Connect with us

Published

on

Ex-pat Prince Harrys memoir, titled Spare in a likely jab at his father King Charles III, is set to be released on January 10 but if the sneak peeks are any indication, the entire tome appears to be a compilation of unaired grievances and instances of unresolved sibling rivalry.

Harry left the U.K. and his royal duties behind shortly after the May 2019 birth of son Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor the first of his two children with his wife, American actress-turned-Duchess-of-Sussex Meghan Markle (Suits). By mid-February of 2021, the palace had confirmed that Harry and Meghan would not be returning to their Royal roles.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have confirmed to Her Majesty The Queen that they will not be returning as working members of The Royal Family, the February 19, 2021, statement from Buckingham Palace read.

Since then, the quasi-royals have attempted to carve out a life for themselves outside the palace walls and so far, every outing has been another variation on the same theme: everyone at the Palace wanted them gone, with Prince William and Princess Kate chief among them.

From the now-infamous Oprah interview to their multi-episode Netflix special, Harry and Meghan have lobbed a series of accusations against the Royal Family in general from bullying to racism and everything in between and Spare appears to pick up where Netflix left off.

Harry blames William and Kate for his 2005 decision to wear a Nazi uniform to a costume party, saying that they had howled with laughter upon seeing him in the get-up and encouraged him to go for it.

I phoned Willy and Kate, asked what they thought. Nazi uniform, they said, Harry says that he then brought the costume home to try it on before the Native and Colonial themed party. They both howled. Worse than Willys leotard outfit! Way more ridiculous! Which, again, was the point.

In 2017, when Harry and Meghan made their public debut at the Toronto Invictus Games, Markle received criticism for wearing ripped jeans. Harry alleges in Spare that her outfit had been approved by the palace but then complains that someone should have issued a statement in her defense once the backlash began.

A single declaration in defense of Meg would have been enough to make a tremendous difference, he writes.

Harry also claims that Prince William warned him not to propose to Markle, saying things were moving too fast and saying theyd never be able to spend time together as a foursome because shes an American actress, after all. He went on to say that William was the one who nixed plans for them to wed at Westminster Abbey where William and Kate were married and had been opposed to them using St. Pauls as well.

The ex-royal writes about a number of disagreements with his brother particularly where Markle is concerned and says that one such incident nearly resulted in fisticuffs.

William, Harry writes, referred to Markle as abrasive, difficult, and rude comments that Harry says were simply a reflection of the prevailing press narrative and alleges that William punctuated his comments with a physical assault.

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 dogs 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.

Harry sayshe believed that William wanted him to hit back, claiming that he could see the same judgment-clouding anger in his brother that he had felt for years:I chose not to. What was different here was the level of frustration. I talk about the red mist that I had for so many years, and I saw this red mist in him.

The brothers relationship, Harry writes, changed dramatically over time. In some ways he was my mirror, in some ways he was my opposite. My beloved brother, my archnemesis, how had that happened?

He asked that question after William appeared not to understand Harrys decision to leave his royal duties a decision that Harry felt should require no explanation at all.

I couldnt believe what I was hearing. It was one thing to disagree about who was at fault but for him to claim total ignorance of the reasons Id fled why my wife and I took the drastic step of picking up our child and just running like hell Really? Harry continued.

Harry also takes aim at his father in Spare even the title is a direct jab at King Charles III, who allegedly informed the late Princess Diana that his work was finished once William and Harry (an heir and a spare) were born.

He writes of one instance in which the king had allegedly fed the press a story about William and Kate and their children a story that led a seething William and Harry to confront their father together.

Pa instantly got upset. He began shouting that Willy was paranoid. We both were. Just because we were getting bad press, and he was getting good, that didnt mean his staff was behind it, Harry writes.

And while he said that the confrontation did not lead to changes from their father, he had initially believed that he and William were recovering their earlier closeness. But Harry goes on to allege that even after they promised they would never turn their press houses against each other, William broke his word.

