A certain book

Sorry. Pic didn’t work.

Maybe we shouldn’t have laughed at this.

Joseanne

Don't worry, the RF is well protected and those little corgis will see off any threats.

I think Andrew has the corgis.

Corgis can be snappy 😁

Don't worry, the RF is well protected and those little corgis will see off any threats.

I think the way Meghan Markle was treated was unacceptable but I am not really interested in the royal family and would feel more sympathetic about this couple if they renounced their titles and just got on with living their very comfortable lives. They complain of hierarchy and yet that is what the whole monarchical system is based on.

I don't think he's deliberately destructive or devious

Totally thick?
Does not realise that actions and words have consequences?
Oh dear.
It gets worse.

He's more foolish than even we thought.

Now this!
Is PH stupid? Deliberately destructive? Devious? Totally thick?
The Duke of Sussex has compromised the security of the Royal family by describing the layout of various royal residences, as well as his personal protection detail, an expert has warned.
Dai Davies, a former head of royal protection, said the Duke was a “fool” for revealing such information in his memoir, Spare – details that could prove “dangerous” in the wrong hands
The Duke wrote in the book that he carried an electronic tracker and panic alarm at all times, describing how his protection team operated and reacted.
He included a detailed description of where to find the Queen Consort’s “fanciest bottles” of wine, “absurd gifts from foreign governments and potentates”, as well as “several storerooms full of paintings” at Highgrove, the King’s Gloucestershire home.
Minute details are also shared about the location of Queen Elizabeth II’s bedroom at Balmoral and the precise route from the entrance at Clarence House to the King’s private sitting room, complete with the exact number of stairs
Mr Davies, who has worked in police and security for more than 50 years, said: “These revelations give me great concern and will likely give great concern to Prince Harry’s current team.” It makes the job of protecting him, whether privately or otherwise, problematic. Only a fool would reveal this kind of detail about the royals’ inner sanctums

You couldn’t make it up! .

Pedwards

This one? 😅

😁

annsixty

He could have said “ this is what I want to remember and I’m not going to let facts get in the way of a good story”

😁

This one? 😅

He could have said “ this is what I want to remember and I’m not going to let facts get in the way of a good story”

my memory is my memory, it does what it does, gathers and curates as it sees fit, and there’s just as much truth in what I remember and how I remember it as there is in so-called objective facts. Things like chronology and cause-and-effect are often just fables we tell ourselves about the past.

Should it be marketed as a work of fiction, then, not an autobiography?

Glorianny

Callistemon21

Glorianny

Actually disagreeing with people is not showing in built bias, it is presenting a different point of view.
As for the ghostwriter he works apparently from tapes recorded by the subject. He isn't a historical researcher, he is simply writing out the subject's words.
I haven't read the book I have no intention of reading it. Which is why my comments are confined to things others have posted because criticising. a book you haven't read is bonkers.

I think being a ghost writer entails rather more than merely typing up someone's words from a tape or copying a manuscript.

A ghostwriter actually authors the book with information given to him on tape, in notes, anecdotes, times, dates etc.

Callistemon21 I think you are confused between a biographer who will check dates etc and a memoir writer who will stick to the words of the individual

Moehringer has posted three quotes from Mary Karr's The Art of Memoir. In one, Karr writes, "The line between memory and fact is blurry, between interpretation and fact. There are inadvertent mistakes of those kinds out the wazoo." In another, Karr writes, ""Neurologist Jonathan Mink, MD, explained to me that with such intense memories as David’s, we often record the emotion alone, all detail blurred into unreadable smear."

^Moehringer also posted quotes from Spare, including this passage about memory: "Whatever the cause, my memory is my memory, it does what it does, gathers and curates as it sees fit, and there’s just as much truth in what I remember and how I remember it as there is in so-called objective facts. Things like chronology and cause-and-effect are often just fables we tell ourselves about the past." And this one: "Landscape, geography, architecture, that’s how my memory rolls. Dates? Sorry, I’ll need to look them up. Dialogue? I’ll try my best, but make no verbatim claims, especially when it comes to the nineties."^

I'm not a bit confused, thank you though, Glorianny

I think that anyway Mollygo. I hope H doesn't try and sacrifice his ghost writer on his alter of victim hood in the way he's doing with his family.

According to Glorianny’s post, any and all discrepancies in Harrys account of his life; any and all unfounded accusations he has made in his book, any and all unwarranted revelations about his family’s private matters, are all Harry’s responsibility. I do hope he sees it that way and doesn’t try to pass the buck if things don’t work out the way he intended.

