#it's offcial the world is against me

[strawberry-death-bed]

how dare it be national sleep day, AND I STILL WAKE UP AT 5AM!! WHAT TYPE OF HYPOCRISY IS THIS!??

[waitingforsecretsouls]

Traumerei & Zahard (Pt. 1)

(Tower of God #580)

We're far enough along in Traumerei's character and the depiction of his relationships to other Family Heads now that I feel confident in trying to analyze them a little more in depth, beyond meme edits or brief speculations in the tags of said memes, with a focus on doing this mainly in comparison and contrast to his relationship to Zahard as this posts main focus, highlighted as his most prominent and defining one from well before Traumerei's actual introduction.

Warning: This will include spoilers up to roughly #638 of the Tower of God Webtoon, and in part draw on SIU's blogposts of published chapters of the Hidden Floor arc. Under the cut for length.

My Thesis Statement: The defining aspect of Zahard and Traumerei's relationship, built on a basis of genuine comradery and mutual support between the two, shows Zahard as the only Great Warrior so far who actually expects things from Traumerei (or to paraphrase, who, in however limited a form you want to argue, places his faith in him). We see Zahard confide in him, console him, and entrust vital tasks to him, to the exclusion of all their other comrades; not only as the first comrade Zahard turns to in the present day story (in what's Outside Zahard's technical debut), but also a long way back in the past, before the first war with F.U.G. even broke out.

I'll try to structure this into three segments (and going by the likely amount of screenshots, probably a reblog chain rather than one self - contained post as I had hoped):

Zahard and the Family Heads

Traumerei and the Family Heads

Zahard and Traumerei

1. Zahard and the Family Heads

The first thing I'm going to argue for this purpose is Zahard's sentiments towards his old Irregular companions. Contrary to what seems like a popular opinion in fandom, that the present day Zahard views them as means to an end exclusively, devoid of any kind of positive or emotional sentiment at all, I actually think it's the opposite, and that he would have a far easier time, strategically speaking, if he did view them in this indifferent manner.

1.1 Zahard and Self

I feel like the origin of this perspective of Zahard as a purely cold, ruthless and calculating mastermind stems from his treatment of the Hidden Floor, where he collaborated with his data to first segregate the data of the Great Warriors into the hidden hidden floor, and then delete them.

My main argument against the validity of this would be, first of all, that the recorded data of their past selfs are very much not equivalent to their Outside, real selves, and that it would be perfectly natural for Outside Zahard to not hold the same feelings for them as their "real" versions.

Secondly, I feel like people really overplay the extent to which Zahard manipulated his data self in this: Yes, we have Zahard sport a malicious grin when he reveals data Zahard's ignorance of events on the Outside, and declares him as a "poor thing", "a fake me":

(Tower of God #386)

However, what this scene itself confirms it that 1) data Zahard likely only got forcibly edited (and only regarding these specific memories) when Bam asked him about Arlene, since "their names" is unlikely to refer to Edahn, with whom he converses perfectly fine and in a familiar manner and thus likely to refer exclusively to Arlene and V, who were erased from offcial history on the Outside as well (and whom Zahard likely sometimes wishes he could edit out of his own memories as easily as in data Zahard's case).

This is basically all but confirmed in the beginning of #368:

and 2), that Zahard has a rather nostalgic side, considering that he harboured the wish to leave the remnant of his young and optimistic self in the world in any form at all.

We also get from data Zahard himself that he helped Outside Zahard of his own volition, in a scene that's arguably centered around the Outside Zahard's strong emotions:

(Tower of God #387)

The emotions in said case being "anxiety" and fear, but still ultimately serving to demonstrate that Zahard is far from limited to the stoic and ice - cold killer we saw in his words to and subsequent treatment of Bam immediately prior, something concluded in his decision to honor his young self's wish for Bam to reawaken his passion as he did for said data self, despite the fact that said data was already in the irrevocable process of being erased from existence, lacking crucial information about Bam and his current Outside self.

