|
Post by edi on Jan 7, 2023 17:43:01 GMT
I don't know what is true and what's not because of course every story has many angles, and thank God the King and William/Kate has the wisdom and grace to stay out if it, but I do know that there is something distasteful about selling your family out for money. And it is coming from a young man who apparently wants to protect his family from the media.
Families do have issues, siblings do fight, relatives do fall out, it happens....
It's odd to remember how much the British public embraced the new couple, how much people were looking forward to the new young monarchs, all that initial happiness and expectations. It went sour very quickly and I really don't think the majority of the British public will ever forgive this.
|
|
|
Post by nottobe on Jan 7, 2023 17:50:49 GMT
I have to say I will definitely be buying the book if I see it in a charity shop as I know it will give me a good laugh and why spend full price and give them more money.
|
|
19,780 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jan 7, 2023 17:55:26 GMT
I don't know what is true and what's not because of course every story has many angles, and thank God the King and William/Kate has the wisdom and grace to stay out if it, but I do know that there is something distasteful about selling your family out for money. And it is coming from a young man who apparently wants to protect his family from the media. They don’t have any choice really, do they? If they were to retaliate it’s game over. And Harry and Meghan know this so it’s completely one sided and strategic. Also, H or M stating something on their Netflix programme doesn’t legitimise that statement. Saying it on tv doesn’t somehow make it true. They’ve both been called out for inconsistencies in the Oprah interview. I personally think theyre liars. And before the whataboutery starts, yes other people may be lying too but that doesn’t mean these two aren’t.
|
|
|
Post by NorthernAlien on Jan 7, 2023 18:22:52 GMT
I've thought for the last couple of days that the 'Spanish translations' felt off somehow - not least because at least one of the MSM was reporting the use of the names 'Willy' and 'Harold'. There's a delicate art in book translation, and I'll guarantee that almost no Media Company here in the UK bothered to source such an expert on Wednesday/Thursday/Friday, but settled for the nearest Spanish-speaker they could find.
And none of this is damaging the book's sales - Amazon is out of stock of the hardback. Amazon!
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jan 7, 2023 19:17:18 GMT
Very strong editorial in tomorrow's Observer on this.
|
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jan 7, 2023 21:04:30 GMT
Very strong editorial in tomorrow's Observer on this. Saying?
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jan 7, 2023 21:11:12 GMT
It's already online: "The Observer view on how Prince Harry’s stream of revelations will benefit no one". Sorry, don't know how to link it to here.
|
|
|
Post by dontdreamit on Jan 7, 2023 21:40:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Jan 7, 2023 22:06:34 GMT
]It's irrelevant what the actual passage says - the Taliban have seen the excerpts all over the media (both mainstream and social) which is all they need to take offence and possibly retaliate. Harry's 'kill tally' should never have appeared in the book! Riiiight, so NOW people are worried about the Taliban retaliating for the invasion of Afghanistan. Probably would have been better off getting worried before we sent the armed forces over there, if you’re so terrified of provoking the terrorists. Once upon the time the media insisted that they supported British soldiers who fought in Afghanistan and would not dream of giving space to Taliban commanders making threatening ex-servicemen. The press didn't seem to care much about the Taliban while they were repeatedly printing his location when he was serving.
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Jan 7, 2023 22:08:31 GMT
"The Observer view on how Prince Harry’s stream of revelations will benefit no one" Pretty disappointing huh? I thought for sure it would at least eliminate poverty in a number of countries.
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Jan 7, 2023 22:09:27 GMT
Amazon is out of stock of the hardback. Amazon! It was never in stock, it's not released until Tuesday...
