"The usual justification for rehashing Diana’s story is that she — a barely educated aristocrat who married a future king — is just like us..."

"... whoever we might be: feminists, gay people, Jews, Asians, Americans. White is very aware of this and rounds up some of the dafter examples of such deluded narcissism. The journalist Julie Burchill once claimed that Diana ticked off all the classic traits of a Jewish woman: 'Profoundly maternal, disliking horses, strong-nosed, comely, needing too much and giving too much.'"

From "Britain was obsessed with Princess Diana — not any longer/The barely educated aristo was a blank screen on to which we projected our dreams and delusions. Edward White’s biography delves into this strange 'Dianaworld'" (London Times).

Meanwhile, also in the London Times: "Prince Harry: I want reconciliation but the King won’t speak to me/The Duke of Sussex, who opened up in an interview with the BBC, earlier lost his appeal for the right to taxpayer-funded police security" (“So, you know, I miss the UK. I miss parts of the UK. Of course I do. And I think that it’s really quite sad that I won’t be able to show, you know, my children my homeland.... Of course, some members of my family will never forgive me for writing a book...')."

"The women have historically served as a combination of brood mares and mannequins. Their job is to stay thin, say little..."

"... look good in clothes, and produce heirs who will stay thin, say little and look good in clothes. (Prince Philip was said to have approved of Diana’s entry into the family because she would 'breed in some height.') When something threatens the reputation of a more senior, male Windsor, the women have another essential role: human shield. Has King Edward VIII abdicated and run off to France to be with Wallis Simpson? Let’s be sure to blame the American divorcée. Has Prince Charles taken a mistress? Blame his mom for not letting her son marry his true love; blame his wife for not keeping him faithful — oh, and call the mistress ugly. Has Prince Harry declined to perform his family duties and decamped for sunny California? Let’s blame his 'narcissistic' wife for ensorcelling him!"

Writes Jennifer Weiner, in "How the Windsor Women Became Human Shields" (NYT).

It had seemed, until recently, that "Catherine might become the rule-proving exception, the single privileged Windsor wife allowed to float above the fray." But then something popped in her abdomen.

"Earlier this month, Spotify announced that it was ending its partnership with the royal couple after they..."

"... produced just one season of Markle’s podcast in two and a half years. Spotify executive and podcaster Bill Simmons publicly branded them 'fucking grifters' on their way out. Then a Bloomberg report revealed some of Harry’s laughably implausible podcast pitches, like interviewing Vladimir Putin, Mark Zuckerberg, and Donald Trump about their childhood trauma.... Netflix isn’t interested in paying the Sussexes the additional $51 million... unless the couple cranks out some more hits.... [T]he [Wall Street] Journal reports that they are developing... 'a TV show for Netflix called Bad Manners based on Miss Havisham... [the] character from Great Expectations. The prequel would recast the lonely spinster as a strong woman living in a patriarchal society, though it is unclear whether the show will get a green light from Netflix.'... Other proposed projects seemed designed to replicate successful shows already on Netflix, such as a sitcom described as Emily in Paris, but about a man.... Netflix said no.... It’s unclear why [Netflix and Spotify] thought one of the stars of USA Network’s Suits and a guy who’s admittedly spent his life in a royal bubble would be good at churning out relatable TV and audio content."

From "Netflix’s Bold Ultimatum for Harry and Meghan: No Work, No Pay" (NY Magazine).

"An author might know nothing about writing, which is why he hired a ghost. But he may also have the literary self-confidence of Saul Bellow..."

"... and good luck telling Saul Bellow that he absolutely may not describe an interesting bowel movement he experienced years ago, as I once had to tell an author. So fight like crazy, I say, but always remember that if push comes to shove no one will have your back. Within the text and without, no one wants to hear from the dumb ghostwriter. I try not to sound didactic. A lot of what I’ve read about ghostwriting, much of it from accomplished ghostwriters, doesn’t square with my experience. Recording the author? Terrible idea—it makes many authors feel as if they’re being deposed. Dressing like the author? It’s a memoir, not a masquerade party. The ghostwriter for Julian Assange wrote twenty-five thousand words about his methodology, and it sounded to me like Elon Musk on mushrooms—on Mars. That same ghost, however, published a review of 'Spare' describing Harry as 'off his royal tits' and me as going 'all Sartre or Faulkner,' so what do I know? Who am I to offer rules?"

 
From "Notes from Prince Harry’s Ghostwriter Collaborating on his memoir, 'Spare,' meant spending hours together on Zoom, meeting his inner circle, and gaining a new perspective on the tabloids" by J. R. Moehringer (The New Yorker).

It occurs to me that another reason not to record "the author" is that you don't need verbatim quotes. You are also the author, and the whole idea is to put it in your words as if those were the author's words. So not remembering the author's words is an advantage. Those inadequate words are lost, but you have notes on the stories, and then, to write the memoir, you must reconstruct the account and you will, naturally, use your own superior form of expression.

