A certain book

Whitewavemark2 You have completely misunderstood my post and the chap's comment.

I didn't say that the book is complete fantasy and neither did he. He said that Harry's description of one part of the training never happened, never would happen and was complete fantasy. As he was present, he would know.

Apology accepted Whitewavemark2

Daily Mail

Another 'Spare' claim goes up in smoke! Decorated pilot and flying instructor who Prince Harry gushed over in his bombshell memoirs says the Duke's recollection of training flights is 'a complete fantasy'

By ELIZABETH HAIGH FOR MAILONLINE and GUY ADAMS and RICHARD KAY FOR THE DAILY MAIL

PUBLISHED: 17:38 EST, 21 January 2023 | UPDATED: 02:25 EST, 22 January 2023

Prince Harry's former Army instructor has claimed a story in his explosive new memoir about a 'suicide' training flight is 'complete fantasy' as the fallout over its publication continues.

In Spare the Duke of Sussex recalls a flight in which Sergeant Major Michael Booley deliberately stalled the Slingsby T67 Firefly propeller plane he was piloting with 'no warning', leaving him questioning whether it was an 'aborted suicide attempt'.

But the former Sergeant Major has blasted this as a 'fantasy', telling the Mirror students are always walked through all elements of flight training beforehand.

Sergeant Major Michael Booley (left) taught Prince Harry to fly and says he was one of his top five students

In Spare the Duke of Sussex recalls a flight in which Sergeant Major Michael Booley deliberately stalled the Slingsby T67 Firefly propeller plane he was piloting with 'no warning'

In Spare, Prince Harry recalls: 'I felt the left wing dip, a sickening feeling of disorder, of entropy, and then, after several seconds that felt like decades, he recovered the aircraft and levelled the wings.

'I stared at him. What in the absolute—? Was this an aborted suicide attempt? No, he said gently. This was the next stage in my training.'

But on Saturday Mr Booley said that 'every single aspect' of all sorties is thoroughly briefed beforehand.

He told the Mirror: 'Whilst the book compliments me, the recollection of the sorties and lessons is inaccurate, I'm afraid. It's important to highlight that nothing in the cockpit comes as a surprise.'

He added: 'The only time there are surprises is later in the syllabus, not as stated in the book, when emergencies are introduced.

'Engine failures are practised before the first solo obviously, in case the student suffers one.'

Former Sergeant-Major Booley, 57, served in the military for 33 years and ranks prince Harry as one of his top five students.

He blames ghostwriter John Joseph Moehringer for the inaccuracies, saying the tales have been 'dramatised'.

He also said he did not ever call the prince 'Lt Wales', as is suggested in Spare.

Despite the 'fantasy' in the book, Mr Booley told the paper he still sees the prince as a 'friend', adding he is a 'man I respect immensely who would always have my ear'.

Prince Harry went on to fly helicopters during his tours in Afghanistan.

Whitewavemark2

Sparklefizz

I see today that Harry's flying training he describes in the book is "complete fantasy" according to his instructor.

There we go again - media - how would the flying instructor, who spent no more than a few days with the prince know any more than you are I?

Of course there may well be exaggeration in the biography- most biographies contain a certain amount I’m sure, but whilst reading it, I was able to verify much of what was said concerning the media, because I remember reading it, it watching it on documentaries about the RF. But at the very least it can be followed up on google etc. so very easy to verify.

I only know what Harry reports about his flying training.

However, I would hope that his flying instructor would know everything there is to know about Harry's flying training.
I'd be very worried were that not the case.

Whitewavemark2

Oh that’s embarrassing😳. I’ve read that post about a dozen times and misread it each time.

So I apologise for my confusion and will go back to square 1.

Sorry, missed that!! ✈

I think I must drop out of this discussion at this point, as I am really only interested in one aspect of the PH book, and that is the way the media have behaved over the years of this young man’s life, most of which can be verified or remembered first hand. It is the way the media operates in this country that interests me.

Of course I took away various aspects and opinions, but I’m not informed enough about his private life to feel confident enough to comment as I won’t believe anything the media reports unless I can verify it with a high degree of accuracy.
Anything I did say without that confidence would be mere tittle tattle and fluff.

I haven’t read the book Whitewave,

I will just leave this here as an example of the media misreporting.