|
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jan 8, 2023 9:02:49 GMT
"The Observer view on how Prince Harry’s stream of revelations will benefit no one" Pretty disappointing huh? I thought for sure it would at least eliminate poverty in a number of countries. I didn’t get the genius of this post when I read last night. Doffs cap
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 8, 2023 9:24:12 GMT
thank God the King and William/Kate has the wisdom and grace to stay out if it, but I do know that there is something distasteful about selling your family out for money.. 😂😂😂😂 It’s hilarious that people still think that Charles, William and Kate have stayed out of this, when there has ben a steady drip of stories based on ‘Royal sources’ that can only have come from their press secretaries (ending of course with ‘…. Palace declined to comment’). Some of this stuff had in fact already been briefed to biographers sympathetic to them, in terms flattering to them, naturally - particularly the Robert Lacey book ‘Battle of the Brothers’ www.goodmorningamerica.com/culture/story/princes-william-harry-explosive-argument-meghan-bullying-allegations-78397819Any time you see a Royal Rota journalist write a story from ‘Palace sources’ about the book commenting on how any of them feels, the source will be the Press Secretary. Some examples: www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/01/03/duke-sussex-wrong-claim-king-charles-has-shown-no-willingness/www.thedailybeast.com/prince-andrew-is-part-of-the-royal-family-again-but-not-the-firm-sources-saywww.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11593605/Royals-exhausted-Harry-Meghans-stream-misinformation-sources-say.htmlThere will be more of these over the coming weeks. The only difference is that Harry is speaking directly, and making himself accountable for the things he wants to say, rather than hiding behind ‘sources’ or loopholes (like Diana recording tapes rather than speaking directly to Morton so they could deny he had interviewed or met with her). The Observer editorial linked above may be right that this has become a psychological need for him, a form of catharsis after a lifetime of not being able to speak truth directly. That the way the institution has worked in this regard has fundamentally traumatised him - but he is hardly the first Royal to do so. On Radio 4 yesterday Jonathan Dimbleby was saying that Charles had cooperated with his biography back in the 90s because he felt the need to ‘lance the boil’ of his own bad press coverage. His book came out first, before the Morton book, and he did a TV interview for it!
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 8, 2023 9:48:11 GMT
|
|
184 posts
|
Post by sweets7 on Jan 8, 2023 11:20:16 GMT
So. I think nothing of this. All it is is we will have him back. Who cares.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2023 11:53:40 GMT
thank God the King and William/Kate has the wisdom and grace to stay out if it, but I do know that there is something distasteful about selling your family out for money.. 😂😂😂😂 It’s hilarious that people still think that Charles, William and Kate have stayed out of this, when there has ben a steady drip of stories based on ‘Royal sources’ that can only have come from their press secretaries (ending of course with ‘…. Palace declined to comment’). Some of this stuff had in fact already been briefed to biographers sympathetic to them, in terms flattering to them, naturally - particularly the Robert Lacey book ‘Battle of the Brothers’ www.goodmorningamerica.com/culture/story/princes-william-harry-explosive-argument-meghan-bullying-allegations-78397819Any time you see a Royal Rota journalist write a story from ‘Palace sources’ about the book commenting on how any of them feels, the source will be the Press Secretary. Some examples: www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/01/03/duke-sussex-wrong-claim-king-charles-has-shown-no-willingness/www.thedailybeast.com/prince-andrew-is-part-of-the-royal-family-again-but-not-the-firm-sources-saywww.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11593605/Royals-exhausted-Harry-Meghans-stream-misinformation-sources-say.htmlThere will be more of these over the coming weeks. The only difference is that Harry is speaking directly, and making himself accountable for the things he wants to say, rather than hiding behind ‘sources’ or loopholes (like Diana recording tapes rather than speaking directly to Morton so they could deny he had interviewed or met with her). The Observer editorial linked above may be right that this has become a psychological need for him, a form of catharsis after a lifetime of not being able to speak truth directly. That the way the institution has worked in this regard has fundamentally traumatised him - but he is hardly the first Royal to do so. On Radio 4 yesterday Jonathan Dimbleby was saying that Charles had cooperated with his biography back in the 90s because he felt the need to ‘lance the boil’ of his own bad press coverage. His book came out first, before the Morton book, and he did a TV interview for it! It's hilarious that you keep on posting as if you have inside knowledge that everything Harry and Meghan say is gospel truth. Seriously, I don't have a dog in this fight and think anyone that does needs to take a look at themselves and their life but you're a parody...
