Thread by @GodlessNZ

(1) Thread about PTSD, politics and the UK's Prince Harry.

There's a TV interview coming out that includes Harry and his wife Meghan complaining about the media.

It's part of a highly partisan political game they're playing. Diana played it, too.

🤔

(2) Prince Harry's claim is that his mother's death was caused by paparazzi photographers pursuing her, and her driver having to speed to get away.

This is untrue.

He claims that seeing & hearing cameras triggers PTSD symptoms.

PTSD is treatable* if the person is willing.

(3) I have PTSD, & have studied it extensively over many years, including as a public policy analyst & researcher.

Harry's depiction of the disorder is way off base, & will annoy most people who have PTSD & work at managing it daily.

It's "treatable" in that it's manageable.

(4) If your response to having PTSD is to constantly complain about it & feel powerless in the face of unavoidable daily triggers, then you won't be able to manage it.

Prince Harry has the resources to access the very best medical care if he has PTSD. Most don't have the $.

(5) Let's assume he does have PTSD. I think the first thing a competent therapist would recommend, is analyzing the traumatic event that precipitated it.

Were media to blame for the car crash? No.

IMO it's repugnant to blame them, when it's clear her own driver was impaired.

(6) Due to her position as the parent of a future head of state, Diana was entitled to use government-funded travel & security personnel (Police). Instead, she declined that & used a privately funded driver & bodyguard.

Driver Henri Paul's blood showed alcohol & Rx drugs.

(7) All four occupants of the car were not wearing seatbelts. The car was travelling at speeds of more than 60 mph/ 100 kph, in the city.

Rather than accept the fact that his mother made a series of bad choices, Harry continues to claim that the media caused her untimely death.

(8) I can understand him doing that, to an extent. It's perfectly normal for people to use denial as a defensive coping mechanism, at least in the short term. Often, it enables us to survive.

But Harry is still doing it, 22 years later.

Does he believe this? I'm not sure.

(9) Harry was 12 & William was 15 at the time.

Surely Harry knows, like William seems to, that the choice to use an unfit driver, then not use a seatbelt when he started speeding, had more to do with his mother's death than photographers following the car on motorbikes?

(10) Let's assume Harry knows he is distorting the truth when he complains about camera clicks triggering PTSD symptoms.

Why does he do this?

IMO, it's political & is part of his ill-considered PR strategy.

(11) Because Harry is himself gullible, he assumes he can fool enough members of the public with his political gamble. Isn't that what socialists have always done, & often with considerable success?

He's fine about portraying the Sussexes in opposition to the Cambridges.

(12) The "duchesses at war" narrative isn't just a piece of tabloid garbage that curiously repeats itself from the late 1980s.

It's a strategy that tries to make William & Kate seem "establishment" and Harry & Meghan seem like "global changemakers."

(13) The UK & other "realms" like AU & NZ do not need members of the royal family to be partisan political activists.

We need them to be like the Queen: Dignified, empathetic, & as politically neutral as possible.

(14) Their lifestyles are funded by the taxpayer, & their spending habits & political behavior are rightly scrutinized by the public.

If you look at the whole family over a year, they do immense good by encouraging the disadvantaged, & making the state seem more personal.

(15) As a group, the daily work of members of the royal family includes visiting & supporting people disadvantaged by natural disasters, terrorist attacks & other crime, & life threatening medical issues, for example.

It's no place to whine about your personal problems.

(16) Yet that is exactly what Harry & Meghan have been doing, at an increasing rate.

My jaw dropped when Harry recently said he sometimes struggles to get out of bed because he is so worried about the state of the planet.

But today's revelations are even worse.

(17) Harry is just fine about his wife saying all kinds of things that make women out to be victims of sexism at every turn.

I'm a woman, & socialist feminists don't speak for me.

She fuels stereotypes about pregnancy. Just bc she feels like a victim doesn't mean we should.

(18) Of course, any critique of the choices of this woman in receipt of taxpayer funds is immediately shouted down as racism.

The left are still in denial that the ground in the UK & the US has shifted.

More people see through the race baiting tactic each day.

(19) If Harry really was being traumatized by seeing & hearing cameras everywhere he goes, then he can exercise a choice.

That's what leftists never seem to grasp: That we are each an autonomous individual, with rights, responsibilities & choices.

That's how I overcome PTSD.

(20) For those who reply with "but but the paparazzi shouldn't have chased Diana's car like that!" ...

Last time I looked, transportation law doesn't provide a defense for drunk drivers who felt like they were being chased.

Celebs have many choices for managing the issue.

(21) Diana had & Charles has a victim mentality about most things in life.

Their sons were influenced by this during the critical first 6 years of life. But when William & Harry became adults, more than 17 yrs ago, they're responsible for turning that around, like others have.

(22) So far, I think that Prince William is doing pretty well at avoiding the victim mentality of his parents and brother. I think he has benefited from good influences, including HM herself.

I also don't believe Harry's behavior is entirely the result of Meghan's influence.

(23) I predict that at some point, maybe within the next 12 months, Meghan will at least partially retire from public life, citing the "pressure" of all this apparent racism, sexism, bullying, & so on. Harry might, too.

It will further damage the monarchy, assisting the left.

(24) Some ask why the Queen consented to the marriage? (BTW that's a requirement of UK law... long story.)

I ask what choice did she have?

What do you think Harry would have done in response? Her options were constrained, so she uses her soft power to try to influence.

(25) Trust me, the advisers will have the scenarios modeled out, so when it all turns to custard they can advise the monarch of the day on what to do.

The UK needs to keep its monarchy. The global left has tried to topple it for centuries.

Rule Britannia.🇬🇧

END