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

World

Trump warns Hamas – and claims Israel has agreed to 60-day ceasefire in Gaza

Published

on

By

Trump warns Hamas - and claims Israel has agreed to 60-day ceasefire in Gaza

Analysis: Many unanswered questions remain

In the long Gaza war, this is a significant moment.

For the people of Gaza, for the hostages and their families – this could be the moment it ends. But we have been here before, so many times.

The key question – will Hamas accept what Israel has agreed to: a 60-day ceasefire?

At the weekend, a source at the heart of the negotiations told me: “Both Hamas and Israel are refusing to budge from their position – Hamas wants the ceasefire to last until a permanent agreement is reached. Israel is opposed to this. At this point only President Trump can break this deadlock.”

The source added: “Unless Trump pushes, we are in a stalemate.”

The problem is that the announcement made now by Donald Trump – which is his social-media-summarised version of whatever Israel has actually agreed to – may just amount to Israel’s already-established position.

We don’t know the details and conditions attached to Israel’s proposals.

Would Israeli troops withdraw from Gaza? Totally? Or partially? How many Palestinian prisoners would they agree to release from Israel’s jails? And why only 60 days? Why not a total ceasefire? What are they asking of Hamas in return? We just don’t know the answers to any of these questions, except one.

We do know why Israel wants a 60-day ceasefire, not a permanent one. It’s all about domestic politics.

If Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was to agree now to a permanent ceasefire, the extreme right-wingers in his coalition would collapse his government.

Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich have both been clear about their desire for the war to continue. They hold the balance of power in Mr Netanyahu’s coalition.

If Mr Netanyahu instead agrees to just 60 days – which domestically he can sell as just a pause – then that may placate the extreme right-wingers for a few weeks until the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, is adjourned for the summer.

It is also no coincidence that the US president has called for Mr Netanyahu’s corruption trial to be scrapped.

Without the prospect of jail, Mr Netanyahu might be more willing to quit the war safe in the knowledge that focus will not shift immediately to his own political and legal vulnerability.

Continue Reading

UK

The PM faced down his party on welfare and lost. I suspect things may only get worse

Published

on

By

The PM faced down his party on welfare and lost. I suspect things may only get worse

So much for an end to chaos and sticking plaster politics.

Yesterday, Sir Keir Starmer abandoned his flagship welfare reforms at the eleventh hour – hectic scenes in the House of Commons that left onlookers aghast.

Facing possible defeat on his welfare bill, the PM folded in a last-minute climbdown to save his skin.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Welfare bill passes second reading

The decision was so rushed that some government insiders didn’t even know it was coming – as the deputy PM, deployed as a negotiator, scrambled to save the bill or how much it would cost.

“Too early to answer, it’s moved at a really fast pace,” said one.

The changes were enough to whittle back the rebellion to 49 MPs as the prime minister prevailed, but this was a pyrrhic victory.

Sir Keir lost the argument with his own backbenchers over his flagship welfare reforms, as they roundly rejected his proposed cuts to disability benefits for existing claimants or future ones, without a proper review of the entire personal independence payment (PIP) system first.

PM wins key welfare vote – follow latest

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Welfare bill blows ‘black hole’ in chancellor’s accounts

That in turn has blown a hole in the public finances, as billions of planned welfare savings are shelved.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves now faces the prospect of having to find £5bn.

As for the politics, the prime minister has – to use a war analogy – spilled an awful lot of blood for little reward.

He has faced down his MPs and he has lost.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Lessons to learn’, says Kendall

They will be emboldened from this and – as some of those close to him admit – will find it even harder to govern.

After the vote, in central lobby, MPs were already saying that the government should regard this as a reset moment for relations between No 10 and the party.

The prime minister always said during the election that he would put country first and party second – and yet, less than a year into office, he finds himself pinned back by his party and blocked from making what he sees are necessary reforms.

I suspect it will only get worse. When I asked two of the rebel MPs how they expected the government to cover off the losses in welfare savings, Rachael Maskell, a leading rebel, suggested the government introduce welfare taxes.

Meanwhile, Work and Pensions Select Committee chair Debbie Abrahams told me “fiscal rules are not natural laws” – suggesting the chancellor could perhaps borrow more to fund public spending.

Read more:
How did your MP vote?
Welfare cuts branded ‘Dickensian’

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Should the govt slash the welfare budget?

These of course are both things that Ms Reeves has ruled out.

But the lesson MPs will take from this climbdown is that – if they push hard in enough and in big enough numbers – the government will give ground.

The fallout for now is that any serious cuts to welfare – something the PM says is absolutely necessary – are stalled for the time being, with the Stephen Timms review into PIP not reporting back until November 2026.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Tearful MP urges govt to reconsider

Had the government done this differently and reviewed the system before trying to impose the cuts – a process only done ahead of the Spring Statement in order to help the chancellor fix her fiscal black hole – they may have had more success.

Those close to the PM say he wants to deliver on the mandate the country gave him in last year’s election, and point out that Sir Keir Starmer is often underestimated – first as party leader and now as prime minister.

But on this occasion, he underestimated his own MPs.

His job was already difficult enough – and after this it will be even harder still.

If he can’t govern his party, he can’t deliver change he promised.

Continue Reading

Politics

US sanctions crypto wallet tied to ransomware, infostealer host

Published

on

By

US sanctions crypto wallet tied to ransomware, infostealer host

US sanctions crypto wallet tied to ransomware, infostealer host

The US Treasury has sanctioned a crypto wallet containing $350,000 tied to the alleged cybercrime hosting service Aeza Group.

Continue Reading

Trending