King Charles shocking and disloyal book exposing royal secrets and attacking his family

The whole bit about Harry killing 25 people when in the army is for me the most shocking part of the extracts that have been leaked.

Maybe the only way not to go completely out of your mind is to think of them as chess pieces, as he appears to have done. What a blunting of normal human emotion we fund as taxpayers - this is being done on our behalf.

Callistemon21

^Necessary evil he would say^

Necessary to fight evil.

Thank you!

Necessary evil he would say

Necessary to fight evil.

I think many people are talking about his stint in Afghanistan as if what he said was fine.

It appears that not everyone agrees.

The father of one of the men who served with Harry is devastated

Ĥis son suffered PTSD and took his life a few years ago.

He can't understand how or why Harry has mentioned the tally of kills and the chess piece comment.

And neither can I.

Of course soldiers are trained to kill but its not usually something that gets talked about by a supposed mental health campaigner for veterans. Or any soldier. My father fought in WWII but never wanted to talk about it. Necessary evil he would say. And that was all he'd say on the matter.

It is all rather sad - all the characters in this tale were born into a system that was not of their making and they are all shaped by it. And it would seem not for the better.

Just because they have material riches does not make them immune to human emotions - they are all in their own ways damaged by their upbringing. And sometimes I look at those children of Kate and William's and wonder about their futures. Their upbringings are so out of kilter with anything normal.

VioletSky

I'm still shocked by the food William and Kate served at their wedding.

I could imagine someone naming a cocktail after it now!

Good post!

Yes, it is.

Charles has had plenty of time to think and is astute enough to know just how the monarchy needs to move forward if it is to survive.

I'm happy with that but, if they decide the time has come when they have had enough and wish to abdicate en masse, I'm fine with that although I would prefer that they stay.
I wouldn't blame them, though.

His remarks about the army are a stark reality of what goes on in a war when it is kill the enemy or be killed. If we don't like it, we shouldn't go to war. The Taliban may feel that their lost men were husbands fathers and sons but they were happy to put their lives on the line. I don't see why any soldier should hold back in saying how they felt. Maybe if they were able to, there wouldn't be so many mental health problems for veterans. The Armed Forces take vulnerable young men, often those from disaffected backgrounds who are looking for a family, train them to kill and curb their feelings before ejecting them back into society when they are done with them. Those who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq were treated appallingly. Recently there have been awful stories about bullying and misogyny in the Armed services. Previously they were happy to give out cigarettes to their recruits. Superb? No. Necessary, yes unfortunately. Are we lucky there are people out there to do the job? Absolutely. But let's not be unaware of the realities of War or the way many of the men who undertake it think.

LadyHonoriaDedlock

Thing is, we're in the position that the only monarch most of us have much of a memory of, and the only one in the television age, was one who was pretty much a likeable good egg, especially if you were able to get a glimpse behind the facade, whether directly or by second-hand report, of the human behind the formal facade of pomposity. She was bright, bookish, always learning new things, and genuinely curious about people as well as having a mischievous streak that came out more in her final years. And that leaves us all with a false impression.

There was never any rule that said the monarch had to be a nice person or a moral paragon. George VI was a shy man who never wanted the job and never really felt comfortable in it. Edward VIII was an international playboy, but let's draw a veil over that. George V had no empathy with ordinary people and was only comfortable with aristocrats and military leaders. Edward VII was a rake (and most of the pomp and ceremony we now associate with the monarchy began with him rather than being centuries-old tradition). Victoria was reclusive and deeply unpopular for most of her reign until Disraeli got a big PR operation going. And so on. You don't have to go back all that far to find that they were dominant warlords who did more or less what they liked, including spreading their genes around as widely as possible. Yes, we're all of us probably descended directly from Edward III who had 13 legitimate children, which is what the Wars of the Roses were all about, and an uncertain but large number of illegitimate ones.

But that's what you get with a hereditary monarchy.

My take on Charles is that he's a rather shy, thoughtful man who doesn't care much for pomp and frippery and would probably rather be pottering around his Highgrove estate in green wellies. I've heard from reliable sources that when he goes on his travels he likes to drop into a pub to chat with the locals, and it's very difficult to prise him out again (protocol demands that you don't actually tell him that it's time to go). To have spent 74 years being ever prepared to take over the minute something happens to his mother must mess with your head. In fact the whole environment with its stifling rules and protocols makes it no surprised that so many of them are messed up. Oh, and I really like Camilla. She's intelligent, personable, just right for him and just right for the role. Thank God we don't now have prima donna Queen Diana!

I'm no fan of the monarchy and would love to see it come to an end but meanwhile I have hopes that Charles is about to give the whole caboodle a good heavy pruning in the time available to him.

That's all.

Good post!

The truth?

Truth hurts? Kind of thing?

It doesn’t depend on it all being true Violet Sky, taking delight if hurting anyone who may or may not have hurt you
Would take a sick person. Taking revenge is not justice.

Thing is, we're in the position that the only monarch most of us have much of a memory of, and the only one in the television age, was one who was pretty much a likeable good egg, especially if you were able to get a glimpse behind the facade, whether directly or by second-hand report, of the human behind the formal facade of pomposity. She was bright, bookish, always learning new things, and genuinely curious about people as well as having a mischievous streak that came out more in her final years. And that leaves us all with a false impression.

