184 posts
|
Post by sweets7 on Jan 4, 2023 22:54:26 GMT
Jason Knauf approached the Mail on Sunday voluntarily, and offered them confidential material on Meghan (the judge rejected some of the material he offered as being irrelevant to the case). Knauf also made edited extracts from Meghan’s emails public, which were damaging to her; when Knauf was ordered to disclose the full unedited emails what do you know - they didn’t make Meghan look bad. There were also emails accidentally sent to Meghan’s lawyers showing that Knauf was working for the tabloid and against Meghan. Multiple journalists have said Knauf fed them stories, and he’s been close friends with Dan Wootton since they were at university together. Knauf is the one who invented the bullying story, which no one else has backed up. It’s pretty undeniable that Knauf was leaking against Harry and Meghan, and hard to imagine why he’s been so excessively lavished with royal honours when at the very least he betrayed the RF, leaked to press, and was terrible at his stated job. Unless he was under orders from Charles or William. I really don’t think it’s some kind of crazy conspiracy that the RF didn’t like the ambitious black American actress, and continued the patterns of multiple generations in sacrificing lesser royals to the press, and leaking stories in order to control their own media image. Remember the Cambridges threatened Krishnan Guru Murphy with false arrest to cover up William’s secret political meeting. Their aggressive stance towards media coverage they dislike (the Tatler piece, the Botox claim, the hair extensions claim, the “human rights violation” thing, and Rose Hanbury) has been shown time and time again. Of course they leak stories and manipulate the press. Everyone in the entertainment industry does it, why should royals be any different? I have seen evidence of very little of that. Where are those emails to Meghan’s lawyers then? There is no evidence that those two men went to a university together. It’s all hearsay. He said. She said. We all said. No one said. Who even cares who said. I can’t remember who said. Someone said something once sometime. In the end. It didn’t work for probably very human reasons…it just didn’t work. It wasn’t what she thought. He loves her and couldn’t bare to see her unhappy. She thought she could control the media because celebrities do in a way. Everyone fed of everyone else. It turned toxic. Us against the world and now we have two very isolated people. Harry has lost his family and by his own admission some friends. Meghan doesn’t seem to have many family ties or long term friends either so in the end who wins. Nobody. William is looking at a reign unsupported by a sibling. Harry just seems lost. Meghan I don’t know just seems stuck in a victim mentality. So really! He said. She said. Small fries and it fixes nothing. |
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jan 4, 2023 23:39:11 GMT
There is no evidence that those two men went to a university together. It’s all hearsay. Jason Knauf graduated from Victoria University of Wellington with a BA in Political Science in 2004. (Proof: numerous media profiles, including profiles in serious political outlets when he used to work in politics; an interview Knauf gave to the Victoria University of Wellington alumni magazine in 2015 which states his graduation year; Knauf's own LinkedIn profile.) Dan Wootton graduated from Victoria University of Wellington with a BA in Political Science in 2004. (Proof: Wooton's name and graduation year appears on Victoria University of Wellington's own website, and also numerous media profiles.) Okay it’s not proof they were friends, but the fact they went to uni together is absolutely a matter of official public record and both men have confirmed it. They studied the same subject, same degree course, and were in the same year. They obviously would have known each other, and they’ve long been reported as old uni friends. As far as the emails, Low confirmed that Knauf is the one who leaked those emails to the Times, and again it's a matter of public record that he gave Meghan's letters and emails to the Mail on Sunday lawyers, and that he agreed to give a witness statement on behalf of the MoS. Thomas Markle also made very odd comments that named Jason Knauf by name, and he also claimed that there was an attempt during the engagement to get Harry to call off the wedding. Thomas Markle has lied far too many times for anything he says to be trustworthy, but it is strange that he named Knauf, a man he doesn't appear to have ever met. I can't help but be curious what happened there. |
|
184 posts
|
Post by sweets7 on Jan 4, 2023 23:56:16 GMT
