By which I mean, hot air, assorted farts, gossip and memoirs straight from the gut. Probably talking to myself here as few contribute now. - I miss nord, no end, but all the hot air about Prince Henry arouses all manner of conversational aspects. So what is anyone's take on all of this outpouring of misery?

Sorry but I can raise precisely zero interest in his yowling complaints.

OK I'll bite although I've really little interest in the dirty laundry currently being openly aired. However it's hard to avoid it completely - today the Daily Mail had over 40 articles about it all and even the French Le Monde carries the occasional article - so here's my take on it thus far.


One thing this sordid debacle has shown is what a dysfunctional family the Windsors are and how brutal the system of a dynastic monarchy can be. Like them, loathe them, or merely long to hear no more about them ever again, the Sussexes have raised questions of genuine and awkward public interest. They have held up an important mirror to the country by exploring the reaction, public and private, to a mixed-race royal marriage; they have served up some uncomfortable truths about the long and sometimes grubby relationship between royals and the media; and they have exposed the brutal nature of a hereditary monarchy and some of its flaws. However Harry has now charged headlong into a queasier realm, where his grievences are no longer obviously linked to effecting change but have given way to intensely personal, even vindictive attacks on his family.

As I understand it he and his wife's problems seem to have arisen from their expected roles, duties and positions within the "firm". Harry complained angrily about his older brother saying Meghan was "difficult", "rude" and "abrasive" both to members of his family and household alike, which echoes the whispers about her bullying attitude which have been circulating in parts of the press for some time. But the spat seemingly escalated violently after Harry accused William of acting like an heir: the chosen one, around whom everything else seemingly revolves. That, however, is almost inevitable in a hereditary system.

The goal of monarchy is its own survival, which means its instinct is generally to protect the heir at all costs. Harry was born the understudy, the plan B, and even then only until his brother had produced children. Once William and Catherine had produced their first child, and a boy to boot, Harry was no longer even "the spare". Historically the second son's function in dynastic terms has often been to absorb criticism that might otherwise fall on his older brother in exchange for an increased degree of freedom. Harry complains that this was the plan in his case, to effectively tie him to his older brother, although in what family is it psychologically acceptable to consign the younger son to service the elder for life?

I imagine the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh were fully aware of the implications of all this and how it might create issues in the future. Certainly the marriage of Charles and Diana was no love match but simply a means to get the required heir and spare. Unless they were exceedingly naive, I am sure the engaged couple were both fully aware of what they were letting themselves in for and what was expected of them, albeit that their expectations might well have changed as they grew older (and further apart). That it all went wrong is largely because they were essentially pushed into an arranged marriage in the first place. Few parental divorces can be as horrible as the one the two young princes suffered, their schoolfriends sniggering over the tampon tape and the James Gilbey recordings, everyone ogling Diana and Charles’s self-justifying TV interviews and books, and all of it eventually capped by their mother’s horrific death alongside her latest boyfriend. Being forced to walk behind their mother's coffin in the glare of the world's press, just for the sake of good PR for the royal family, seems to have left particularly deep scars in both boys. Perhaps if the Windsors and their advisors had used a little more emotional intelligence in their interactions with Harry and William, then the current problems might never have got as far as they now have. But at least, so far, the lesson about the dangers in encouraging a loveless marriage just to get the requisite heir and spare, seems to have been learnt in their cases.

I can quite understand Harry and Meghan wanting out of the whole royal circus, however instead of pursuing a life of wealthy normality away from the limelight that they claim to shun, they actually seem to crave being centre stage. They also clearly seem to want to continue to enjoy all the benefits and entitlements of being royal based purely on his family connections but without performing any formal royals roles. Hypocritically Harry blames both the press and his family for all his woes, whilst at the same time using the leverage of both to make money. Never the brightest person (I very much doubt he'd ever have become an officer in the British Army were he not the grandson of the Queen) I wouldn't be surprised if he's being entirely manipulated by his wife. He now comes across to me as a privileged, self-obsessed, attention seeker, but who is often painfully unaware of the stupidity of his words, deeply troubled and prone to petty jealousies, bitter grudges and irrational paranoia (is he suffering  PTST or ADHD, perhaps?). I think he desparately needs some proper psychotherapy - and not the Hollywood "woo" guff that he currently indulges in.

If there are any lessons to be drawn from all this misery and mud-slinging, beyond the bleeding obvious ones, I think it's that there’s something deeply unhealthy about hereditary power. But while Harry and his wife rail against the personalities and conduct of the royal family and those working within the monarchy as a whole, they never address the real issue: the whole parasitic, priviledged enterprise of hereditary monarchy itself, of which they, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, are themselves fully complicit.

