A certain book

varian

Oh dear. It's not to easy these days to get away with porkies.

When someone tells porkies in a deliberate attempt to make someone else look bad, (or themselves look good) they are bound to be called out on it. (unless the recipient of the lies/exaggerations is the RF in which case they rise above it.)

Harry has admitted that his powers of recall are vague. Perhaps if he took out all the bits he's not sure about, the book would only be a very slim volume.

The situation of Harry's hearing about the QM's death is a strange one. He was definitely NOT sitting in his room at school "studying". Far from.
But the dreamt up phone call is bizarre. He can't remember who made the call, a courtier, a detective?
I think Harry's main objective here was to blame his father, yet again, for not telling him. I also think he has screwed up here, because if it were true and he were actually at school , even cold hearted Eton would have made sure a Master or a school mate popped in immediately to console him after the call, and he omits to mention that. Boarding schools like that have policies in place for such occurrences when in loco parentis.

Oh dear. It's not to easy these days to get away with porkies.

Exactly - because although the media apparently did misrepresent that, the basic premise was the same that the procedure Harry described in great detail didn't happen.

And neither did he take the phone call about the Queen Mother's death in the room with the sunlight pouring through in great detail again .... because he was off on holiday skiing with Charles and William, and photos and articles have proven this to be the case.

And the things he said about the lack of Canadian police security - the Canadian police called him out over that.

Ah yes. Like the things his flying instructor didn't say.

Getting back to Harry's book, though, and his various interviews and statements, some things are not true and have been proven to be false.

Interesting angles Doodledog.
Can truth even be artificially fabricated then?

I think they both count. I’m not talking about the RF here, but in general. It is a fact that hypothetical boy was unhappy and a fact that his parents found him difficult. Both are true. Pretty much any divorced couple will have equally valid recollections of what went wrong, but they may not tally.

Is it a fact that Henry V11 got rid of Anne Boleyn because he wanted an heir, or did he stop loving her because he was a narcissist? Or did she have affairs with other men, putting the succession at risk? Or is her reputation as promiscuous because a court faction wanted Mary on the throne to restore the country to Catholicism? Was she an ambitious schemer or did she love the handsome prince who wooed her for years and promised he loved her too?

Some or all of those things could be true at the same time. Others are based on interpretation of scraps of information and may be supposition. Others are just things that we’ve been told. Is there a truth?

I’m musing, not trying to derail the thread, so feel free to ignore me

In the book Harry talks about the den at Highgrove where he went when he wanted peace, or solitude, but also mischief (getting smashed). Typical teenage stuff. But he also says something like he wasn't willing to talk about Diana there when William wanted to. William felt frustrated by this, but Harry wouldn't acknowledge it because he was obtuse and emotionally unavailable. Both boys were angry and unhappy, but coped with it in different ways, and that is what I kind of mean about measuring one's own grief.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

🙄🙄 US history

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.

I had to look up "entropy".

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.