There is no evidence that those two men went to a university together. It’s all hearsay. Jason Knauf graduated from Victoria University of Wellington with a BA in Political Science in 2004. (Proof: numerous media profiles, including profiles in serious political outlets when he used to work in politics; an interview Knauf gave to the Victoria University of Wellington alumni magazine in 2015 which states his graduation year; Knauf's own LinkedIn profile.) Dan Wootton graduated from Victoria University of Wellington with a BA in Political Science in 2004. (Proof: Wooton's name and graduation year appears on Victoria University of Wellington's own website, and also numerous media profiles.) Okay it’s not proof they were friends, but the fact they went to uni together is absolutely a matter of official public record and both men have confirmed it. They studied the same subject, same degree course, and were in the same year. They obviously would have known each other, and they’ve long been reported as old uni friends. It’s evidence of nothing. How many hundred were on that course. I couldn’t pick anyone bar one or two people from my course at UNI out of a line up. So. I’ve heard so many stories of how Wooten is connected to this person and that person and he is friends with this persons boyfriend and on and on. He’s a journalist and a pretty irritating one. It still proves nothing. Where is the evidence. To use their own words show me the receipts and I will believe anything you like as long as there is evidence. Wooten has denied Charles leaked the story. If William had, Harry wouldn’t be shy saying it but he has hinted at Dad. I always thought Harry did because he was the one who gained, or so he thought from bouncing the royals into dealing with it. They had preferred to keep kicking it down the path. in the end though does it matter. All these people are gone. Knauf left. Wooten is on GB or something nice and irritating. Harry. Gone. |
|
184 posts
|
Post by sweets7 on Jan 5, 2023 0:08:22 GMT
There is no evidence that those two men went to a university together. It’s all hearsay. Jason Knauf graduated from Victoria University of Wellington with a BA in Political Science in 2004. (Proof: numerous media profiles, including profiles in serious political outlets when he used to work in politics; an interview Knauf gave to the Victoria University of Wellington alumni magazine in 2015 which states his graduation year; Knauf's own LinkedIn profile.) Dan Wootton graduated from Victoria University of Wellington with a BA in Political Science in 2004. (Proof: Wooton's name and graduation year appears on Victoria University of Wellington's own website, and also numerous media profiles.) Okay it’s not proof they were friends, but the fact they went to uni together is absolutely a matter of official public record and both men have confirmed it. They studied the same subject, same degree course, and were in the same year. They obviously would have known each other, and they’ve long been reported as old uni friends. As far as the emails, Low confirmed that Knauf is the one who leaked those emails to the Times, and again it's a matter of public record that he gave Meghan's letters and emails to the Mail on Sunday lawyers, and that he agreed to give a witness statement on behalf of the MoS. Thomas Markle also made very odd comments that named Jason Knauf by name, and he also claimed that there was an attempt during the engagement to get Harry to call off the wedding. Thomas Markle has lied far too many times for anything he says to be trustworthy, but it is strange that he named Knauf, a man he doesn't appear to have ever met. I can't help but be curious what happened there. Low definitely did not. No journalist ever reveals their sources. I’ve heard him refuse several times. It’s a court of law. Remind me who actually lied? He told the truth. Knauf was the one liaising with Thomas Markle. He knew him to speak to at least. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 5, 2023 0:29:49 GMT
Jason Knauf was a witness in the court case. He wasn’t leaking to the press. It was a court of Law. Of course he was helping H and am with that book Finding Freedom. Yes I’m sure the employees that were sacked did talk…that is their right. The journalists all said that the two couples were very easy sneak with eachother and I have doubt when relations broke down that they were. I wouldn’t be listening to an American journalist though, what do they know. I don’t see any of it as dark and twisted and conspiracy as you seem to. I see it for what it is. Family relations broke down. There was manipulation of the media, no doubt by both sides. One continues to out in the open but I do not think they set out to destroy Meghan and ai doubt they have a What’s App group. The press get briefed sure on the story someone wants to send out but doesn’t mean they write it. Meghan and a Harry brief, The absolute worst at all this skull duckery is Charles. Who was quite frankly unbelievable around 20 to 25 years ago but that seems to have levelled out. the media should not have published that letter. They won because they published too much. But it was her friends who leaked its existence. It wasn’t Thomas Markle. Once the media knew about it they hunted it down. Of course the royals give stories to papers….does Harry not. It’s not necessarily against anyone else just putting the point across. Everyone knows when they read them. Every public figure does that. Is it nice. No. Is it the way it works. Yes. Do you have to grow up and work with the system. probably. [br The denial here is amazing. You think American journalists can’t have British press sources send them information? Ellie Hall made it very clear that