A certain book

Henry V1th is not his ? x's grandfather! His only son was killed at the battle of Tewkesbur, aged 17, without leaving any heirs.

Harry describes his dislike of his history teacher at Ludgrove for making a point of the fact that he knew nothing of British history, in particular his own blood relatives.

There followed a stalemate with Harry insisting he didn’t care about his family history so the teacher then presented him with a ruler with the names of every British monarch since 1066 engraved on the sides.

Harry was appreciative of the gesture but he had convinced himself that his family had declared him a nullity so why bother to memorise the names of past spares? 🤔

He obviously didn’t spot their names on the ruler. 😂

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.

Well, he never said she did.

But don't let that put you off.

Maybe one of our excellent teachers of reading between the lines can explain that telling someone you will buy a ticket for them isn't the same as actually buying it.

He never says it was purchased Smileless. The father never came back to them and the story of the photos emerged.
I am beginning to feel sorry for the fact checkers.....

If you have the book volver perhaps you can quote from it what he did say then. Does he say why the offer of the ticket wasn't taken up by M's father?

Thanks for the explanation Mamie.

I am beginning to feel sorry for the fact checkers..... And the publishers.

I had the impression that we were said fact checkers …

Well I am certainly checking the actual text!

🕵️‍♀️ 🕵️‍♀️

volver

^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.^

Well, he never said she did.

But don't let that put you off.

Maybe one of our excellent teachers of reading between the lines can explain that telling someone you will buy a ticket for them isn't the same as actually buying it.

Well, reading between the lines we know now why Thomas Markle never came over to the UK!!

Nothing to do with adverse press reports, fallings out, Mr Markle being ill, none of that media nonsense!

It was just that Meghan found she couldn't buy a ticket on a route which Air New Zealand doesn't fly in a class they don't provide.

Why didn't they just explain all that in the first place?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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."

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.

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.

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

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?

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? 😅