Gransnet forums

News & politics

“Recollections may vary”. Harry and Meghan (again - I know!)

(508 Posts)
MawBe Thu 19-Aug-21 07:36:38

This may be a pot shot too far, now they seem to be including the Queen in their self- righteous whingeing.
(Not that I am biased)
Apparently Duke and Duchess of Sussex believe the Queen failed to take “full ownership” of the race allegations made in their interview with Oprah Winfrey, according to the authors of the unauthorised biography Finding Freedom.
A “friend of the couple” (unnamed, of course) has apparently told Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand that the Queen’s lack of action had prevented the Duke and Duchess from moving on from the claims.
The source also suggested that the Queen’s assertion that “recollections may vary” had not gone down well.
(It did however rank IMHO as one of HM’s all-time greatest bons mots )
The Queen has until now been one of the only senior members of the Royal family to escape the Sussexes’ criticism, but this new epilogue to Finding Freedom, published in People magazine in the US, suggests that the Duke and Duchess feel frustrated that the Duke’s grandmother did not follow through with her promise to address their concerns.
It says: “The Queen’s ‘recollections may vary’ comment ‘did not go unnoticed’ by the couple, who a close source said were ‘not surprised’ that full ownership was not taken
Just one question, if this book is “unauthorised”, does it or does it not reflect their views? Or is it an example of letting somebody else put words in their mouths so that they can deny them afterwards if necessary? All these “unnamed friends,” and “close sources” - aye, right.

Alegrias1 Thu 07-Oct-21 12:24:22

Calendargirl

^Oh well, we’ll just have to take it on trust then^

Up to you really, I don’t make things up.

I'm sure you don't, never meant to imply that, sorry.

But unless I can actually see the report calling Harry childish names, I'll just have to think it was an unattributable source, or some random people on Facebook, not "some publications" which have any credence attached to them.

So just puerile name calling, really.

eazybee Thu 07-Oct-21 13:08:50

Matches his behaviour.
A way of expressing contempt.

Lucca Thu 07-Oct-21 13:39:08

eazybee

Matches his behaviour.
A way of expressing contempt.

What does ?

Visgir1 Thu 07-Oct-21 17:11:29

maddyone

I’m disappointed that the Queen appears to have a close friendship with a certain Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum of Dubai. They share a love of horse racing and have given each other horses as gifts and he has often been seen with the Queen at racing events. However that is not the problem. The problem is that this individual is the very same person who abducted two of his daughters, who as adults tried to escape from him. One was abducted from Cambridge in England. It appears that he has now been found guilty of illegal hacking of his wife’s phone by the High Court. It appears she left him and came to live in England and is now afraid that he will abduct the children that they have together.
This relationship reflects badly on both the Queen and the country in my opinion.

It was reported that the Queen has disassociate herself with him about 18 months ago when this was first reported about his Wife and Daughter.
I was in Dubai at the time when this was reported in the British press but not there, (not surprising).

Smileless2012 Thu 07-Oct-21 17:15:43

Thanks for that clarification Visgirl.

maddyone Thu 07-Oct-21 18:28:52

Yes thank you very much Visgirl. I’m so pleased to hear that. It was the right thing to do from the Queen.

NotSpaghetti Thu 07-Oct-21 18:31:23

I hope it's true.
Very awkward.
AND of course he denies it!
?