(Tower of God #388)

(Note that this is AFTER Zahard noted "That really is a power that desires the abilities of God" about the Second Thorn Fragment, about whose origin and purpose he would know, as well as a multitude of potentials regarding Bam's origin and "fate". That is not the kind of choice someone robotically calculating the best possible outcomes and most ruthless way to get there would make, much less at the prompting of a soon to be deleted "fake me" he truly held either nothing but contempt or no emotional connection to at all, one he might easily have deleted outright).

Also, I didn't quite know where to bring it up, but I'll also mention that there is no immediate correlation between the data of the Great Warriors entering the "Hidden Hidden Floor" and being automatically deleted. As data Edahn reveals, they were tired of their existence as data, and followed Zahard knowing there might have been something fishy about his mirror from his Outside self. For all we know, they might have been deleted upon explicit request, similar to the data of Yura's and Hwang's bodies mother, somewhat detracting from data and Outside Zahard as ruthless killers and deceivers in that particular matter:

(Tower of God #386)

But all of this has been very centered around Zahard and his interactions with his own past self, so when am I going to get to his relationships to the other Family Heads?

Well, this segment was important in and of itself for getting there, demonstrating that Outside Zahard is not an unfeeling robot but actually fairly sentimental, and will alter his course based on the considerations of people close to him whom he respects (even in ways that are arguably highly disadvantageous to his own continued well-being), even if in this instance said person was a version of himself, which still serves its own purpose of demonstrating a senitmentality regarding his younger days, back when he and his comrades where comparatively unburdened and driven young adults climbing the Tower together.

1. 2 Zahard and the Family Heads

(Blogpost Season 2 Episode 292)

In light of the abovementioned arguments, I don't think Zahard purposefully sawed of all connections to his old comrades because he no longer cared about them, but rather that he still values these relationshop above nearly everything else, and distanced himself because he though that was what was his duty as their leader and a "KIng", about which he developed something of a complex, in case you didn't notice.

Introduced in his data self of course (I promise, we'll leave the Hidden Floor after this one):

(Tower of God #365)

This mindset smells of Outside Zahard, and comes specifically after Bam mentions Arlene's name, which we have establish to have been one of the primary "triggers" installed into data Zahard. I also feel like the following "What do I look like to you now? A human being? Or a monster?" might reveal another sad aspect of Zahard's current self-image/conception, but I' ll have to restrain myself with the images if I want to be able to at least conclude the Zahard and Family Heads portion in this posts image limit).

In another form, we get this in Traumerei's (but truly, Enkidu's and Gustang's) recent flashback arc, specifically #618:

But since I'll have to save many of these more recent points for Traumerei's portion of the post lest I needlessly repeat myself, I think it's enough to conclude this with the observation that at least part of what drove Zahard to change his mindset and become the solitary figure he is in the present day story was a feeling of responsibilty, acting according to their stations, soaring far above anyone else in the Tower, an expectation he extended to his comrades.

As Kallavan said, With Great Power comes Great Responsibility, and all that:

(Tower of God #477)

And we do see Zahard explicitly consider the Family Heads in the big decisions/doesn't simply overrule them, such as involving Bam:

(Tower of God #539)

We as readers know that Zahard and Traumerei had their private conversation prior to the Nest that probably truly determined what happened wrt Bam, but if anything this just strengthens my point, since Zahard explicitly allowed Traumerei to do as he wished.

(Tower of God #551)

(The reason I included the panel with Zahard's reaction is that I find it very interesting and important to the point I'm making. I don't have a conclusive opinion, but to me he appears almost taken aback by Traumerei's answer. Because remember, Traumerei's answer here is his reveal of the "condition" under which he'd take up Zahard's proxy war against the Poe Bideau family. That's quite a selfless "condition", or at the least purpose for said condition, to place, so I might well imagine that Zahard was taken aback by the lengths Traumerei would go to, specifically for him. Even in a more cynical reading, this is still Zahard allowing Traumerei to recruit himself a second Irregular into his family (the one he may know is considered as destined to kill him) and therefore also showing a certain degree of trust wrt that. But more on their relationship in particular in the eventual concluding part of this post)

Last but not least (arguably the opposite), we also have what may be the implication of Zahard as the one who gave the Great Warriors access to their famous Imortality Contracts, or at the very least having done something to make Traumerei regard him as the main cause behind their current positions and perpetual longevity of said positions:

"From the moment we got to the top, the only choice we had was to fall or not. But Zahard has given us a way to avoid falling forever. Only now that we have defied the laws of the Tower have we become beings who will never fall."

