The run-up to the release of Prince Harry’s memoir "Spare" has been called by the Times of London "perhaps the most hysterically anticipated memoir ever published."
Since the book appeared on Tuesday, reactions are coming in from across the globe. The consensus seems to be that it has been a miscalculation for the Prince to have embarked on a 400-page therapy session in which he drags his family—and by association—his nation, through the muck.
From the standpoint of earning media, the book campaign has been an unqualified success. But if the Duke’s intent was to garner sympathy or to damage the monarchy, he seems to have misfired there too as polls indicate his popularity has suffered decisively.
Hype over fraternal wrestling matches, sexual coming-of-age and family tensions over bridesmaid’s dresses, tiaras, and lip gloss, may have lit up supermarket tabloids. But now that the actual book has appeared, some coherent themes have emerged in its narrative, none uplifting. What everyone wants to determine is what motivated the project, what could be the level of damage and to whom.
Prince Harry advances three main themes in the memoir:
1. His resentment of the press to whom he attributes his mother’s death and who make him look bad;
2. That he was looking for an escape from his guilded cage; enter his adored Meghan; and
3. A touching longing for the mother Harry understandably misses, whose memory is ever-present.
In exposing his family and his birthright, Harry has burnt every bridge imaginable – with them, with the country that is his constitutional heritage, and increasingly with the global public. Without the royal brand, the Sussexes have chosen to embrace a victimhood narrative to attract an audience and relevance.
The conundrum here is that, as people of extreme privilege and wealth, they are at odds to connect to an image of struggle. "Spare" rises to the occasion for Harry by supplying an odyssey of grievance.
Reviews from some of the UK's most respected newspapers have been largely critical. The UK's Spectator, the world’s oldest surviving weekly newspaper, pronounces "Spare" "…a sad and a lowering book, and the saddest aspect of it is that he [Prince Harry] strangely believes that he is the person to lead a charge against the practitioners of the written word, to control and restrict it.
PRINCE HARRY’S ‘SPARE’ GRENADE: 5 BIGGEST MISTAKES FROM DUKE OF SUSSEX’S EXPLOSIVE NEW INTERVIEWS
The Spectator also notes "Some of Sussex’s accounts of incidents are objectively incorrect," and with some of the contentious events, "…we will never know the truth, since the individuals berated are not going to respond."
The UK Telegraph review notes: "Harry is now unfiltered, speaking his "truth", but neither the ghostwriter nor the publisher saw fit to tell him that some things are better left unsaid," referring specifically to the bits where Harry recounts losing his virginity and his much criticized detailing of taking 25 lives in Afghanistan.
It concludes, "The gossipy details are amusing, but at its heart this memoir is a desperately sad tale of a boy who never recovered from his mother's loss.
JUDGE JUDY SUGGESTS PRINCE HARRY IS LIKE A 'SELFISH, SPOILED, UNGRATEFUL' GRANDCHILD
Writing for The Times, Valentine Low, writes that while "Spare" exposes flaws of William and Charles, and takes shots at Camilla and Kate, that the damage to them will be insignificant because the British respect the institution of monarchy but know that the people who make up the family are human.
He nevertheless sends a warning to Harry that when his mother took to the media to air her grievances, it was largely she rather than the monarchy who suffered the consequences.
Even The New York Times, normally staunchly anti-Monarchist and firmly on team Harry and Meghan admits, "Like its author, "Spare is all over the map — emotionally as well as physically." Though it does go on to gush over "the prince’s full-throated renunciation of fame and royalty with all its punishing invasions of privacy…"
CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER
Against the book launch and dizzying schedule of related media tours, Harry’s popularity in his homeland—where his father is King, has fallen to a record low. According to January 5 YouGov polling, "…just 26% of Britons have a positive view of Prince Harry, the lowest level since we started tracking in 2011.
This represents a 7 point drop since the previous survey in early December." Clearly, the more Harry complains, laments, and moans, the less his countrymen—and beyond— think of him. In the land of the stiff upper lip, where people ‘just get on with it,’ this correlation is hardly surprising.
Of course, everyone knows Harry has been paid handsomely for his revelations. The more he talks, the more his wealth expands, but so too, as the numbers show, the more his popularity suffers.
In yet another conundrum, many of the Prince’s eye-popping revelations of deeply private events such as the sex chronicles and the drug taking only serve to elevate by juxtaposition the image and value of the discrete and dignified family members Harry exposes in the book.
Harry’s tome is unprecedented among royal biographies. Even the Duke of Windsor in his memoirs dared not tread where his great-great nephew has rushed in— exposing his nearest and dearest— brother, stepmother, and sister-in-law, and above all, his well-intentioned father. Even Harry’s grandparents are not spared his bitterness.
Harry may dominate headlines and sell millions of books, but If the global affection earned by Queen Elizabeth II is any indication, not to mention current hazardous opinion polls, Harry’s long game risks failing miserably.
The biggest problem for Harry and Meghan is that interest in them does not emanate from any accomplishments or talent on their parts, but rather from the global interest in Harry’s family and their important and valuable work. HRH status cannot be bought—even in Hollywood.
Royal life wasn't for the Sussexes and they withdrew. The trouble is that in their current circumstances, with their celebrity ambitions and budgetary requirements, they must fight to stay newsworthy.
The monarchy’s stoic and silent response robs the duo of content to weaponize. It seems the Sussexes are engaged in a game of high-stakes chicken where they will do anything to be cut off —of course anything short of renouncing the titles from the institution they ceaslessly assault. With multiple books to follow, it's going to be an agonizing journey. How low can their popularity tumble?