Envisioning the absent Meghan.

By Rachel Tashijian, confabulating in "Kate, our flower crown princess" (WaPo):

The rare moment of pathos was provided by the Ascension Choir, a selection of gospel singers from England, belting “Alleluia (O Clap Your Hands)” and swaying. You could almost see Meghan, whose 2018 wedding to Harry also famously included gospel music, smiling victoriously as the sun began to rise in southern California. (Perhaps she’s even pajama-clad on Oprah’s sofa for a watch party?)

AND: Visions of those who are on the outs but were in there nonetheless (and what they wore): 

Non-working royal Prince Andrew arrived at Westminster Abbey in full regalia while Prince Harry wore a plain suit. Follow live updates: https://t.co/jJaucoQ4tU pic.twitter.com/2JsMTAPtTy

— Yahoo News UK (@YahooNewsUK) May 6, 2023

The 3-year-old boy who won World Book Day.

Today is World Book day and this cute little boy dressed up has Prince Harry. He must be a fan, he also has great taste. Have a great day little Ellis. 🤗 pic.twitter.com/sF4JQUFOsL

— The Duchess (@h_desires) March 2, 2023

"The Queen Mother liked to mimic Ali G, Sacha Baron Cohen’s character, with Harry."

The London Times reports on Prince Harry's book, which it quotes:

“I taught her to say Booyakasha, showing her how to flick her fingers the way Sacha did. She couldn’t grasp it, she had no idea what I was talking about, but she had such fun trying to flick and say the word. With every repetition of that word, Booyakasha, she’d shriek.”

"Descriptions of 'Spare' as 'pure chaos,' TMI or the lament of a privileged White man oversimplify the book...."

"Harry’s memoir sweeps in: one man’s singular journey from schoolboy to soldier to married father; a love letter to a lost mother, cast in the grief of a 12-year-old boy; an indictment of a family with resources to care for two wounded children — but no apparent will or concern to do so; a love-struck man’s celebration of his wife. 'Spare' is no literary masterpiece (for your own sake, skip the multi-chapter talk of his frostbitten todger). In time, Harry might regret sharing so much.... Harry accuses his stepmother, Camilla, soon to be crowned queen, of spreading negative reports about him amid efforts to improve her public image. He recounts speaking to his brother about their father’s efforts to promote himself at their expense. Think about that. A lot of Americans who were tiring of Harry and Meghan will likely find elements of Harry’s story to respect or even lament....."

Writes Autumn Brewington, in "Post Elizabeth: To understand Prince Harry’s book, you need to know 5 things" (WaPo). 

About that todger (don't tell me what to skip!):

"I had to say something/To strike him very weird/So I yelled out/'I like Fidel Castro and his beard'..."

Sings Bob Dylan in "Motorpsycho Nightmare." 

That was just my first thought on reading a headline this morning: "Prince Harry is upset his brother didn’t like his beard." 

That's a Guardian piece by Bridie Jabour. She muses about sibling strife within her own family, with her younger sister and then as a mother:

[H]aving my own children has only transported me right back to the intense outrage that dogged me whenever I perceived a sibling to be getting different treatment to me. Never mind that you have to treat your children differently, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Oh! As they say on Reddit: unexpected communism.  Embarking on this blog post, I wasn't expecting a double dose of unexpected communism.

"During the early stages of my father’s Alzheimer’s, when he still had lucid moments, I apologized to him for writing an autobiography many years earlier..."

"... in which I flung open the gates of our troubled family life. He was already talking less at that point, but his eyes told me he understood. I thought of that moment when I read that Prince Harry, in his new memoir, wrote about his father, King Charles, getting between his battling sons and saying, 'Please, boys, don’t make my final years a misery.'... My justification in writing a book I now wish I hadn’t written... was very similar to what I understand to be Harry’s reasoning. I wanted to tell the truth, I wanted to set the record straight. Naïvely, I thought if I put my own feelings and my own truth out there for the world to read, my family might also come to understand me better.... There isn’t just one truth, our truth — the other people who inhabit our story have their truths as well.... Years ago, someone asked me what I would say to my younger self if I could. Without hesitating I answered: 'That’s easy. I’d have said, "Be quiet."'"

Writes President Reagan's daughter Patti Davis, in "Prince Harry and the Value of Silence" (NYT).

To write Andre Agassi’s memoir, 'Open,' [J.R.] Moehringer moved to Las Vegas, where Agassi lived. Agassi said he bought a house a mile away from his own..."