(Traumerei, Tower of God #632)

So while I'll certainly agree that we don't have many direct interactions between Zahard and the Family Heads, he does leave them free room to act with the only stipulation basically not to declare war on him, and doesn't brute force his own choices over theirs. He is very lenient (so far) even in regards to the Family Head who has broken this one rule, and has shown considerable respect for Traumerei's opinions and plans. Furthermore, he may well have ensured or enabled the Family Heads current hax, for which I would find it difficult to see another reason than wanting to keep them with him.

While there is a very interesting conversation to be had about Zahard and Gustang (and whether Zahard was aware of Gustang's preservation of the Thorn and Floor of Death all the way back or not), it's worth pointing out that Zahard's order to destroy Gustang's family (something we now know Gustang himself desires) only occured as part of his three orders, and Gustang himself is not targeted by default.

Basically, I haven't seen anything so far that convinced me of the "Zahard doesn't care about the Family Heads anymore" stance.

And with that out of the way, I'll move on to Traumerei's relationships to the other Family Heads depicted so far (who thankfully does have some more actual interactions with them).

(And again, a point I didn't know where else to fit in in which only occured to me towards the end of this post: I do think it's noteworthy that Outside Zahard does adress data Edahn as a avalid representation of Outside Edahn, to the point of not considering that he may hold differing sentiments from Outside Edahn wrt his relationship with data Zahard. Which goes against one of my first points, that Zahard may have drawn a sharp line between the datas and Outside selves, but supports my main points even better:

(Tower of God #386))

[andihowl]

Polyamory is queer.

Or rather, Polyamorous folk are queer if they self-identify as such.

Below, I’ll be explaining why any attempt you make to deny that is by definition gatekeeping, and why you need to stop. This will be added to / updated as I talk to more polyamorous folk and hear more of their stories. This is not a debate, I will liberally use my block button, I’m just sick of repeating myself over and over in group after group because polyphobic assholes think they can throw polyam folk under the bus and we won’t say anything. Read. Think. Do better.

Given the shared premises that “queer” is being used in it’s non-pejorative, reclamative usage as an umbrella term representing sexual and gender minorities who have been marginalized and oppressed as a direct result of their identities, and that gatekeeping members of it is an inherently shitty thing to do (goodbye swerfs, terfs, aphobes, etc.), the main reasons I see for people denying polyamorous folk into queer spaces, or into queer discussions generally read like this:

why are we even having this discussion, omg, wtf, gtfo

it’s only used by skeezy heterobros who are looking to get a second girlfriend

it’s only used by skeezy “bi” couples who are unicorn hunting

there are oppressive countries around the world who are practicing polygamy and that’s certainly not good

it’s a kink

it’s a choice

it’s a practice, not an identity

it’s a relationship dynamic, not a sexual orientation or gender identity

everyone wants to be polyam anyway, it’s not an oppressed class.

I'm personally polyamorous, and I don't see it as an identity

I'm uncomfortable with cis-het-allo folk claiming the term queer

These arguments can be categorized more or less into the following main sections:

The Disregard

why are we even having this discussion, omg, wtf, gtfo

By disengaging conversation about this, you are preventing the growth and learning of the community, and you need to knock your shit off. Only through critically assessing our own behavior and the behavior of the community with which we engage can we ever hope to make ourselves, and our world, any better.

