The British royal family includes Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex. He is the youngest child of King Charles III and Diana, Princess of Wales, who was the monarch’s first wife. The prince’s personal net worth is said to be $10 million, according to reports. On January 10, 2023, his eagerly awaited autobiography, “Spare,” is scheduled to be released.
In his autobiography, Prince Harry describes how his relationship with his brother, William, the current Prince of Wales, deteriorated as a result of the younger prince’s marriage to the actress Meghan Markle. He claims that William physically attacked him. The book’s publisher, Penguin Random House, calls it “intimate and passionate.”
The prince declares that the book will be a “exact and fully truthful” account of his life, covering his upbringing as a royal, military duty, marriage, and fatherhood encounters.
The Netflix documentary Harry & Meghan has also contributed to shedding some light on the couple’s life. The documentary series covers everything, from the beginning of their romance to the great media interest in their life. Additionally, it shared both well-known and obscure stories with its audience.
Prince Harry and his wife Meghan no longer receive financial support from the Royal Family and instead derive the majority of their income from business ventures. Prince Harry is thought to be worth roughly $10 million, while the precise amount of money in his banks is unknown.
Spare, written by Prince Harry, sounds like a fascinating read. It is anticipated that it would give readers a personal, sincere, and factual picture of his life, covering his upbringing, time in the military, marriage, and parenting.
The monarchy is fiction-based. It is a manufactured reality where adults are urged to agree that a person is more than just a person and that they possess something resembling the indescribable essence of Britishness. This myth was once based on political and military might, underpinned by what was purported to be a direct route to God. These days, it is supported by the much more flimsy pillars of habit, the mysteries of Britain’s unwritten constitution, and spectacle—a form of symbolism without the symbolized. The institution depends on ceremonies like the late queen’s funeral to ensure its survival. They are not just for show. Theater, narrative, and illusion are all components of the monarchy.
All of this clarifies why royalty is so alluring to fiction authors, from Alan Bennett to Peter Morgan: they are already on the verge of myth. No one seems to cling to the myths more tenaciously than the royals themselves, it would seem. There is an intriguing paragraph in Prince Harry’s autobiography, Spare, when he talks about how much his father loved Shakespeare and would frequently take him to Stratford. He made an analogy to Prince Hal. Harry gave Hamlet a shot. “Hmm. A lonely prince who is preoccupied with his deceased parent witnesses his living parent fall in love with… his usurper? I shut it firmly. He played Conrade, one of Don John’s comedic henchmen, in Much Ado About Nothing at Eton. He was surprisingly rather good.
In his own words, Prince Harry is not a voracious reader. It was preferable to suppress emotions when studying because they promoted both introspection and grief. He mistreats himself, nevertheless. He reads a lot, especially the news. He seemed to have absorbed for years every word written about him, whether it was in the London Review of Books, the Sun, or the vile depths of below-the-line on social media feeds. Don’t read it, darling kid, is his father’s most frequently repeated line in the book; according to his therapist, he was addicted to it. In Spare, a royal’s suffering in the era of smartphones and Instagram is depicted; this suffering is different from that of even his mother and most definitely Princess Margaret. Her own sister forbade her from marrying the man she loved. (To Harry, Margaret is “Aunt Margo,” an ancient woman who can “kill a houseplant with one scowl” and once offered him a biro – “Oh. A biro. Wow” for the holiday.)
Its symbiotic but rarely clear connection with the media stems from the fact that the myth of royalty can only be perpetuated if its characters are visible. Spare claims that portrayals of the royals in some parts of the press have frequently relied on a kind of zero-sum game, in which one family member’s spokesperson will try to protect their client at the expense of another, trading gossip for favors, in addition to occasionally involving shocking criminality, outright invention, intolerable harassment, and overt racism. He claims that Harry has frequently suffered from this procedure due to his position as the disposable “spare.” The wayward son and the feuding brothers are two examples of narrative motifs and archetypes that have been used from the beginning of time.
Something considerably more damaging was present in Meghan’s case: the witch-like woman.
The monarchist press is the target of Harry’s particular hatred. He claims that Rebekah Brooks, CEO of News UK, “always made me sick” and that he cannot bear to even mention her by calling her by the anagram Rehabber Kooks. Regarding her boss, she said, “I didn’t like Rupert Murdoch’s politics, which were about as liberal as the Taliban’s.” As clueless as Harry may be about the depth of his privilege—he says, “It sounds aristocratic and I suppose it was” of his boyhood meals of fish fingers served beneath silver domes by footmen—he isn’t anywhere close to being a snob, nor am I led to believe that he has a right-wing disposition.
A powerful excerpt describes the prince discussing Hilary Mantel’s 2013 London Review of Books essay about Kate Middleton with his therapist. Even though Mantel was mocking the absurdity of the portrayal of the current Princess of Wales, it became well-known after being purposefully misinterpreted by the tabloids as being anti-Kate. Harry remembers feeling disgusted when Mantel referred to the royal family as “pandas,” cuddly, intriguing animals maintained in zoos. “What chance for the man or woman on the street if even a respected thinker could dismiss us as animals?”
He does, however, partially understand Mantel’s point. He writes that the lines “always struck me as both highly insightful and singularly barbaric.” Yes, we did reside in a zoo. He writes, “I understood the absurdity, a guy in his mid-30s being cut off by his father, a man in his mid-30s being cut off by his father. I was unprepared for having my funding withdrawn in 2020. However, I had never asked to rely on my father financially. I had been thrown into this bizarre situation, this never-ending Truman Show, in which I hardly ever carried cash, never drove, never carried a house key, never made an online purchase, never got a package from Amazon, and hardly ever rode the subway.
Harry “doesn’t know which he is, a person or a royal,” Mantel wrote in her piece. The prince’s struggle to reclaim his personhood and control his own story is evident throughout Spare. “I was royal and in their views royal was synonymous with non-person,” he writes of his tabloid tormentors. Royal males and females were revered as divine centuries before; today, they are viewed as insects. To pluck their wings—how much delight. Of course, that is half-remembered Shakespeare: In Lear, the blinded Gloucester says, “As flies to wanton youths are we to the gods; They slaughter us for their fun.” In Harry’s version, the gods are reporters and paparazzi rather than Olympians or kings, which completes the circle.
Spare is at once heartwarming, irritating, strangely intriguing, and ludicrous. Harry, who is in the center of his reality, is myopic. He despises tabloid storytelling conventions and is trapped by them, which is evident in the manner of his ghostwritten memoirs. If he had watched more of the 2002 golden jubilee, he might have noted that his initial impression of “Britain was inebriated… The statement that “everyone donned some variation of the union jack” was incorrect; large portions of the UK were hostile. To those who can’t find a home or can’t afford to heat one, his views on the gloom of the basement flat he formerly lived in at Kensington Palace, with its windows shielded from the light by a neighbor’s 4×4, may appear offensive.
The personal republicanism that would follow logically from the beliefs he presently holds is obviously not the one he chooses: “My concern,” he adds, “has never been with the institution of monarchy.” He does, however, demonstrate that the monarchy makes us all look foolish, whether on purpose or not.