she got her story by doing basic journalistic work and following up a tip, and that the people she contacted and the production company confirmed that no British journalist had bothered to even contact them for comment. Knauf was briefing the press. That was in fact his job as press secretary. He briefed the press on the bullying story under his own name, and offered to be a witness for the Mail - again, briefing the newspaper’s editor on confidential correspondence, which the judge actually ruled made no difference to the case in the end but was used to smear Meghan in the press. The Mail had no right to publish private correspondence at all. Its existence being mentioned by a third party does not change that. The judge made it clear that the mention did not actually disclose any significant part of the letter itself - indeed the description of what it contained was inaccurate. The appropriate response would have been to seek a correction from that publication that mentioned it. *Someone* briefed the press on Meghan’s mental health struggles who had seen her email to HR. That person was clearly not authorised to share that information by Meghan. No-one has the ‘right’ to share that kind of deeply personal medical information about someone’s mental illness to a journalist without authorisation. If that briefing had not been authorised Kensington Palace should have hunted down the culprit to fire them for gross misconduct and take civil action against them for breaching their NDA, and made it abundantly clear that further such breaches of confidentiality would receive the same response. Which would have been a big news story. They did not do so. That indicates that the briefing was authorised. This is not rocket science. |
|
184 posts
|
Post by sweets7 on Jan 5, 2023 0:37:07 GMT
Jason Knauf was a witness in the court case. He wasn’t leaking to the press. It was a court of Law. Of course he was helping H and am with that book Finding Freedom. Yes I’m sure the employees that were sacked did talk…that is their right. The journalists all said that the two couples were very easy sneak with eachother and I have doubt when relations broke down that they were. I wouldn’t be listening to an American journalist though, what do they know. I don’t see any of it as dark and twisted and conspiracy as you seem to. I see it for what it is. Family relations broke down. There was manipulation of the media, no doubt by both sides. One continues to out in the open but I do not think they set out to destroy Meghan and ai doubt they have a What’s App group. The press get briefed sure on the story someone wants to send out but doesn’t mean they write it. Meghan and a Harry brief, The absolute worst at all this skull duckery is Charles. Who was quite frankly unbelievable around 20 to 25 years ago but that seems to have levelled out. the media should not have published that letter. They won because they published too much. But it was her friends who leaked its existence. It wasn’t Thomas Markle. Once the media knew about it they hunted it down. Of course the royals give stories to papers….does Harry not. It’s not necessarily against anyone else just putting the point across. Everyone knows when they read them. Every public figure does that. Is it nice. No. Is it the way it works. Yes. Do you have to grow up and work with the system. probably. [br The denial here is amazing. You think American journalists can’t have British press sources send them information? Ellie Hall made it very clear that she got her story by doing basic journalistic work and following up a tip, and that the people she contacted and the production company confirmed that no British journalist had bothered to even contact them for comment. Knauf was briefing the press. That was in fact his job as press secretary. He briefed the press on the bullying story under his own name, and offered to be a witness for the Mail - again, briefing the newspaper’s editor on confidential correspondence, which the judge actually ruled made no difference to the case in the end but was used to smear Meghan in the press. The Mail had no right to publish private correspondence at all. Its existence being mentioned by a third party does not change that. The judge made it clear that the mention did not actually disclose any significant part of the letter itself - indeed the description of what it contained was inaccurate. The appropriate response would have been to seek a correction from that publication that mentioned it. *Someone* briefed the press on Meghan’s mental health struggles who had seen her email to HR. That person was clearly not authorised to share that information by Meghan. No-one has the ‘right’ to share that kind of deeply personal medical information about someone’s mental illness to a journalist without authorisation. If that briefing had not been authorised Kensington Palace should have hunted down the culprit to fire them for gross misconduct and take civil action against them for breaching their NDA, and made it abundantly clear that further such breaches of confidentiality would receive the same response. Which would have been a big news story. They did not do so. That indicates that the briefing was authorised. This is not rocket science. No they shouldn’t have but copywrite law is very specific and you are libel if you print over a certain percentage. They were always at fault but in the end they ended up embarrassing Meghan. As for the rest it’s just more stuff. Where is the proof in any of this. |