The Bad Actors

it’s only used by skeezy heterobros who are looking to get a second girlfriend

or

it’s only used by skeezy “bi” couples who are unicorn hunting

This is one of the weakest arguments against this, and one of the quickest debunked. Simply put, all identities have bad actors. I've certainly interacted with gay men who haven't taken no for an answer. I've certainly met bisexual people who have used their sexuality as an excuse to cheat on their partners. Just because bad actors exist within a community, does not invalidate the entire identity. You cannot hope to have such a diverse group of people from such diverse backgrounds and upbringings and mental health statuses and economic statuses and expect them all to behave and think the the same homogenous way. Not all gays are alike. Not all trans folk are alike. Not all polyam folk are alike. Deal with it, move on.

Conflation

there are oppressive countries around the world who are practicing polygamy and that’s certainly not good

or

it’s a kink

Polyamory =/= polygamy. Stop conflating the two. Polyamory (when referring to the practice) is the egalitarian ethical practice of non-monogamy between consenting adults. Polygamy is an authoritarian tool used by patriarchal societies to oppress and silence women, most often without consent. Stop conflating, and move on.

Also, Polyamory is not a kink. To call something a kink, you are tacitly and wilfully admitting that the behavior in question is and should be seen as deviant in society, and derives sexual pleasure out of that deviancy. Polyamory is not, at least not in any healthy relationships I've seen, practiced in such a shameful manner. If you're equating the two, maybe you should address your own underlying phobias regarding polyamory rather than gatekeeping others.

The Choice

it’s a choice

or

it’s a practice, not an identity

or

it’s a relationship dynamic, not a sexual orientation or gender identity

These are a bit trickier of a discussion. No, the United States, nor any other country offcially recognizes polyamory as a valid sexual orientation to be protected under federal law. And yes, some people feel they opt-in to a "polyamorous lifestyle". There have been studies conducted on this, and while many respondents to do not classify their polyamory as an orientation, many others did respond saying that they felt they were wired that way, that they felt they were that way since childhood, that monogamous relationships always felt wrong for them.

The polyamory community houses both types of folk, those who feel it's a lifestyle, as well as those who feel it is deeply engrained. As polyadvice writes (specifically toward other polyam folk):

Is polyamory an orientation? Why do we care? Why are we so caught up in whether the way we love other people is a way of being or a way of doing? Why do I get this question so often, and why are we all so invested in the answer?

  If you experience your polyamory as an innate part of your self, as something you are rather than something you do, great. It’s part of your orientation. We can split semantic hairs and say it’s a “relationship orientation” as opposed to a “sexual orientation.” Some people don’t experience it that way, and that’s fine too.

  What’s not fine is if we start fighting about it and make it some big political or identity-political issue within the [polyam] community. Because you know what? The rest of the world doesn’t care nearly as much about the nuances of our definitions. They’re prepared to deny us health insurance, child custody, media representation, hospital visitation, and plenty else regardless of whether we sort this out amongst ourselves. If we start turning on each other, there’s no one to have our backs.

Simply put, it's none of your damn business if it's an orientation or a choice. Even if it is a choice, as Michael Carey with Slate wrote:

We are all human first. Everything else—nationality, sex, race, orientation—is secondary, and irrelevant to our fundamental rights. As Brian D. Earp recently argued in “Future Tense,” even if homosexuality becomes a choice, mutable under pharmacological “treatment,” it should still be regarded as part of the normal range of human behavior. We should agree on the principle that anyone pursuing consensual, loving, respectful relationships, forming happy families, and participating productively in society should be welcomed, not ostracized in the name of irrational, ossified stigma.

Not Oppressed

everyone wants to be polyam anyway, it’s not an oppressed class.

Hooooooooold up there partner. Y'all gotta be kidding me. Let's put aside the fact that one of the most common thing's polyam folk hear when they come out to people is "well, that's nice, but I could never do it myself". Let''s put aside the comments/sneers of "so you just sleep with whoever you want?", or the automatic assumption that polyam folk are sluts/skeezes/sex-addicts/cheaters.

