Harry in the High Court.

Betraying personal details is certainly unkind, and when included to sell a book, objectionable.

I think I feel most sorry for Sadie Frost, she thought her ex husband had betrayed her to the media, but he hadn't.

Betraying personal details is legal but wrong
Well that's all autobiographies condemned then. Including
Doreen Lawrence- And Still I Rise
Elton John -Me
Both pursuing the DM like Harry.

Using illegal methods to collect and publish information is breaking the law so is wrong.

Betraying personal details is legal but wrong.

Betrayal of trust is evil.

Actually there is only one wrong- the use of illegal methods to collect and publish personal information.
All the stuff about "Spare" is largely irrelevant

I haven’t said all other books that do that are OK, but this is a thread about the Spare.

You seem to be implying that if it’s already happened, it’s OK to repeat it.

Actually, I do say two wrongs don’t make a right, but if you don’t agree, I’m not bothered.

Mollygo

Glorianny, you are posting on a thread about the Spare so of course it’s to do with the Spare.
I’m with you on the right not to have your privacy invaded by illegal means, but once I can’t go with your usual cry of “other people have done it so why are we complaining about the Spare doing it?”

It’s because it’s on a thread about him.

But you can't separate one book. If it's wrong to write personal details mentioning other real people, it's wrong. You can't say it's right in all other cases but not in this one.
The problem is that some people can't look at anything to do with the RF objectively. When someone points out that Charles did the same as Harry has done it is dismissed as "whataboutery" Such is the emotional involvement of some.
Spare is just another autobiography doing what such books do.

Glorianny, you are posting on a thread about the Spare so of course it’s to do with the Spare.
I’m with you on the right not to have your privacy invaded by illegal means, but once I can’t go with your usual cry of “other people have done it so why are we complaining about the Spare doing it?”

It’s because it’s on a thread about him.

Mollygo

eazybee

Nobody thinks H has broken the law in 'writing' his 'book', although some of the allegations are unsubstantiated and possibly actionable.
It does mean that it is hard to feel much sympathy for his complaints about invasion of privacy when he has so eagerly, with malice aforethought and for money, invaded the privacy of others.

Well put. I don’t think anyone has denied the Spare’s right to privacy when details have been obtained illegally.
We seem to be being told It’s OK to deny other’s right to privacy because the Spare wrote it in a book,

Actually I'm saying no one has the right to privacy as far as writing an autobiography is concerned, unless they can prove the information was illegally obtained. Honestly why is this being reduced to a single book by a rather insignificant person? If such rules were to be introduced a whole genre of books would be threatened.
All this faux concern for the people named in one book is a bit ridiculous. Autobiographies have been naming people and revealing personal secrets for centuries. Many people have been criticised for doing so. If it isn't illegal as far as I'm concerned it's OK. It has led to some important revelations about people and processes being made public.

Nothing really to do with Spare

It would be so funny if America refused his entry into the state

welbeck

www.youtube.com/watch?v=X18_UN126mE

i find this australian woman's observations interesting, on harry's book etc.

Interesting but perhaps not wholly appreciative. I have no doubt that there is a pecking order at Eton and one of the values used for this is the boy's position in his family. So the future Duke of X is regarded as a bit better than his younger brother. Just as a member of the RF would be regarded as a bit better than a future lord. I bet all the Etonians know who is "Spare".

Amused me that Princess Eugenie is very close to him. But she has one child and is expecting. Her and hubby have 3 bed cottage but apparently it's too small for guests.

eazybee

Nobody thinks H has broken the law in 'writing' his 'book', although some of the allegations are unsubstantiated and possibly actionable.
It does mean that it is hard to feel much sympathy for his complaints about invasion of privacy when he has so eagerly, with malice aforethought and for money, invaded the privacy of others.

Well put. I don’t think anyone has denied the Spare’s right to privacy when details have been obtained illegally.
We seem to be being told It’s OK to deny other’s right to privacy because the Spare wrote it in a book,

Charles is not the subject of conversation here. Whataboutery at its best.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=X18_UN126mE

i find this australian woman's observations interesting, on harry's book etc.

Well said eazybee @ 17.07.

Recollections of one’s personal experiences may vary, Glorianny - and some of Harry’s ‘recollections’ have been proved to be incorrect.

Nobody thinks H has broken the law in 'writing' his 'book', although some of the allegations are unsubstantiated and possibly actionable.
It does mean that it is hard to feel much sympathy for his complaints about invasion of privacy when he has so eagerly, with malice aforethought and for money, invaded the privacy of others.

rowyn

Glorianny

He wrote about what happened to him. It isn't illegal nor should it be. It might have been good manners to contact the people he was mentioning but no one who writes their autobiography usually does this.
It isn't a question of privacy it is a question of the legality of obtaining information by illegal, underhand and unacceptable methods.
Honestly I've never seen prejudice so obviously applied to a case. Really you should be ashamed of yourselves.
What you are in fact saying is that no one is entitled to publish their own story and if they do so they must expect other organisations to use any methods they choose to investigate and intrude on their lives.
Doreen Lawrence wrote her story- And Still I Rise, so I suppose she deserves press intrusion as well?