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jan 5, 2023 0:53:25 GMT
It’s evidence of nothing. How many hundred were on that course. According to the university's website, the average number of students per course in 2004 was 21. Universities don't have hundreds of students in one class. Besides your original post didn't say "there's no evidence they were close friends at uni", you claimed they'd not even attended university together at all, when they obviously did. However you slice it, it's a pretty odd coincidence that Meghan was assigned a press secretary (who leaked to the press, and who clearly hates her) who just happens to have been classmates with the same tabloid editor who ran the most stories and had the most insider info about her (and who clearly also hates her). Low definitely did not. No journalist ever reveals their sources. LOL, we're not talking about Watergate here, we're talking about tabloid gossip. Emily Andrews literally went on TV and talked about having lunch with Jason Knauf. Valentine Low made tweets explicitly naming Jason Knauf. |
|
184 posts
|
Post by sweets7 on Jan 5, 2023 1:02:37 GMT
It’s evidence of nothing. How many hundred were on that course. According to the university's website, the average number of students per course in 2004 was 21. Universities don't have hundreds of students in one class. You may not remember your old college classmates because you presumably haven't seen them in years or decades. If you found yourself working with a former classmate now, I'm pretty sure you'd remember. Besides your original post didn't say "there's no evidence they were close friends at uni", you claimed they'd not even attended university together at all, when they obviously did. However you slice it, it's a pretty odd coincidence that Meghan was assigned a press secretary (who leaked to the press, and who clearly hates her) who just happens to have been classmates with the same tabloid editor who ran the most stories and had the most insider info about her (and who clearly also hates her). Mine had hundreds on my course. Wooten isn’t a royal reporter. 21 is tiny for a Huge area like Political Science and He wrote very few stories. He’s dinned on it but that wasn’t his area. I am sure Knauf does hate her now. Evidenced by he left his job and then worked just for Kate and William. Why, is for them to have their own opinions on. But some very toxic stuff must have gone down. |
|
184 posts
|
Post by sweets7 on Jan 5, 2023 1:04:57 GMT
It’s evidence of nothing. How many hundred were on that course. According to the university's website, the average number of students per course in 2004 was 21. Universities don't have hundreds of students in one class. Besides your original post didn't say "there's no evidence they were close friends at uni", you claimed they'd not even attended university together at all, when they obviously did. However you slice it, it's a pretty odd coincidence that Meghan was assigned a press secretary (who leaked to the press, and who clearly hates her) who just happens to have been classmates with the same tabloid editor who ran the most stories and had the most insider info about her (and who clearly also hates her). Low definitely did not. No journalist ever reveals their sources. LOL, we're not talking about Watergate here, we're talking about tabloid gossip. Emily Andrews literally went on TV and talked about having lunch with Jason Knauf. Valentine Low made tweets explicitly naming Jason Knauf. Yeah…he was the communication secretary. Butter them up. Where are his tweets? Doesn’t matter what on earth they are investigating they don’t name sources. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 5, 2023 9:59:10 GMT
No they shouldn’t have but copywrite law is very specific and you are libel if you print over a certain percentage. They were always at fault but in the end they ended up embarrassing Meghan. As for the rest it’s just more stuff. Where is the proof in any of this. Your ignorance about the actual legal issues involved is either so profound or so wilful that this comment is nonsensical. It’s not even worth attempting to unravel it to explain. Hopefully others reading have enough basic knowledge of the laws around privacy, data protection and copyright to understand the point I am making. I must admit, when I made my earlier comment about William having an anger management problem I did not expect to see such startling confirmation of his temper and problems managing it as has been reported this morning. It’s very sad. And goes some way to explaining why a private reconciliation seems to have been so impossible for them. |
|
914 posts
|
Post by karloscar on Jan 5, 2023 22:43:43 GMT
Best reaction of the day. Harold should raise an army in France, defeat Willy's troops near Hastings, after a quick victory declare UK as French territory and we can once again be in the EU. Sorted!