The fact of the matter is, for someone who is polyamorous, there are no legal protections for them, whether they be for housing, employment, or medical care (in any of the 50 United States or any other country that I'm aware of). That means if someone is outed at work, they can be fired on the spot for that reason. They can be kicked out of their apartment, lose their home, or be denied medical coverage because of it. Polyamorous relationships are not recognized as valid spouses in hospital situations, they cannot receive tax benefits for their relationship, and they are routinely denied next of kin rights and inheritance. Loss of child custody is common, as family courts do not recognize polyamory as a valid responsible child-rearing environment (which experience and common sense can tell us otherwise)

It's bad enough that Ann Sweeny argued in 2010 in favor of legally expanding the definition of sexual orientation to include polyamory to help protect polyam folk against these kind of grievances (you can download the original pdf argument at that link, it's a long but interesting read). An excerpt:

... polyamorists risk custody loss, workplace discrimination, loss of friends, alienation from their families, and ostracism from spiritual and other communities as a result of revealing their polyamory. In addition, their children often face discrimination at school. Indeed, in one study, nearly half of [polyam] respondents reported having experienced prejudice as a result of their polyamory. Additionally, Emens has noted that the “social hostility [against relationships involving more than two people] sustains various legal burdens on polyamorists, including two-person marriage and partnership laws, adultery and bigamy laws, [and] residential zoning laws.” Furthermore, Rambukkana documented negative reactions to the formation of an on-campus polyamory group that included the university newspaper’s public ridicule of the group on the basis that the group was comprised of “a bunch of ‘culty’ sex maniacs” and the suggestion that the group was a “recruitment machine” that sucked people in “‘with promises of sex and more sex.’”

She goes on to argue:

These forms of discrimination are considerable, and they have the potential to impose severe, indeed devastating, burdens on individuals who espouse polyamory... The many ways that monogamy (as represented by marriage) is privileged under the law, while non-monogamy is burdened, demonstrate that non-monogamous persons, including polyamorists, are oppressed under an “organising principle of inequality” and therefore that they meet Cooper’s test for extension of legal protections.

Honestly, go read that article. It lays out a lot more than I could ever hope to properly summarize here, and outlines pretty succinctly why polyamory is an oppressed class.

What goes for me goes for everyone

I'm personally polyamorous, and I don't see it as an identity

First off, wonderful! Thank you for being polyam and for demonstrating your courage and representation in a world that wants to erase you. Full stop.

Second off. It's fine if you don't feel like your polycraft is inherently part of your identity. That's allowed. Many Nonbinary folk don't feel trans describes their experience; many gay men don't like to use the term queer. That's fine, that's your biz. That doesn't mean that holds the same for everyone else, though, and you shouldn't be limiting the voice and power of others because you have enough privelege to disregard opression you may experience. They do deserve a voice, they do deserve rights, and you consistently chiming in saying "Well I don't" isn't helping the conversation, it's distracting and beside the point.

One person's experience with a community is not necessarily representative of an entire identity's experience with it, and you don't get to claim the right to silence the voices and experences of others in your community.

The Personal Appeal

I'm uncomfortable with cis-het-allo folk claiming the term queer

Well, I'm sorry you are uncomfortable. Honestly. It sucks. However dealing with an expanding and inclusive community is and should be uncomfortable. It should force us to ask questions we didn't want to ask. It should make us rethink things we once thought were firm and held dear.

But just as -allo was added to cis-het bring light to the added axis of identity and oppression that is the asexuality spectrum, it's about time we added -mono to that, to bring to light the fact that being polyam, and being polyam + other identities, brings with it unique problems and unique pride that is deserving of attention, and deserving a seat at the table.

Included Links and Additional Resources

CW: some of these links use the nickname "poly" for "polyamorous" rather than "polynesian". Inclusion here is not an endorsement of that kind of usage, as I have tried to refrain from that usage here and in my everyday conversation. Additionally, I have replaced its usage in the above quotations with [polyam] to prevent further crawlers linking to it.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-polyamorists-next-door/201610/is-polyamory-form-sexual-orientation

(http://polyadvice.tumblr.com/post/114048167048/this-might-be-a-question-you-get-often-but-is

https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/10/is-polyamory-a-choice.html

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1632653

https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/10/polyamorous-excluded-queer/

https://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2013/12/dan-savage-is-poly-queer.html

https://www.autostraddle.com/six-queers-on-polyamory-and-identity-419254/

[meghanmarklehd-blog]

Exclusive: How Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Hid Out from the Paparazzi When Their Relationship Went Public

MARCH 19, 2018 7:00 AM

In her new book, Vanity Fair contributor Katie Nicholl reveals new details about the days after Harry and Meghan’s relationship first hit the tabloid page, and what inspired the prince to make an unprecedented public statement in support of his future fiancée.