Meles meles,

That is a very interesting and informative input.
Thanks for posting

Dirk

Concerning heirs, spares and Harry resenting William having the prime position ... it's perhaps worth noting that the late Queen and her sister Margaret had also faced the implications of the brutally inflexible order of succession. Accordingly while she was alive the Queen (rightly or wrongly) may well have had little sympathy with Harry's whinging and I can imagine her viewpoint might well have been: that's the way it is so you just have to accept it. This is from 'The Crown' but I believe the basic history is correct. As princess, Elizabeth understood that being the heir - and then subsequently the monarch - put one centre stage and above all others, even ones close family, whether one wanted it or not. As a young princess Elizabeth was not keen on having the job, while her more vivacious younger sister thought she would make a better queen. As Tommy Lascelles (Private Secretary to George VI) says, you cannot change the order of things and the role of a monarch's sibling, the spare, is indeed simply to "serve and support".



Quite frankly, besides all its other flaws, I find an hereditary monarchy to be almost cruel and inhuman in that it imposes on the incumbent a lifetime in the spotlight, effectively on duty 24 hours a day, restricted in what one can do, unable to go out alone, never able to speak candidly in public about what you really think but instead forced to spout the official line as written by politicians with whom you may well disagree. I'd hate it.

I haven't watched the programme(s) where Prince Harry is interviewed (or The Crown). To me the royal family has been like the weather - they (it?) exist(s).  MM* has made some valid points.  It must have been difficult for the Duchess of Sussex as a woman in her mid-thirties who had already had a career to fit into the goldfish bowl existence of "the firm". I'm not convinced she's evil personified as she's sometimes portrayed though no doubt she has her good points and her bad points as we all do.  I can understand the Sussexes wanting to put their side of the story though in doing so they need to exercise great care and I doubt they will be able to survive for the remainder of their lives on giving interviews about what life inside the royal family was like.  I hope they can find a sensible way forward.


*Res Hist's MM, not the Duchess of Sussex.

We are not watching "The Crown" - my husband would have a blue fit if I suggested it, but I do keep up with all the goings on. 

I had forgotten the tampon thing and have always thought it was a terrible thing to put into the public eye. I have always been a Charles fan, having been born just a year after him and in November. And my sister and I had many books on the young Princesses Margaret and Elizabeth.

An independent  Swindon bookshop has achieved a lot of attention by displaying 'Spare' along side another book titled 'How to kill your family'.

Tim

Ha ha

Doesn't look as if the book is selling that well in Windsor as it's been reduced to half price at this shop opposite the castle:

Modern tendency is to dispense with the spare and carry a reinflation kit instead. Seems a good idea in this context.

Meles meles wrote:

Concerning heirs, spares and Harry resenting William having the prime position ... it's perhaps worth noting that the late Queen and her sister Margaret had also faced the implications of the brutally inflexible order of succession.

The heir and spare (and sibling rivalry) phenomenon is a recurrent theme in history. These often are to be found in royal dynasties but also in other spheres such as family run businesses etc. There are 5 main scenarios. The first is in the case of an heir who predeceases the parent and so the inheritance passes to the spare. The second is one in which the heir succeeds to the inheritance but then dies or abdicates childless and so the spare succeeds in that way. The third is one where the heir succeeds to the inheritance and dies with issue but whose children are then disinherited by the uncle or aunt. The fourth is one in which the spare acts as a loyal lieutenant to the heir before and after the succession. The fifth is one where the spare acts against the heir either before or after the succession and successfully removes them from the heirdom or inherited position. The sixth one is where the spare acts against the heir either before or after the succession and but is unsuccessful in this.

The first scenario (in which an heir predeceases the parent and so the inheritance passes to the spare) would be that of the highly popular and seemingly able Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales who suddenly died of a fever aged 18 in 1612. The heirdom to the thrones of Scotland, England and Ireland then passed to his younger but less impressive brother Charles, Duke of York who would then nevertheless succeed as King Charles I.

The second scenario (in which the heir succeeds to the inheritance but then dies childless) would be that of the succession of Elizabeth I of England following the death of her childless older sister Mary I. In this example, of course, neither Mary nor Elizabeth was ever intended to be a spare let alone an heir. The scenario of a childless monarch abdicating would be that of King Edward VIII who abdicated in 1936 to be succeeded by his younger brother Albert, Duke of York (as George VI). That, however, was a rare if not unique incident in British history. In Japan, by contrast, the abdication of emperors was almost the norm for centuries including many abdications in favour of younger brothers. The practice seemed to come to an end after the Meiji Restoration in 1868 but returned with the abdication of Akihito in 2019. In the 12th Century, for instance, the emperor Go-Shirakawa abdicated and then lived to see no fewer than 6 further emperors succeed him. These were his son, his grandson, his brother and then 3 of his nephews. That’s a total of 4 spares succeeding in the space of one lifetime.

The third scenario (in which the heir succeeds and dies with issue but whose children are then disinherited by an uncle) would come from the Song Dynasty in China. In the 10th century the emperor Taizu died and was succeeded by his brother Taizong. This was despite Taizu already having 2 adult sons – i.e. an heir and a spare. It was rumoured that Taizong had actually bumped Taizu off himself. As an historical character, Taizong is perceived as a sort of Chinese equivalent of Claudius (from Shakespeare’s Hamlet) and Richard of Gloucester (from Shakespeare’s Richard III) rolled into one.*

The fourth scenario (in which the spare is a loyal lieutenant to the heir after the heir has succeeded) would be that of Philippe, Duke of Orléans the gregarious and camp younger brother of France’s Louis XIV the Sun King. Indeed, Philippe was almost too loyal. He was a successful military commander on behalf of his brother against Spain in the Spanish Netherlands and was also a patron of civil engineering projects, notably the Canal d’Orléans which linked the Loire to the Seine. At times he arguably became more popular among the people than Louis was. It’s not known, however, how he would have related to, or supported, Louis’ children when they succeeded. This is because Philippe pre-deceased his older brother who in turn would outlive both his son and his grandson being succeeded by his great-grandson Louis XV in 1715.  