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jan 5, 2023 23:28:26 GMT
It's a terrible, terrible thing when a brother shouts at you. In other news, Harry also says he's killed 25 people.
|
|
|
|
Post by sukhavati on Jan 6, 2023 8:53:31 GMT
I must admit, when I made my earlier comment about William having an anger management problem I did not expect to see such startling confirmation of his temper and problems managing it as has been reported this morning. It’s very sad. And goes some way to explaining why a private reconciliation seems to have been so impossible for them. I think the most disturbing thing I read were the quotes in The Guardian when William told Harry that he didn't attack him. Add to that, "no need to tell Meg."
Anyone who's been in a hairy domestic situation with physical and mental coercion will immediate recognize William's words as gaslighting. He might as well have said "no one will believe you," like a hundred other controlling, bullying partners, only it's a sibling problem.
I've always felt as if William's man of the people bit seemed slightly strained, as if he's performing a role that's crafted to make him seem an ordinary bloke. Remember the stories about him sleeping rough with the homeless on London's streets? At least when Charles has done skits with John Cleese or the Shakespeare Hamlet bit, there's always been a twinkle in his eye, but maybe he picked that up at Cambridge. Apparently in private, if you're not of his class, William is only too happy to put you in your place, and that is exactly the sort of toff I hate dealing with. Most definitely not a man of the people.
I think it rather ironic that William calling Meghan difficult, rude, and abrasive would have been perhaps more effective if he hadn't hauled off and knocked Harry to the floor. The fact that after Philip's funeral both William and Charles talked over Harry and told him what he was thinking, rather than actually listening to his point of view is pretty rotten too, but not unusual in family fights. Quite frankly, I don't blame the Sussexes for leaving the country.
They have to sing for their supper. Leaving the protection (if you can call it that) of the Windsors, all they have are their names and stories to tell, and even that is only for a brief window of time. It's called free enterprise. If you don't like what they're selling, don't buy it. I will never look at William and Kate the same way again. Ironic, considering how much stick she got for being the daughter of self-made upwardly mobile parents.
It's a good thing that Charles will be around for at least 20 years. In that time, perhaps the former Billy Basher (his nickname in nursery) will learn to get over his need for control and get a grip on his hot temper.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jan 6, 2023 9:12:43 GMT
You're right. I don't understand why his mother doesn't have a chat with him about that "hot temper", a few empathetic words from the right person might help.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 6, 2023 9:54:51 GMT
It's a terrible, terrible thing when a brother shouts at you. In other news, Harry also says he's killed 25 people. People’s reaction to this snippet have been doing my head in. He was an Apache helicopter gunner. His job as a gunner was to shoot and kill people on the missions that he was commanding. The gunner needs tactical control and so is in command. The people he was killing were the Taliban - who in return were trying to kill him. This has been public knowledge for years, and - as I’ve been saying since forever - one of the reasons why he has a heightened security risk. The Taliban are very well aware of his military service. And yet people are losing their minds now that he talks about the experience. As if this wasn’t already known - or, I don’t know, as if they never quite believed that he was an actual soldier who fought in an actual war and actually killed people while doing so. |
|
1,863 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Jan 6, 2023 10:14:35 GMT
He needs to look to his predecessors.
If Harry has a problem with his family then he needs to persuade the French to fund him, raise an army, invade and seize the crown.
A book and a Netflix documentary is not in keeping with our great history of Royal insurrection.
|
|
2,409 posts
|
Post by theatreian on Jan 6, 2023 10:52:13 GMT
This subject will always polarise views on both sides as it is practically impossible to be completely clear on what has happened on both sides.It's just a shame it has developed into this whereby it is being played out on news and media. Hope they can reconcile to some extent at least in the future.
|
|
19,780 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jan 6, 2023 11:43:32 GMT
Several ex military on the radio this morning saying that talking about who/how many people you’ve killed is simply not done. It’s not a badge of honour.
I agree. It seems crass and desperate.
|
|
2,058 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Jan 6, 2023 11:50:25 GMT
He gets worse, stories of having sex with an older woman in a ‘grassy field’, his drug adventures and spurious stories of him versus the Taliban and his head count (really? 😂): I take it back about comparing him to Kanye, he’s the missing link in Kevin and Perry Go Large.