In this exclusive excerpt from her upcoming book Harry: Life, Loss, and Love, Kate Nicholl, a Vanity Fair contributor, provides the behind-the-scenes glimpse at what happened for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle at two pivotal points in their relationship: when the tabloids first reported they were seeing each other in late October 2016, and then a week later, when Harry took the unprecedented step of releasing an official statement from Kensington Palace, asking the press to respect Markle’s privacy. Their relationship had flourished in private since they first met in July of that year, but when the eyes of the world turned to the prince and his potential bride-to-be, the couple was forced to work hard for their peace and quiet.

OCTOBER 2016

Like his brother, Harry enjoyed outfoxing the media, and while he was disappointed the story had broken, he knew he was lucky to have enjoyed several months getting to know Meghan without press scrutiny. When the story broke, Harry happened to be with Meghan in Toronto. He was apparently taken by surprise when his aides called to tell him the story was going to be front-page news and knew that very soon he and Meghan would be under siege. A story was leaked that Harry had canceled a flight to Toronto to try and make it look like he was in the U.K., but photographers and reporters descended on Meghan’s home regardless.

When Meghan suggested they go to stay with her friends Ben and Jessica Mulroney, Harry agreed. The Mulroneys were two of the few friends who knew about the romance, and they were more than happy to let the couple take shelter from the paparazzi at their Toronto house. Jessica, a stylist, is one of Meghan’s best friends, while Ben is a TV host who presents CTV’s entertainment news program etalk.Harry had become friendly with them both and was a big hit with the couple’s three young children, 7-year-old twins Brian and John, and their 4-year-old daughter, Isobel.

“When Harry came to visit the family he brought a bag filled with gifts. He won the kids over in an instant. He was brilliant with them and I think what swung it for Meghan was how good Harry was with them,” says a source. “I actually think that might have been the moment Meghan really fell for Harry. He got to know the Mulroneys quite well, and they liked Harry from the beginning.”

Spread over 3 floors and with impressive 14-foot-high ceilings, the Mulroneys’ open-plan home was a sanctuary for Meghan and Harry. No one knew where they were, and behind closed doors the foursome got to know each other. Harry was fascinated when Ben, the son of former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, recounted lively stories of how Princess Diana once stayed with his family during an offcial tour to Canada and, finding herself bored with talking politics after dinner, had ventured up to the nursery to play with Ben and his three siblings.

“Harry found them immediately kind and welcoming people, and he loved hearing stories about his mother,” a friend of Ben’s told me. “Jessica is one of the nicest, sweetest people you will ever meet, and Ben is really easy to get along with.”

It was just as well Meghan and Harry had somewhere to hide because over the following days the story snowballed. It was quickly discovered that the pair followed each other on Instagram, and as the media were eager to share, in one of the photos she had posted Meghan was wearing a blue-and-white beaded bracelet identical to one Harry wore.

The actress’s L.A.-based agency at the time fueled the rumors of a romance when they were contacted for comment and said: “Should this be confirmed by the Palace, all of us at Kruger Cowne are delighted for them and wish them well.” In fact, there was so much fervid hype about the romance that bookmakers suspended bets on a royal wedding, having previously been offering odds of 12 to 1 that Harry would announce his engagement in 2016 and 5 to 1 that he would marry in 2017.

NOVEMBER 8, 2016

By early November, Meghan asked her bosses on Suits for a break in filming and flew to London to be with Harry for what was meant to be a romantic getaway. But the trip proved to be stressful. The Sun newspaper had that week published a front-page story that some of Meghan’s racy scenes from Suits were being trailed on a porn Web site. One of the scenes included her character Rachel Zane having sex with a colleague against a filing cabinet.

