A certain book

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!)

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?

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?”

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!

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.

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)

And such a recent ‘fact’ too.

I feel sorry for the ghost writer, who wouldn’t be expected to check the ‘facts’ his subject gave him beyond ensuring, via the publisher’s lawyers, that nothing he wrote was libellous.

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

It's easy enough to double-check facts though, surely, such as the glaring mistake about non-existent first-class flights from Mexico to Heathrow by Air New Zealand?

Any editor worth his or her salt will pick up on this or check before it goes into print and possibly subjects an author to ridicule.

If not, the author is put at risk of accusations of fantasising, thus rendering other so-called statements in their book open to question.

Writing about feelings may be subjective but factual errors are avoidable.

I don’t think criticising his book breaches his human rights. In fact I know it doesn’t.

Fact over feeling is always better because feelings come and go, but facts remain.

I'm sure Harry was in NZ for the rugby World Cup and on a few other occasions pre Meghan. He can't have studied their in-flight magazine very well. I always like those pages and I'm jo geographer (or cartographer).

Yes I agree GSM an unecessary error.
The actual text is "Air New Zealand. First class. Meg will pay."
That's all.

I haven't read the book and have no intention.Maybe someone who has seen that he said Granny didn't attend the wedding of Charles and Camilla ? Surely that's yet another inaccuracy? I must Google picture but I distinctly remember the Queen and Prince Philip attending?If so the discrepancies make it impossible to trust anything he says.

Washerwoman

I haven't read the book and have no intention.Maybe someone who has seen that he said Granny didn't attend the wedding of Charles and Camilla ? Surely that's yet another inaccuracy? I must Google picture but I distinctly remember the Queen and Prince Philip attending?If so the discrepancies make it impossible to trust anything he says.

So apart from supporting my idea that people who defend the monarchy often know very little about it, I think this demonstrates the desire to disbelieve everything that H or M might say.

The Queen wasn't at the wedding.

Its almost like you've remembered something that didn't actually happen.

The queen was not at registry office, but was at the blessing in church.

Maybe the book was allocated to the wrong section? Would the fiction section have been more appropriate?

I feel sorry for the RF as a whole and that includes H, because I don't doubt he has been through trauma- but I don't think this is the correct way of processing it.

As far as Harry is concerned, none of us should be trying to force change onto our family by sharing "our truth" and thinking it will "set them free". We all find enlightenment at different times and in different ways so I don't think forcing your beliefs and ways onto your family in this way is at all helpful. The fact that the book has prove to not be factual is troubling, as well as it's breach of the family's Human Rights.

The actual wedding was a small register office ceremony which the Queen didn’t attend Then there was a church blessing which the Queen did attend. I’m not in the least surprised that HM didn’t attend a small civil ceremony. Did he whinge about it? Why mention it?

Glorianny
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.
Good point Glorianny
As you so ably demonstrate in some of your posts. Since you find it difficult to put aside your
^ in built and established bias^ . . .

No I don't think he was whingeing GSM. Just part of the narrative of events I think. (I could check but it is a pain on Kindle).

The Queen did not attend the legal ceremony of Charles and Camilla's wedding but was at the blessing that followed.

I think Onward is referring to what H's saying and writing about his family as breaching their human rights, not the criticism of his book GSM.

How can you have memories of events that never happened Glorianny? He hasn't misremembered the actual event of M purchasing an airline ticket for her father because she never purchased one.

He hasn't misremembered where he was and how and by whom he was told that his GGM had died because his 'memory' is a total fabrication.