(Princess Henrietta Stuart, daughter of King Charles I, himself a succeeding spare, adoringly holding a portrait of her famously bisexual husband Philippe, Duke of Orléans one of the most celebrated spares in French royal history.)  

The fifth scenario (in which the spare acts against the heir and successfully removes him) comes from India in the 3rd century BC. It’s the story of the emperor Ashoka of the Maurya empire. As a child he was something of an ugly duckling and was disliked by his father for that. This went to the extent of his father even sending him as a teenager to govern an unruly and dangerous province almost in the hope that he would fail and even be killed. Ashoka, however, confounded his father by successfully suppressing dissent there and even turning it into a model province of order and prosperity. He also married a local woman thus increasing both his and the emperor’s popularity. Unconvinced, the emperor recalled Ashoka and sent his older half-brother the crown prince Susima to govern in his place. Susima, however, was arrogant and something of a bully and was disliked by the courtiers. Neither were the people of the province impressed by their new governor. They soon rose again in revolt and the emperor fell ill at the news. Ashoka’s mother and senior courtiers then began plotting to have Ashoka succeed him should he die. When the emperor did indeed die, Susima returned to court hoping to ascend  the throne only to be murdered by the lord chamberlain the moment he arrived back in the capital Patna.  
 
The sixth scenario (in which the spare acts against the heir but is unsuccessful) would be that of Michael the Brave. He was the fourth son of a grand duke of Vladimir-Suzdal and the nephew of the reigning grand duke. The reason why his uncle was grand duke was that the various Rus grand duchies and principalities used the lestvitsa system to determine the succession. This combined elements of a rotation system along with agnatic seniority meaning that surviving brothers of a deceased ruler took precedence in the line of succession ahead of sons or grandsons. Michael, however, was impatient and didn’t want to wait for his older brothers to die or even for his uncle to die for that matter. The Russian principalities were still under the sway of the Mongol Golden Horde at that time and while his older brothers were away negotiating with their Mongol overlords, Michael mounted a coup in the capital, overthrew his uncle, issued a declaration of independence from the Golden Horde and thus stole a march on his brothers whom he could then present as pro-Mongol stooges. Michael’s undoing, however, didn’t come from the Mongols in the east but rather from the Lithuanians in the west who saw the coup as evidence of weakness in Vladimir-Suzdal, invaded the grand duchy and killed Michael in battle before redrawing the border and then withdrawing. The scheming of younger brothers didn’t end there however. While negotiating with the Golden Horde, the younger of Michael’s 2 older brothers had managed to get the Mongols to agree to him taking seniority over the oldest brother in the line of succession. And when the restored (but now somewhat discredited) uncle himself died the following year that younger brother Andrey did indeed duly succeed to the grand duchy as Andrey II. He had gained one-up over his older brother by pointing out to the Mongols various examples of his older brother’s former disloyalty to them. His older brother, however, would get his own back by claiming that Andrey was embezzling tax revenue due to go to the Golden Horde. On hearing of this the Mongols invaded Vladimir-Suzdal and Andrey fled to Sweden. The older brother (who by now had seen off the schemes of 2 spares) was now installed as the new grand duke. Thus he added the grand duchy of Vladimir to his existing titles of prince of Novgorod and grand prince of Kiev. His name was Alexander Nevsky.**    
       

*Someone who really deserved to be a character in a Shakespearean play was Taizong’s daughter-in-law the Empress Liu. Hers was a rags-to-riches tale. A beautiful but impoverished teenage girl from the countryside, she was passed around by horrible older men in the capital until she caught the eye of the third son of the emperor who (despite parental and court disapproval) insisted upon marrying her. This spare-spare outlived his older brothers and duly succeeded to the imperial throne. Liu, however, proved unable to conceive and one would have thought that as a childless consort of peasant background then her imperial story would have ended shortly thereafter. But not a bit of it. Her husband, the emperor Zhenzong still treated her as his most favoured wife and even allowed her to officially adopt a son from one of his other wives and declared the boy to be his heir. Furthermore, when the emperor fell ill and was incapacitate towards the end of his life, he named Liu as his regent and also regent in the event of his death as the child was still in his minority. The emperor did indeed die shortly afterwards and the dowager empress Liu served as regent not only during her son’s minority but right up until her death which was well passed the date when he had achieved his majority. A truly unusual story.
     
** The system of agnatic seniority is still used in Saudi Arabia which is why the current king Salman is the son of Ibn Saud himself, the first king of Saudi Arabia who was born in 1875.