people attack those who they percieve to be stronger, but "blowing out someone else's candle does not make yours burn brighter"

Hurt people hurt people and that's what needs to be dealt with. No amount of money is going to make that better.

ronib

GrannyGravy13

This thread started out as a good discussion regarding Prince Harry’s ITV interview.

I think it is very dangerous to diagnose mental health issues through the medium of TV, especially as I doubt any posters are close to PH or any other members of the RF.

And I think it’s dangerous to assume that this presentation is in any way normal.

The rambling discourse is being foisted on a receptive public but everything about it is strange. And the effect on anyone listening to it is not healthy for the listener either. Three seconds before I reach for the off button.

Nobody is being forced to listen/watch/read anything by PH. The RF has a limited interest both here in the U.K. and worldwide.

I went to the gym and out of the twenty or so people there (age range early twenties to mid sixties) the trainer asked who had watched the Netflix Series and/or the ITV interview, only two had.

More people watched Happy Valley than the PH ITV interview.

Losing his mother was terribly upsetting for Prince Harry, as it would be for any child. I doubt if you ever fully recover.
However, did anyone notice at the beginning of the interview that Harry is now blaming his father for gently telling him that night that there was an accident in the tunnel. Harry said Charles didn't tell him the truth that it was the paparazzi who killed her and he is angry about that. Really? What distraught father sitting on their child's bed in the middle of the night an hour or so after the event, could even know who was responsible or how the accident happened? Harry is really looking for sticks to beat his family members with, and using that tragic story to launch his tirade was unfair.

It must have been very hurtful for Charles to receive that particular criticism. It’s not exactly a moment you rehearse for, is it?

GrannyGravy13

ronib

GrannyGravy13

This thread started out as a good discussion regarding Prince Harry’s ITV interview.

I think it is very dangerous to diagnose mental health issues through the medium of TV, especially as I doubt any posters are close to PH or any other members of the RF.

And I think it’s dangerous to assume that this presentation is in any way normal.

The rambling discourse is being foisted on a receptive public but everything about it is strange. And the effect on anyone listening to it is not healthy for the listener either. Three seconds before I reach for the off button.

Nobody is being forced to listen/watch/read anything by PH. The RF has a limited interest both here in the U.K. and worldwide.

I went to the gym and out of the twenty or so people there (age range early twenties to mid sixties) the trainer asked who had watched the Netflix Series and/or the ITV interview, only two had.

More people watched Happy Valley than the PH ITV interview.

Quite. While I have a lot of sympathy for H&M, that sympathy doesn't include watching hours of TV footage from them,

Poor Harry if he takes money from the RF he's scrounging, if he makes money from selling his story he's exploiting the RF, if he donates money to charity it's irrelevant.
Just can't win can he?

Can someone explain to me what they want him to do given that. he is paying his own way, not scrounging, but because of his birth and family connections he needs the best possible security and a safe place to live?