A certain book

varian

If Harry thinks it's unkind for people to make fun of his book, can he not see that he's been rather unkind to his family?

I have realised that it's not just unkind, it's a breach of their Human Rights.

(Human Rights Act 1998, section 8)

Trouble is some of Harry's lies are so pathetic and easily refuted. Henry V1th is not his ? x's grandfather! His only son was killed at the battle of Tewkesbur, aged 17, without leaving any heirs.. The royal corgis were not introduced by Queen Victoria, she had many dogs but not Corgis. The late Queen was given a Corgi by her father(Susan) and all the Corgis were decended from this one little dog. Harry was not at school when the Queen Mother died. It was the Easter holidays and he was skiing at Klosters with his father and brother, and his father broke this news not a courtier. As I said, pathetic lies, which make it hard to believe anything he says.

So saying you remember something one way and someone else looking at a calendar and saying that wasn't possible doesn't mean you are lying. You might be remembering wrongly because of a traumatic event or some other factor.

With respect Glorianny, I think you've fallen prey to your own in built and established bias here! Harry could be forgiven for "misremembering" some details but he was quite specific in regard to the reason for his father in law's flight, the route it was to take, the airline used and even the area of the plane that he was to be seated in. It never happened! Air New Zealand do not and never have flown that route. They do not have that seating area on any of their flights.
This book took him a year to write. He appears to have a phenomenal memory for all the perceived slights, arguments and altercations that occurred between him and his family throughout his life so I'm suspending belief that he "misremembered" a cold, hard, verifiable fact.

Nevertheless, it's amused Air New Zealand no end!

eazybee

One cannot forget that this book has been skilfully crafted by an accomplished journalist and ghost writer, who cannot verify all the 'truths' his subject gives him, and who is tasked with presenting that subject in as sympathetic a way as possible.

Surely part of his $1 m fee is meant to cover research to establish the facts?
If others can spot the discrepancies, I would have thought an accomplished journalist could too.
But “never let the facts get in the way of a good story?”

Cymres1

Brilliant display in that shop. Personally wouldn't buy unless 20p in charity shop, handy cheap firelighting material for woodburner. Wonder if it would compost successfully? Or the other alternative, I use shredded paper for the poultry along with the normal bedding. Perfect for data protection, and makes lovely rotted soil once it's sat in a feedsack for a few months. I can't think of a better use for such waste paper as That Book. (and I love books!)

So did you (or would you) do the same with Charles' account of how awful his parents were?

Brilliant display in that shop. Personally wouldn't buy unless 20p in charity shop, handy cheap firelighting material for woodburner. Wonder if it would compost successfully? Or the other alternative, I use shredded paper for the poultry along with the normal bedding. Perfect for data protection, and makes lovely rotted soil once it's sat in a feedsack for a few months. I can't think of a better use for such waste paper as That Book. (and I love books!)

One cannot forget that this book has been skilfully crafted by an accomplished journalist and ghost writer, who cannot verify all the 'truths' his subject gives him, and who is tasked with presenting that subject in as sympathetic a way as possible.

Mollygo

Mamie

Indeed Mollygo people will infer different things, but I didn't understand what you meant about their inferences "adding to the fiction". Do we as readers change a book by our responses? Interesting A level question. 😂

Really Mamie?
You’ve read the comments in the media including on GN and you don’t think
we as readers change a book (or what we read) by our responses?
We don’t change the words that are written, but each reader takes their own understanding of the text as you pointed out earlier, by Reading between and beyond the lines.
If the original isn’t true, do you think what’s inferred when Reading between and beyond the lines is going to change that?

I suppose that is true of anyone who comes at any written piece with in built and established bias, but surely the point of teaching critical thinking about things we read is that the bias should be put to one side and the whole of the written piece, not just snippets or sections should be carefully read and assimilated. Not taking things out of context, not recognising personal bias and not reading with preconceptions are all important. Otherwise it doesn't matter what the writer is inferring you simply won't get it and you will probably get the wrong ideas.

As for factual truths the point about a memoir is that you are reading a person's personal memories and those memories may or may not match events as they were recorded. As. I said before people are not robots and how they remember and what they remember vary because of many things. So saying you remember something one way and someone else looking at a calendar and saying that wasn't possible doesn't mean you are lying. You might be remembering wrongly because of a traumatic event or some other factor.

We can change it in our heads if we want to Mollygo, but as you say that doesn't change the book. We can infer that it is winter if the book says there is snow on the ground. We can't conclude that it is midsummer. We can develop our understanding by reading between the lines, but that is personal to us as readers.
I do think though that to infer or understand anything people have to read the book in the first place. Preferably with an open mind.

Yet another lie from the pair of them

In his new memoir Spare, the Duke of Sussex alleged that the Duchess had purchased a ticket for her father through Air New Zealand, adding that it was 'first class, booked and paid for by Meg'.
Detailing the incident, Prince Harry recalled: "We told him, leave Mexico right now: A whole new level of harassment is about to rain down on you, so come to Britain. Now."

"Air New Zealand has now denied that Thomas could have flown first from Mexico to the UK through their airline, claiming that such a flight doesn't even exist, reports the Mirror. Speaking with the New Zealand Herald, Air New Zealand gave the following statement: "We've never had flights between Mexico and the UK. And we only have Business Premier.""

"The airline has now made a savage dig at Harry and Meghan via its Twitter account, with a tweet taking aim at the alleged inaccuracy. The tweet reads as follows: "Introducing #SussexClass. Apparently coming soon."

Why does he lie so much?