Meghan was horrified, telling friends she was convinced that the British press was “out to get her.” It was the final straw for Harry who, according to a source, “completely flipped” when he read the story. He decided to issue a direct statement to the press. It was to be a warning shot to Fleet Street and all the social-media trolls whose hateful comments Harry had unwisely read on Twitter and the Internet.

Meghan, who was in London with Harry at the time the statement was released, was supportive. According to a source: “They were Harry’s words and sentiments, but Meghan was worried about her safety and particularly upset and distressed that her mother was being hounded for comment, and Harry made sure that particular issue was addressed.”

After working on several versions, Harry marched across the cobbled courtyard to Apartment 8 at Kensington Palace where his office is based, to hand the statement to his press secretary, Jason Knauf.

On November 8, just before midday the statement was released on Twitter. It was explosive, unprecedented, and highly flammable. Acknowledging that Meghan Markle was his girlfriend for the first time since the rumors had started, Prince Harry claimed that the actress had been “subject to a wave of abuse and harassment” that was sexual and racist. His anger was palpable, and he was determined to stem the stories before things really got out of control. After all, he had already lost two serious girlfriends who couldn’t deal with the pressure of being in the spotlight; he wasn’t prepared to lose a third.

The palace said Harry personally “asked for this statement to be issued in the hopes that those in the press who have been driving this story can pause and reflect before any further damage is done. He knows that it is unusual to issue a statement like this, but hopes that fair-minded people will understand why he has felt it necessary to speak publicly.”

Unsurprisingly, the statement triggered a media storm. It was one of the most powerfully worded public defenses of privacy any member of the royal family had ever issued. While some commentators commended the prince for being chivalrous and standing by his girl, others like the Daily Mail said he had been “hot headed … ring off scatter gun accusations against those who have reported and commented on his affair.” It reopened the debate about press freedom and did nothing to help Harry’s already complicated relationship with the media, and there was some frustration as to why the Palace hadn’t simply gone to IPSO, the new press regulator, to issue “desist notices.”

pages, “particularly among the young royals, to expect all the advantages that go with their birth while at the same time wanting to enjoy the privacy afforded to those of the Queen’s subjects who have to work nine-to-five for a living.”

There was criticism that Prince Harry’s team of courtiers had not done enough to convince him to issue a less divisive statement, but Harry had wanted to take a swipe at the press and truly felt that a line had been crossed.

Staff at Clarence House were said to be surprised by the overtly personal nature of the statement, as well as its timing. Charles was overseas on an important diplomatic tour of the Middle East at the time, and although aides would not confirm whether he had been consulted about the statement before it went out, it took the focus firmly off the Prince of Wales’s visit.

While Prince William, who had by now met Meghan, supported his brother and agreed that the press coverage had gone too far, he had also urged caution over the statement. From the moment the press had caught on to Kate, she had been followed everywhere by photographers, yet the couple rarely made legal complaints. It was only when a French magazine published pictures of Kate sunbathing topless on holiday in September 2012 that the Cambridges took action. Harry, however, was more impulsive than his older brother and had insisted on sending out the statement.

Just days later Meghan was photographed shopping on Kensington High Street and walking back to the Palace, confirming that she was staying with Harry at the time he issued the heartfelt missive. She was spotted by a Daily Mail journalist while shopping at the Kensington branch of the grocer Whole Foods. In her Hunter Wellington boots and Barbour coat, Meghan was attired more for a shooting than a shopping trip, but the fact that she was wearing Harry’s favorite brown baseball cap really blew her cover. It seemed when it came to outwitting the British media, Meghan Markle still had quite a lot to learn.

Excerpted from HARRY: Life, Loss and Love by Katie Nicholl. Copyright © 2018 by Katie Nicholl. Reprinted with permission from Hachette Books. All rights reserved.

http://archive.is/ve3y6

Source:

               vanityfair.com