Callistemon21

Glorianny

Actually disagreeing with people is not showing in built bias, it is presenting a different point of view.
As for the ghostwriter he works apparently from tapes recorded by the subject. He isn't a historical researcher, he is simply writing out the subject's words.
I haven't read the book I have no intention of reading it. Which is why my comments are confined to things others have posted because criticising. a book you haven't read is bonkers.

I think being a ghost writer entails rather more than merely typing up someone's words from a tape or copying a manuscript.

A ghostwriter actually authors the book with information given to him on tape, in notes, anecdotes, times, dates etc.

Callistemon21 I think you are confused between a biographer who will check dates etc and a memoir writer who will stick to the words of the individual

Moehringer has posted three quotes from Mary Karr's The Art of Memoir. In one, Karr writes, "The line between memory and fact is blurry, between interpretation and fact. There are inadvertent mistakes of those kinds out the wazoo." In another, Karr writes, ""Neurologist Jonathan Mink, MD, explained to me that with such intense memories as David’s, we often record the emotion alone, all detail blurred into unreadable smear."

Moehringer also posted quotes from Spare, including this passage about memory: "Whatever the cause, my memory is my memory, it does what it does, gathers and curates as it sees fit, and there’s just as much truth in what I remember and how I remember it as there is in so-called objective facts. Things like chronology and cause-and-effect are often just fables we tell ourselves about the past." And this one: "Landscape, geography, architecture, that’s how my memory rolls. Dates? Sorry, I’ll need to look them up. Dialogue? I’ll try my best, but make no verbatim claims, especially when it comes to the nineties."

Glorianny

Actually disagreeing with people is not showing in built bias, it is presenting a different point of view.
As for the ghostwriter he works apparently from tapes recorded by the subject. He isn't a historical researcher, he is simply writing out the subject's words.
I haven't read the book I have no intention of reading it. Which is why my comments are confined to things others have posted because criticising. a book you haven't read is bonkers.

I think being a ghost writer entails rather more than merely typing up someone's words from a tape or copying a manuscript.

A ghostwriter actually authors the book with information given to him on tape, in notes, anecdotes, times, dates etc.

Actually disagreeing with people is not showing in built bias, it is presenting a different point of view.
As for the ghostwriter he works apparently from tapes recorded by the subject. He isn't a historical researcher, he is simply writing out the subject's words.
I haven't read the book I have no intention of reading it. Which is why my comments are confined to things others have posted because criticising. a book you haven't read is bonkers.

Over-egged. Exaggerated. Needlessly sensationalised. Egoistical. Childish tittle tattle.
Not from me as I would rather not buy something worth no more than a penny for several pounds!
This was from a friend who phoned me to recommend not buying it… (as if!) and she devours the pointless gossip magazines.

If there is another book's worth written up, where exactly will it be "in storage"? I mean what if someone now leaks it?

Opinions vary. Not everyone is detail oriented and specific.

I refer to Business class as First, when talking of a booking, if the airline's only comfortable decent seats are in Business. My exacting husband (job related) would never reference the seats improperly, but he understands what I mean - first - best available to city-pair. Logical mistake.

I looked for a direct quote. Harry didn't say the tickets were purchased, merely the offer, his FIL never accepted the offer, tickets not purchased.

The book details the impact to how Harry was raised, parents well known (in print) affairs and divorce, seemingly stoic emotionally detached family, mum's death, and constant intrusive news media. Significant.

The rest is insignificant, except the chess-piece kills.

Yes reading back through some old articles that seems to have been the thoughts at the time.And at the end of her life she obviously approved of Camilla enough to make the prouncement that it was her wish she was to be Queen Consort.But then as a deeply committed christian I believe she had the capacity for forgiveness. Not everyone has.

Possibly the Queen didn’t feel able to attend the civil ceremony as Head (or whatever ) of the CofE? But she clearly approved of the marriage and the happiness it brought her son.

Well yes it seems the Queen didn't attend the small registry office ceremony but did attend the very public wedding blessing.Plenty of nice photos of her there.And held a reception after.As I said I haven't read the book that's why I asked those who had.But is it worded to imply that the Queen did not approve and did not attend anything ? That's what I wondering. A couple of my friends have remarried and had registry office with witnesses only.Then extended family at a later meal.