Mamie

Indeed Mollygo people will infer different things, but I didn't understand what you meant about their inferences "adding to the fiction". Do we as readers change a book by our responses? Interesting A level question. 😂

Really Mamie?
You’ve read the comments in the media including on GN and you don’t think
we as readers change a book (or what we read) by our responses?
We don’t change the words that are written, but each reader takes their own understanding of the text as you pointed out earlier, by Reading between and beyond the lines.
If the original isn’t true, do you think what’s inferred when Reading between and beyond the lines is going to change that?

But he says the ball’s in their court.

Indeed Mollygo people will infer different things, but I didn't understand what you meant about their inferences "adding to the fiction". Do we as readers change a book by our responses? Interesting A level question. 😂

Misrepresenting or airbrushing one's past is one thing, but when this is done at the expense of others in order to make them look as bad as possible, that's another thing entirely.

I seem to remember at the time, and certainly when the marriage broke down that a great deal was made of that remark in the media Glorianny.

He's assuming that his father and brother will forgive him for what he's said already eazybee, and suggesting there's a lot worse that he could have said, is hardly going to help.

To be forgiven he'll need to ask for forgiveness.

Joseanne

Interesting Mamie.
There would seem to be a disconnect between what he says in the book and subsequently, and what he says elsewhere. In both the Netflix docuseries and in the Tom Bradby interview he distinctly said he and Meghan were ready to "move on".
Move on to what? More vitriol, more nasty comments shout his family? He is like a loose cannon.

I think he is still a deeply troubled man. The book makes you much more aware of the complexities of his background and experiences and the fact that life in a gilded cage is not at all easy. At the heart of it, (in my humble opinion), is the fact that rightly or wrongly he blames the press for the death of his mother. The impact of their actions on his earlier relationships with girls sounds credible to me and I think most people would agree that the attacks on Meghan by sections of the press were appalling.
I don't think they have dealt with it in the right way, but I can understand why he wants to put his point of view. I certainly don't agree with his attacks on others who can't answer back.

FannyCornforth

I think Molly knows all about teaching inference.
Thanks FC.

Mamie
No it really doesn't Mollygo. Reading between and beyond the lines is something we teach in schools. It means that you can infer from the text something that is not explicitly said.

Yes I know what inference is, I actually teach it, but I’m also aware, as you surely must be, that people infer different things, depending on their POV, and that is what will be happening with Harry’s book.

Glorianny 👏👏👏

So apparently Harry's main problem is he will keep trying to be honest about things.

I’m glad you added keep trying to your sentence. He’s already proven to be dishonest about some things in the book and in what he says, but we should in your view, excuse that because he’s trying to be honest.
It’s his truth, his whole truth and nothing but his truth. Probably with a bit of inference from Meghan, but I’m only reading between and beyond the lines about that.^ as Mamie suggests. 🙂

I'm trying to think if I can ever remember anyone, politician, celebrity or royal who has ever been held to such account for their words and actions, and their perceptions so challenged. I don't think there has.
Others have deliberately misrepresented or airbrushed their past to maintain a certain image and that has been totally accepted, no questions asked. So apparently Harry's main problem is he will keep trying to be honest about things and isn't sweeping enough stuff under the carpet. Weird!

I also considered how things said in the past would now be decimated on social media sites. Charles' "Whatever love means" would have provided so much ammunition!

He is like a loose cannon.

Yes.

Interesting Mamie.
There would seem to be a disconnect between what he says in the book and subsequently, and what he says elsewhere. In both the Netflix docuseries and in the Tom Bradby interview he distinctly said he and Meghan were ready to "move on".
Move on to what? More vitriol, more nasty comments shout his family? He is like a loose cannon.

FannyCornforth

Mamie on another of these Harry-themed threads, a poster has read online that he described his £32 million wedding as being on a ‘shoe string’.
Does he say that, do you know? Thank you

I have had a quick look from Chaper 37 onwards and can't see that. There is a bit of a disagreement when William allegedly suggests having it in the church in Tetbury. I do think that the whole wedding chapters are one of the bits where "recollections may vary" and certainly lots of it sounds a bit petty and entitled. I can imagine it in a Mumsnet wedding thread. 😂
Sorry I can't be more precise; I think it would have leapt out at me, but can't be certain.

Front page news on the Telegraph,with yet another sour-faced picture, Harry's book could have been twice the length: 'I cut memoir in half to spare my family.'
Apparently he held back disclosures for which the king and the Prince of Wales 'would not ever forgive him' if made public, things 'that happened between me and my brother,and to some extent between me and my father, that I just don't want the world to know'.
So please, just shut up.

Mamie on another of these Harry-themed threads, a poster has read online that he described his £32 million wedding as being on a ‘shoe string’.
Does he say that, do you know? Thank you

Our teaching styles obviously differ. 😂
It is interesting though. I started with many of the assumptions on here, which is why I read the book. For me and for others I know who have also read the book, perceptions changed.
I have already posted criticisms of the book on this thread so won't repeat them, but I really don't think anyone can understand it properly without reading it.
I can now see how soundbites hastily translated from Spanish are not the be all and end all.

I think Molly knows all about teaching inference

No it really doesn't Mollygo. Reading between and beyond the lines is something we teach in schools. It means that you can infer from the text something that is not explicitly said.
For example if you start the book thinking Harry is a complete fool, the chapters that relate the roles that he was given in the army tell you that he is far from that. You don't get to fly Apaches in combat if you are an unreliable fool.
Actually Sandhurst and the army are amongst the most interesting bits. I think it is a pity (my inference) that he left, you get the impression that he was happiest there.