"... and Moehringer occupied it for two years while he worked on the book. All the writer requested was a long table where he could lay out the scenes he’d piece together 'like a necklace,' Agassi recalled. They’d meet in the morning, fueled by breakfast burritos from Whole Foods. 'I’d spend a couple of hours with him over breakfast and a tape recorder,' Agassi said. 'Open' is widely considered a paragon of sports autobiographies — a raw and honest excavation of a well-known life. Agassi said he sought out Moehringer to write the book — 'romancing' him to do it, he said... Like any reliably employed ghostwriter, Moehringer is also known for his discretion. Prince Harry’s book is his third ghostwriting project. Maybe.... Agassi.... said he wanted to put Moehringer’s name on the cover.... But Moehringer declined such public credit, Agassi said. He preferred to disappear."

Writes Elizabeth A. Harris in "When the Writing Demands Talent and Discretion, Call the Ghostwriter/Ghostwriters write books in someone else’s voice — without leaving fingerprints. Doing it well requires great technical skill and a flexible ego" (NYT).

Moehringer is also the ghostwriter for Prince Harry's new book — "Spare" — and, again, his name is not on the cover.

"He set down the water, called me another name, then came at me. It all happened so fast. So very fast. He grabbed me by the collar, ripping my necklace..."

"... and he knocked me to the floor. I landed on the dog’s bowl, which cracked under my back, the pieces cutting into me. I lay there for a moment, dazed, then got to my feet and told him to get out."

Writes Prince Harry, quoted in "William is my ‘arch-nemesis’, says Harry in new book Spare" (London Times). 

"One iconic moment was predictably included in the Netflix show to underline Diana’s supposed superiority as a parent."

"During a 1991 trip to Canada, Diana raced along the deck of the royal yacht Britannia with arms open wide and scooped up William and Harry with a huge hug in a blaze of camera flashes. She had, in fact, deliberately run ahead of Charles when they approached the ship, leaving him to catch up. He, too, publicly gave his sons hugs and kisses, but only one photograph of his affectionate embrace appeared in the press, while newspapers around the world led with Diana’s radiant display."

 From "Prince Harry’s attacks on King in Netflix series may mean no way back/The criticism of Charles was insidious and he was given no credit for what he did as a father" (London Times). 

"Will and Kate came over and I met her for the first time, for dinner, I remember I was in ripped jeans, I was barefoot."

"Like, I was a hugger. I’ve always been a hugger. I didn’t realize that is really jarring for a lot of Brits."

From "Harry and Meghan series, likely to anger British royals, drops on Netflix" (WaPo).

That quote is at the end of the article, which has just 2 more lines:

She described how the royals’ “formality on the outside carried on to the inside.”

This is a developing story.

It's breaking news? Presumably there will be updates. About what, you wonder? About other things to be found in this 6-part Netflix documentary that just — as they say — "dropped." 

ADDED: I don't believe for one minute that an American-based "hugger" doesn't understand that not everyone accepts being hugged on first meeting. It may be more disturbing for some "Brits," but she well knew that Kate and William weren't just random Brits. They are people who expect special deference. It you want to deny them that, that's your business, but don't expect us to believe you just didn't know, you're just brimming with hugginess, and that's American. Maybe that plays more believably to Brits, who might think we Americans are mindlessly casual. Maybe we are, but we're not ignoramuses.

"But what really wounded me — what really wounded me — was when the Duke of Sussex addressed the United Nations and seemed to compare the decision whose name may not be spoken with the Russian attack on Ukraine."

Said Samuel Alito, quoted in "U.S. Supreme Court Justice Alito mocks foreign critics of abortion ruling" (Reuters, reporting on the contents of the video that is embedded in the previous post).

In Prince Harry's July 18 speech, he spoke of 2022 as "a painful year in a painful decade" before citing the war in Ukraine and "the rolling back of constitutional rights here in the United States," which appeared to reference the abortion ruling.

Did Prince Harry "compare" the 2 things in any way other than listing them as painful things that happened in the past decade? It was a "rolling back" of a constitutional right. What's the point of Alito's sarcasm? It's close to saying, ha, ha, I have power and you don't. 

Why the comedy? Women have lost an important right that we'd thought for decades was guaranteed by constitutional law. Now, Alito snarks that the opinion he wrote is "the decision whose name may not be spoken." Is that funny? 

If people don't want to say the case name — Dobbs — it's because: 1. They don't remember it, 2. Roe is much more familiar and it's easier to say the case that overruled Roe, or 3. They intend to express anger and antagonism toward Dobbs by refusing to acknowledge its existence and envisioning its quick demise.

To jokingly call Dobbs "the decision whose name may not be spoken" is to seem to exult in your power. And that's ironic, considering that the best justification for what the Court did is judicial restraint. 

"The rollout of instrumented mouthguards to top-flight men’s and women’s leagues and international teams this season will add significantly to our understanding..."