There was never any rule that said the monarch had to be a nice person or a moral paragon. George VI was a shy man who never wanted the job and never really felt comfortable in it. Edward VIII was an international playboy, but let's draw a veil over that. George V had no empathy with ordinary people and was only comfortable with aristocrats and military leaders. Edward VII was a rake (and most of the pomp and ceremony we now associate with the monarchy began with him rather than being centuries-old tradition). Victoria was reclusive and deeply unpopular for most of her reign until Disraeli got a big PR operation going. And so on. You don't have to go back all that far to find that they were dominant warlords who did more or less what they liked, including spreading their genes around as widely as possible. Yes, we're all of us probably descended directly from Edward III who had 13 legitimate children, which is what the Wars of the Roses were all about, and an uncertain but large number of illegitimate ones.

But that's what you get with a hereditary monarchy.

My take on Charles is that he's a rather shy, thoughtful man who doesn't care much for pomp and frippery and would probably rather be pottering around his Highgrove estate in green wellies. I've heard from reliable sources that when he goes on his travels he likes to drop into a pub to chat with the locals, and it's very difficult to prise him out again (protocol demands that you don't actually tell him that it's time to go). To have spent 74 years being ever prepared to take over the minute something happens to his mother must mess with your head. In fact the whole environment with its stifling rules and protocols makes it no surprised that so many of them are messed up. Oh, and I really like Camilla. She's intelligent, personable, just right for him and just right for the role. Thank God we don't now have prima donna Queen Diana!

I'm no fan of the monarchy and would love to see it come to an end but meanwhile I have hopes that Charles is about to give the whole caboodle a good heavy pruning in the time available to him.

That's all.

Allsorts

For the third time (by my count) yes I am from the UK! I don't understad why you keep saying this

Sorry didn't make it past that first sentence because it's just not relevant

VS, I take it you are not from the UK. Is a rug sweeper someone that doesn’t agree with a grown up privilidged man talking of how everyone is wrong as long as it’s not him and because of his position, bad mouthing his whole family plus we don’t want to hear about his sexual practises or drug taking as if it’s something to be proud of? You say, he can do what ever he wants. Well so he is fir a very good price, we shall have to see if it gets him what he wants, wait a minute, he doesn’t know what that is, what repercussions will come from his latest comments about our armed forces, who we have to protect our national security, no one should put them in jeopardy, which his loose tongue has. It’s his truth but we are tired of it, it’s boring. We don’t tell other countries how to manage their security, we might not like certain things like the gun laws in some American States, but it’s their decision and not ours. So really we don’t want other people telling us how to manage our superb armed services.

Depends if its all true doesn't it

Only abusive people blame others for reacting to their behaviour

I hope he isn’t laughing about the hurt he is causing, that would take a very sick person.

Rosie51

Norah

Callistemon21

What does that have to do with a sincere apology from King Charles to Harry. I thought we were on about Harry and his book revelations?

Apology for what? 🤔

Parents don't get on, they divorce, it happens - the children continue, in most cases, to have a relationship with their children.

I'd think King Charles has a lot to apologize for, if what I read here is even partially correct. I do know he won't ask my opinion.

I'm a bit confused here: "the children continue, in most cases, to have a relationship with their children." Which children and children are you referencing?

I assumed Callistemon21 had mistyped the first 'children' instead of parents?

Yes, a typo!
But it was obvious it was a typo.

At least you realised Rosie51 🙂

Harry can do wtf he likes

The angry rugsweepers of the world are just free publicity broadcasting his every word while claiming he should be quiet

He's probably laughing into his champers

I don’t recall KC slating off the whole family and institution, or Diana for that matter. Mistakes were made as a privileged life's is what they get for playing within the rules. H could have gone abroad and been as as low profile as he wanted, this has all been planned to ruin the coronation and the rest of his father and step mothers remaining years. He has thrown all his own family under the bus including his two children. Army comments plain stupid.
Also those on here who think they were perfect parents, never made a mistake, rubbish.

GagaJo

And Harry isn't the heir to the throne in the way Charles was when the book was written. So in effect, what Charles did was a lot worse.

Absolutely!

And Harry isn't the heir to the throne in the way Charles was when the book was written. So in effect, what Charles did was a lot worse.

henetha

Whoever thought that
King Charles is a god, or a saint? Of course he isn't. He has made mistakes. And neither was the Queen perfect. They're human with faults.
But the Queen was nearly perfect in her role, and I think Charles will be good in his role. Neither of them did anything like as destructive as what Harry is now doing . Imho.
Opinions may vary.

But KC literally cooperated with the writing of a book, the way Harry has.

volver

Yawn, GagaJo. We're only interested in things that reinforce the idea that Charles is a living god and Harry is the devil incarnate.

😜

I heard a but of Any Questions today. Every panel member expressed sympathy for the family at the centre of this news story. Mitchell even referred to the distress both princes experienced when their mother died and the walked behind her coffin
After reading many awful posts on gransnet, it quite reinforced my faith in humanity

I haven’t been admonishing H and M. In fact I’ve said very little. But I do remember Charles being interviewed by J Dimbleby and cooperating with a book. Diana did the same. So, they should leave the Sussexes alone. He’s only following in his parent’s footsteps.

Callistemon21

^What does that have to do with a sincere apology from King Charles to Harry. I thought we were on about Harry and his book revelations?^

Apology for what? 🤔

Parents don't get on, they divorce, it happens - the children continue, in most cases, to have a relationship with their children.

I should say I believe parents owe their children an apology for things that have upset/ caused anguish. It's good to apologise for failings.