\I think you are making some assumptions which you cannot prove and are ,most probably untrue. I would guess that quite a number of would -be autobiography writers will consult with family and friends regarding what they wish to reveal if they have any decency.

I get the impression that some people are champing at the bit to destroy the Daily Mail because it has a different view on many issues from theirs.
The very clear point which I would have thought anyone can see is that Harry has not behaved in the way that he claims everyone else should have.
You are twisting what has been said by alleging that people are saying that no one has the right to write their personal story. That is so untrue.
They are saying that Harry has loudly and repetitively complained about people breaching his privacy but has no qualms at all about doing the same thing himself.

I have no objection to any newspaper printing views which are different to mine.
I do object to newspapers or anyone else committing illegal acts to obtain that news. The Daily Mail has already settled numerous claims of exactly the same nature as these ones out of court, so their assertions of no responsibility are already questionable.
It is a question of understanding the difference between writing an account of your own personal experiences, which anyone is entitled to do, and having someone else obtain information by illegal means and then publish that information.
To deny anyone the right to tell their story is to restrict free speech (No matter who they are, or who their family are).
To believe that the press should, like any other person or organisation, have to behave within the law is simply a belief with no particular agenda behind it.
If any individuals felt Harry had broken the law in writing his book they are at liberty to take action against him.
Meantime all those posting about his conflicts with privacy on here should consider that, if they deny the right of Harry to privacy, and do not acknowledge the wrong doing in this case, they also deny families like the Lawrence family the right to privacy and protection. Because the law doesn't discriminate between royal and grieving families.

Has anyone mentioned Charles’ book denigrating both his parents across these 5 (at the last count) pages? Oh, and the interview to J Dimbleby? Maybe it was me.

What you are in fact saying is that no one is entitled to publish their own story and if they do so they must expect other organisations to use any methods they choose to investigate and intrude on their lives

No we are not. Some of us (and I have no idea how many people share my views but I believe a few) are saying that publishing a book which denigrates members of one's own family is the sort of thing One Does Not Do, and in our/ my opinion it is a fairly disgraceful thing to do. As is using an appearance in a court case to make further unsubstantiated allegations against the royal family/institution.

That does not mean that we/I think it is right for other organisations to use any means to investigate and intrude on their lives. Plus the fact that many of these alleged intrusions took place before Harry started his feud against his family.

👏 rowyn and Nanatoone
I rather liked the way Harry turned up at The Royal Court looking like the quintessential English gentleman with his black cashmere coat, no doubt a Paul Smith creation, and did all the waving. A true royal who can't let go! Mind you, bare feet and ripped jeans might have been a bit cold, and we wouldn't want him getting frostbite, would we.
Shallow, I know.

Apologies for typos, I meant to check before posting but pressed post too soon.

I find it hard to feel sorry for the multi millionaire "prince' Harry (he is not my prince). I do not accept press actions if these are found to be true but neither can I have anyhting other than loathing for such a disrespectful, entitled individual. I do feel the RF's time is coming to an end, I ahve nejoyed the spectacle along the way but even I (as someone who preferred the pomp and ceremony and history to an elected person) thinks it is time for it to end. Harry has done his Judas job in my opinion.

Glorianny

He wrote about what happened to him. It isn't illegal nor should it be. It might have been good manners to contact the people he was mentioning but no one who writes their autobiography usually does this.
It isn't a question of privacy it is a question of the legality of obtaining information by illegal, underhand and unacceptable methods.
Honestly I've never seen prejudice so obviously applied to a case. Really you should be ashamed of yourselves.
What you are in fact saying is that no one is entitled to publish their own story and if they do so they must expect other organisations to use any methods they choose to investigate and intrude on their lives.
Doreen Lawrence wrote her story- And Still I Rise, so I suppose she deserves press intrusion as well?

\I think you are making some assumptions which you cannot prove and are ,most probably untrue. I would guess that quite a number of would -be autobiography writers will consult with family and friends regarding what they wish to reveal if they have any decency.

I get the impression that some people are champing at the bit to destroy the Daily Mail because it has a different view on many issues from theirs.
The very clear point which I would have thought anyone can see is that Harry has not behaved in the way that he claims everyone else should have.
You are twisting what has been said by alleging that people are saying that no one has the right to write their personal story. That is so untrue.
They are saying that Harry has loudly and repetitively complained about people breaching his privacy but has no qualms at all about doing the same thing himself.