"... of the number and magnitude of head impacts and accelerations and how these can be reduced in both training and match settings."

Said the RFU medical services director, quoted in "Smart mouthguards to be offered to all elite players in effort to curb rising concussions" (London Times).

RFU = The Rugby Football Union... "the national governing body for rugby union in England." 

I had to look it up in Wikipedia, where I was interested to see the recent history of its "Royal Patrons":

Queen Elizabeth II 1952 – December 2016
Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex December 2016 – February 2021
Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge February 2022 – Present

Here's where the RFU expressed thanks to Harry for his 5 years of service. The Queen served as their patron for 64 years before giving that to Harry. Oh, Harry!

Anyway... I hope the smart mouthguards help with the brain damage problem. 

ADDED: The term "rugby union" seemed odd to me, but I see it's the actual name of the sport that we usual refer to as rugby. It is, we are told, not to be confused with "rugby league." I am still confusing them, though I am now enlightened to the level where I know you're not supposed to confuse them.

"Set against a pastoral Californian back yard, it at times resembled a play with three characters: a discontented (for good reason) woman, her angry and accommodating husband, and a mediator..."

"... tasked with drawing them out while acting as a stand-in for the curious public. Winfrey... is not just an interviewer but 'something of an emissary, a reactive translator of emotion, a master weaver, pulling disparate revelations into a collective portrait that colonizes the mind.' Some of Winfrey’s lines—like a simple, incredulous 'What?'—were among the most emotionally lucid moments of the broadcast. Of her many successes, this may be what she does best: listen, react, and press a little harder for the truth. As a television performance, it was a role that perhaps no other human being was equipped to play."

From "The Best Performances of 2021/The people who burst through the excess of amusements, onscreen or onstage, and did something extraordinary" (The New Yorker), designating, among the best, "Oprah Winfrey in 'Oprah with Meghan and Harry.'"

"Prince Harry’s mental health start-up has trebled its valuation in just eight months to $4.7 billion (£3.5 billion) after scoring $300 million from investors..."

"... including a secretive fund run for Silicon Valley tycoons such as Mark Zuckerberg. The latest cash injection will help BetterUp, where the Duke of Sussex is chief impact officer, to expand globally. It recently unveiled plans to open a London office and hire about 75 staff. The California-based company’s app costs $249 a month for users in the US, who get one-to-one coaching sessions on everything from mental health and nutrition to work and childcare. Prince Harry joined the company this year and has been on paternity leave after the birth of his daughter Lilibet."

The London Times reports.

Look at how money flows to that man! What work is he actually doing for this company? I mean, even when he's not off on paternity leave? Do Zuckerberg et al. really believe there are hordes of people able and willing to pay $249 a month for "one-to-one coaching sessions" on miscellaneous subjects — enough to explain a company worth $4.7 billion? 

I wonder if the one-to-one coaches will ever help subscription-payers with their addiction to Facebook?

And what is a "chief impact officer" anyway?

"Is Harry and Meghan’s Time profile a parody?"

Asks Joanna Williams (at The Spectator), looking at Time's "100 most influential people of 2021," which has a silly photo of them on the cover.

Harry and Meghan, we are told, ‘turn compassion into boots on the ground’. They ‘give voice to the voiceless’, ‘mental-health support to Black women and girls’ and feed ‘those affected by natural disasters’. Okay so maybe not with five loaves and two fishes, but ‘hand in hand with nonprofit partners’. In short, ‘They run toward the struggle.’ Or should that be fly? They fly toward the struggle, right? And the ‘struggle’ is a charity polo match in Aspen and the flight is a £45million private jet. The ‘voiceless’ now being given a hearing can surely only refer to the Duke and Duchess themselves: certainly it’s the case that since leaving the royal family they rarely miss an opportunity to remain silent. And the ‘springing into action’ must mean firing off a quick text to Netflix or Oprah, or, more likely, their lawyers.... 

“Shocking behaviour and all about getting their own back. Queen said can’t use titles to make money but she has no control over a nickname. They will milk it."

Tweeted royals biographer Angela Levin tweeted, quoted in "Prince Harry, Meghan Markle didn’t ask Queen to use Lilibet name, palace source claims." 

Harry and Meghan named their new baby Lilibet (Lilibet Diana), Lilibet being the pet name used for Queen Elizabeth since she was a little girl and her effort to say her own name came out "Lilibet." It really seems to be the Queen's special name, not to be appropriated with the assumption that she'll feel honored. She's the Queen. What could possibly make her feel honored? It can't be the would-be honorer's push for intimacy, and in this case, it's not believable as a genuine gesture of intimacy. They're gesturing from Hollywood!

ADDED: "Harry and Meghan accused the BBC of libel after it reported that a senior Palace source had claimed the Queen was not asked permission to use her childhood nickname, Lilibet" (London Times).