I would far rather get destroyed in the press than play along with this game or this business of trading. And to see my brothers office copy the very same thing that we promised the two of us would never, ever do, Harry says in the Netflix docuseries, that was heartbreaking.

The problem for many of the senior royals, Harry alleges, all centered on the fact that Markle had stolen their spotlight. The issue is when someone whos marrying in, who should be a supporting act, is then stealing the limelight or is doing the job better than the person who is born to do this, that upsets people. It shifts the balance, he claims.

Despite all that, Harry continues to claim that he would like to reconcile with both his father and his brother but royal expert Katie Nicholls doesnt believe that claim holds any water.

The idea that he wants his father and his brother back just seems so incongruous with how he is behaving and what hes saying To paint such an unflattering picture of the royal family and a very unsavory side of his brother and an uncaring side of his father It just does not appear to be the actions of a man trying to reconcile with his estranged family. It really feels like a line has been crossed.

Others have noted that the Palaces default position is to not respond to attacks and allegations a position of which Harry was well aware so he likely knew that he would have free reign to continue to level very public attacks without any fear of reprisal from the people he was attacking.

Harrys claims and blames circulated via social media in the week ahead of the books release, prompting a number of people to respond with the hashtag shutupHarry.

Continue Reading

Politics

High risk, high reward: Crypto perpetual futures gain momentum in US

Published

on

By

High risk, high reward: Crypto perpetual futures gain momentum in US

High risk, high reward: Crypto perpetual futures gain momentum in US

Coinbase is gearing up to launch crypto perpetual futures as the CFTC reconsiders its previous stance toward the high-risk financial products.

Continue Reading

Politics

The SEC’s staking guidance pivot is what tech-savvy regulation looks like

Published

on

By

The SEC’s staking guidance pivot is what tech-savvy regulation looks like

The SEC’s staking guidance pivot is what tech-savvy regulation looks like

The SEC’s new approach to staking is a turning point for US crypto regulation, showing that genuine, tech-savvy engagement can build smarter policy and keep blockchain innovation onshore.

Continue Reading

UK

MPs back legalising assisted dying in England and Wales after historic Commons vote

Published

on

By

MPs back legalising assisted dying in England and Wales after historic Commons vote

MPs have voted to approve a historic bill that would legalise assisted dying in England and Wales.

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was approved by 314 votes to 291 at its third reading in the House of Commons – a majority of 23.

Politics Live: MPs back legalising assisted dying in historic Commons vote

Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who proposed the legislation, was seen crying in the chamber as it went through.

Campaign group Dignity in Dying hailed the result as “a landmark moment for choice, compassion and dignity at the end of life”.

“MPs have listened to dying people, to bereaved families and to the public, and have voted decisively for the reform that our country needs and deserves,” said Sarah Wootton, its chief executive.

The bill will now go to the House of Lords, where it will face further scrutiny before becoming law.

Due to a four-year “backstop” added to the bill, it could be 2029 before assisted dying is actually offered, potentially coinciding with the end of this government’s parliament.

The bill would allow terminally ill adults with fewer than six months to live to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist.

Campaigners with Dignity in Dying protest in favour of the assisted dying Bill, in Parliament Square, central London, ahead of a debate on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in the House of Commons. Picture date: Friday June 20, 2025. PA Photo. Photo credit should read: Yui Mok/PA Wire
Image:
Campaigners with Dignity in Dying protest in favour of the assisted dying bill. Pic: PA

MPs have deliberated the proposals for months, with a vote in November passing with a bigger majority of 55.

Since then it has undergone some significant changes, the most controversial being the replacement of a High Court Judge’s approval with the expert panel.

Ms Leadbeater has always insisted her legislation would have the most robust safeguards of any assisted dying laws in the world.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

MP: ‘Surreal’ moment as assisted dying passes Commons

Opening the debate on Friday she said that opposing the bill “is not a neutral act. It is a vote for the status quo”.

She warned that if her plan was rejected, MPs would be asked to vote on it again in 10 years and “that fills me with despair”.