Is that Nazi uniform high jinks night out swept under the carpet? My only interest in this book is if there is suddenly a global shortage of toilet paper.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 6, 2023 12:11:51 GMT
He needs to look to his predecessors. If Harry has a problem with his family then he needs to persuade the French to fund him, raise an army, invade and seize the crown. A book and a Netflix documentary is not in keeping with our great history of Royal insurrection. I’ve been having fun on Twitter telling people about Emma of Normandy (Edward the Confessor’s mother): |
|
4,987 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Jan 6, 2023 12:15:25 GMT
Several ex military on the radio this morning saying that talking about who/how many people you’ve killed is simply not done. It’s not a badge of honour. I agree. It seems crass and desperate. Normally not done and I can see why but we know it happens. No right or wrong answer here. The terrorists still know about him and if anything it will make him more vulnerable. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 6, 2023 12:15:52 GMT
Several ex military on the radio this morning saying that talking about who/how many people you’ve killed is simply not done. It’s not a badge of honour. I agree. It seems crass and desperate. Context is everything. Just because the tabloids are writing screaming headlines and claiming it’s ‘bragging’ doesn’t mean that’s how it actually comes across in the book. The tabloids are of course going to put everything in the worst possible light. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jan 6, 2023 13:49:12 GMT
Going by what I've heard on the radio, it seems more like a Californian Hollywood 'therapy' thing - dig deep and let it all come out, including the sex behind a pub and the number of people he's killed in combat. I can't see how he can come back, in a UK, being taken seriously sense, from this - and from a Hollywood pov maybe has killed the goose that laid the golden egg. We were discussing this last night and I wondered if his ghostwriter was consciously sabotaging him - details like the dog bowl are so Alan Partridge.
|
|
671 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by alessia on Jan 6, 2023 14:42:24 GMT
Going by what I've heard on the radio, it seems more like a Californian Hollywood 'therapy' thing - dig deep and let it all come out, including the sex behind a pub and the number of people he's killed in combat. I can't see how he can come back, in a UK, being taken seriously sense, from this - and from a Hollywood pov maybe has killed the goose that laid the golden egg. We were discussing this last night and I wondered if his ghostwriter was consciously sabotaging him - details like the dog bowl are so Alan Partridge. Good point...also he mentions his therapist when he talks about the episode with William. Inevitably when one is in therapy, all sort of things come out and you are right, he's having it all out in the open and in public. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 6, 2023 15:44:58 GMT
Going by what I've heard on the radio, it seems more like a Californian Hollywood 'therapy' thing - dig deep and let it all come out, including the sex behind a pub and the number of people he's killed in combat. I can't see how he can come back, in a UK, being taken seriously sense, from this - and from a Hollywood pov maybe has killed the goose that laid the golden egg. We were discussing this last night and I wondered if his ghostwriter was consciously sabotaging him - details like the dog bowl are so Alan Partridge. People thought that Charles would never be taken seriously again after the tampon thing. He also collaborated with a memoir that criticised his parents for how they raised him. Princess Diana was very unpopular after her Panorama interview, and was continually being attacked by the press up until the day she died - which is why they were quite so taken aback by the public response to her death. Fergie is somehow still living with Prince Andrew despite being snapped getting her toes sucked while married to him, and accepting money from someone who wanted to be introduced to him when he was a trade envoy. She gives chirpy interviews to the press saying that he is still her Prince, despite all the Epstein stuff. Prince Andrew is somehow still allowed at Royal events, despite it all. I think you’ll be surprised in the long term - despite all the noise and thunder, people are fascinated by this kind of insight into other human beings’ lives, and forgiving of human foibles when they feel they understand them. That’s why the memoir genre exists. That’s why people publish diaries. That’s why I read 2 biographies (of Robbie Williams) and 2 autobiographies (of Gary Barlow) over the Christmas holiday. (And boy, is that an exercise in conflicting points of view on the same events. But they’ve made up now and are proper friends and collaborators; happy endings are possible!) Plenty of ex-soldiers write memoirs detailing their experiences in war. Plenty of famous people write memoirs describing their issues with drinks and drugs and sex. Harry in America no different from any other famous person. And it looks rather like being just another flawed famous person in America is a lot more comfortable for him than being held to an impossible standard over here. I don’t think he is ever expecting - or wanting - to be back in a Royal role in the U.K. |
|