The fly instructor has issued a statement that says that the media have manipulated his comments, and have not reported them accurately.

He never stated that PH version was complete fantasy and explains what he did say.

I cannot find intended verification of that statement, but it appears on “The Mirror” feed

That's the trouble though isn't it Whitewavemark2? Once you give a journalist just a tiny sniff off a story you lay yourself open to twists and inaccuracies. He was dim to even contemplate offering any information. As I said earlier, the advice is to say nothing.

GagaJo

Everyone has their own truth.

No they don’t. Everyone has their own interpretation of events but that doesn’t equate to truth. If it did, there would be no longer any need for trials because what various people, witnesses, victims, etc said would be their truth and that would be the end of it. There is truth meaning fact, and there is an individual’s interpretation of the facts. Which can mean lies actually but that can be deliberate or not deliberate, merely misremembered.
But there is no everyone has their own truth.

This whole debacle has just made me believe even more than I did before, that a republic would be better. Monarchy really is outdated by today’s standards in my opinion.

I’m not getting into a debate about the RF, but I do think that two (or more) people can tell different versions of the same story and both be telling the truth. Facts are often pretty fluid.

maddyone

GagaJo

Everyone has their own truth.

No they don’t. Everyone has their own interpretation of events but that doesn’t equate to truth. If it did, there would be no longer any need for trials because what various people, witnesses, victims, etc said would be their truth and that would be the end of it. There is truth meaning fact, and there is an individual’s interpretation of the facts. Which can mean lies actually but that can be deliberate or not deliberate, merely misremembered.
But there is no everyone has their own truth.

The very first reading I was given, when beginning the history component of my BA was about there being no absolute facts. That every 'fact' had an interpretation. All the individuals relating this 'fact' would believe their recitation to be the absolute fact when actually, there would be a multiplicity of versions.

Gaga you’re right in that history will be interpreted because for most of history, no one was alive now who was alive then. However when a woman is genuinely raped and has injuries to show, are you saying that there is no fact? What about when a person is diagnosed with cancer or other disease? Is it not true? Obviously occasionally there are misdiagnosed illnesses, but my brother in law was diagnosed with bowel cancer and died with bowel cancer. Is that not a fact? Of course there are facts, and there is interpretation and misremembering, and of course, mistakes. But there are facts. I think you are quoting your history lecturer but he/she was speaking about interpretation of history. We all know that is open to interpretation.

I expect that first reading was intended to make students consider interpretation of facts, not just to accept all at face value, but I have no doubt it would be followed by other readings stating different views, to provoke discussion about how to establish the veracity of facts.
The Charge of the Light Brigade is a small case in point; it definitely occurred, fact, it was heroic, fact but was the result of misunderstood orders and incompetent leadership. The truth was established by examining the evidence fairly soon after the episode, and by the voices of the survivors of the Charge.

How often do we hear that those in power “re-write” history to suit their narrative?

What I would say is that if a book portraying one's life story is being ghost-written although supposedly coming direct from you, wouldn't you want to check the draft before it went to print? I certainly would!

I had to look up "entropy".

Whitewavemark2

How often do we hear that those in power “re-write” history to suit their narrative?

Exactly. The whitewashing of British and YS history comes to mind.

🙄🙄 US history

Doodledog

I’m not getting into a debate about the RF, but I do think that two (or more) people can tell different versions of the same story and both be telling the truth. Facts are often pretty fluid.

You mean that both think they are telling the truth?

No, I think they can both be telling the truth.

A person could say that his childhood was difficult. That his parents were strict and joyless, and that he couldn’t wait to leave home,

His parents could say that their son was hard work, rebellious and made their lives a misery.

Both could be true. Much of History is like that. We might know that the family lived at 37 Acacia Avenue, and that the parents were married in St Peter’s parish church, but their life stories differ depending on who is telling them.

But the views of the son and those of his parents are opinions, not facts. The facts are that the parents married in St Peter’s church and their address. This is the problem, people all too often see opinions as facts, they’re not, they’re opinions.

So is it not a fact that the son was unhappy? Or that the parents found him difficult?

The fact is, the son was often very unhappy, but doesn't that also depend on individual perception? Whose definition of unhappiness counts? How do we even measure unhappiness to ascertain whether it is real? It was very real for Harry.