MPs have brought about historic societal change

A chain of events that started with the brutal murder of an MP almost 10 years ago has today led to historic societal change – the like of which many of us will never see again.

Assisted dying will be legalised in England and Wales. In four years’ time adults with six months or less to live and who can prove their mental capacity will be allowed to choose to die.

Kim Leadbeater, the MP who has made this possible, never held political aspirations. Previously a lecturer in health, Ms Leadbeater reluctantly stood for election after her sister Jo Cox was fatally stabbed and shot to death in a politically motivated attack in 2016.

And this is when, Ms Leadbeater says, she was forced to engage with the assisted dying debate. Because of the sheer volume of correspondence from constituents asking her to champion the cause.

Polls have consistently shown some 70% of people support assisted dying. And ultimately, it is this seismic shift in public opinion that has carried the vote. Britain now follows Canada, the USA, Belgium, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Australia. All countries with sophisticated health systems. Nowhere has assisted dying been reversed once introduced.

The relationship between doctor and patient will now also change. The question is being asked: Is an assisted death a treatment? There is no decisive answer. But it is a conversation that will now take place. The final answer could have significant consequences, especially in mental health settings.

There are still many unknowns. Who will be responsible for providing the service? The NHS? There is a strong emotional connection to the health service and many would oppose the move. But others will argue that patients trust the institution and would want to die in its arms.

The challenge for health leaders will be to try and reconcile the bitter divisions that now exist within the medical community. The Royal Colleges have tried to remain neutral on the issue, but continued to challenge Ms Leadbeater until the very end.

Their arguments of a failure of safeguards and scrutiny did not resonate with MPs. And nor did concerns over the further erosion of palliative care. Ms Leadbeater’s much-repeated insistence that “this is the most scrutinised legislation anywhere in the world” carried the most weight.

Her argument that patients should not have to fear prolonged, agonising deaths or plan trips to a Dignitas clinic to die scared and alone, or be forced to take their own lives and have their bodies discovered by sons, daughters, husbands and wives because they could not endure the pain any longer was compelling.

The country believed her.

The assisted dying debate was last heard in the Commons in 2015, when it was defeated by 330 votes to 118.

There have been calls for a change in the law for decades, with a campaign by broadcaster Dame Esther Rantzen giving the issue renewed attention in recent years.

Supporters have described the current law as not being fit for purpose, with desperate terminally ill people feeling the need to end their lives in secret or go abroad alone, for fear loved ones will be prosecuted for helping them.

Ahead of the vote, an hours-long emotionally charged debate heard MPs tell personal stories about their friends and family.

Maureen Burke, the Labour MP for Glasgow North East, spoke about how her terminally ill brother David was in so much pain from advanced pancreatic cancer that one of the last things he told her was that “if there was a pill that he could take to end his life, he would very much like to take that”.

She said she was “doing right by her brother” in voting for it.

How did MPs vote?

MPs were given a free vote, meaning they could vote with their conscience and not along party lines.

The division list shows Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer voted in favour of the bill, but Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch voted against.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who will have to deliver the bill, also voted no.

Read more: Find out how your MP voted

Bill ‘poorly drafted’

Opponents have raised both practical and ethical concerns, including that people could be coerced into seeking an assisted death and that the bill has been rushed through.

Veteran Labour MP Diane Abbott said she was not opposed to the principle of assisted dying but called the legislation “poorly drafted”.

Former foreign secretary James Cleverly echoed those concerns, saying he is “struck by the number of professional bodies which are neutral on the topic of assisted dying in general, but all are opposed to the provisions of this bill”.

Recently, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Pathologists and the Royal College of Physicians have raised concerns about the bill, including that there is a shortage of staff to take part in assisted dying panels.

However, public support for a change in the law remains high, according to a YouGov poll published on the eve of the vote.

The survey of 2,003 adults in Great Britain suggested 73% of those asked last month were supportive of the bill, while the proportion of people who feel assisted dying should be legal in principle stood at 75%.

Continue Reading

Trending