|
|
235 posts
|
Post by Jane Parfitt on Jan 8, 2023 14:07:22 GMT
Thank you @lurker for saying so succinctly what I have been thinking for so many pages of this thread! 😂😂😂😂 It’s hilarious that people still think that Charles, William and Kate have stayed out of this, when there has ben a steady drip of stories based on ‘Royal sources’ that can only have come from their press secretaries (ending of course with ‘…. Palace declined to comment’). Some of this stuff had in fact already been briefed to biographers sympathetic to them, in terms flattering to them, naturally - particularly the Robert Lacey book ‘Battle of the Brothers’ www.goodmorningamerica.com/culture/story/princes-william-harry-explosive-argument-meghan-bullying-allegations-78397819Any time you see a Royal Rota journalist write a story from ‘Palace sources’ about the book commenting on how any of them feels, the source will be the Press Secretary. Some examples: www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/01/03/duke-sussex-wrong-claim-king-charles-has-shown-no-willingness/www.thedailybeast.com/prince-andrew-is-part-of-the-royal-family-again-but-not-the-firm-sources-saywww.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11593605/Royals-exhausted-Harry-Meghans-stream-misinformation-sources-say.htmlThere will be more of these over the coming weeks. The only difference is that Harry is speaking directly, and making himself accountable for the things he wants to say, rather than hiding behind ‘sources’ or loopholes (like Diana recording tapes rather than speaking directly to Morton so they could deny he had interviewed or met with her). The Observer editorial linked above may be right that this has become a psychological need for him, a form of catharsis after a lifetime of not being able to speak truth directly. That the way the institution has worked in this regard has fundamentally traumatised him - but he is hardly the first Royal to do so. On Radio 4 yesterday Jonathan Dimbleby was saying that Charles had cooperated with his biography back in the 90s because he felt the need to ‘lance the boil’ of his own bad press coverage. His book came out first, before the Morton book, and he did a TV interview for it! It's hilarious that you keep on posting as if you have inside knowledge that everything Harry and Meghan say is gospel truth. Seriously, I don't have a dog in this fight and think anyone that does needs to take a look at themselves and their life but you're a parody...
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Jan 8, 2023 14:24:53 GMT
At least kathryn posts receipts to back up her point of view instead of making definitive statements on the situation without a single shred of evidence to back up their side of the argument.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 8, 2023 20:52:34 GMT
I am interested in how the press works - I have been since I was a teenager and briefly wanted to be a journalist - and I’ve spent far far too much time over the years delving into it.
I do things like actually read full court judgements to libel and privacy trials, and follow the outcome of complaints to IPSO (and formerly the PCC). I watched the Leveson enquiry avidly.
Those Robbie Williams biographies I mentioned earlier - written by journalist Chris Heath - have large chunks of them devoted to individual instances of the press making up stories wholesale or twisting things out of context to make a sensational headline. I actually think something he says in Feel about why Robbie would agree to a honest biography is very relevant to what is going on with Harry and Meghan:
Harry and Meghan ring true to me because what I see in them is totally consistent with other people who have been through similar experiences with the press.
Of course I cannot know anything for certain; I base my judgments on a pretty good understanding of how the press works, and the type of shenanigans they get up to, and the symbiotic relationship between the press and the Royal institution over decades.
To me, many people in this thread appear to be extraordinarily gullible about the Royal family and how they work with Royal reporters. It seems people are in denial.
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jan 8, 2023 22:15:12 GMT
It's the stuff that comes out of their mouths that has turned most people away from them. People don't even need media to be so completely fed up with them. Whether it's the Oprah interview or this last tranche of publicity seeking public laundry. How can you not laugh or mock or despair at a middle-aged man, who, one minute is traumatised by an argument with his brother - who he knows can't reply/defend himself - and the next brags about his Afghan kill total, like some dullard Rambo. Not even allude to what he did on operations - he bragged by telling the world what a kill machine he is.
To think they had so much goodwill at the time of the wedding.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on Jan 8, 2023 22:17:23 GMT
YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
20 PAGES???
Years ago I did some work with The Princes Trust and was invited to "An executive meeting" where presumably I was meant to be schmoosed and seduced by the chance to get closer to the rotten centre of Britain. What transpired was a presentation telling us how wonderful HRH was, and don't forget he'd had awful parentage with lots of examples of how he'd suffered - all presumably with the seal of approval of himself. What goes round....
They are ALL AWFUL and ghastly bores. Ignoring them is the only way. Please stop writing about them.
Apologies if this has all been said before. but life's to short to worry about past mistakes or read 20 PAGES on this SHOWER..
|
|
1,483 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Jan 8, 2023 22:21:43 GMT
Haven’t really known where to stand on this whole issue.
But Harry’s crusade against the tabloid media is something I’d happily stand behind him and support him on. This country has been totally f*cked by the tabloids for decades.
|
|
914 posts
|
Post by karloscar on Jan 8, 2023 22:29:17 GMT
People are gullible because the propaganda gets shoveled down our throats constantly. The late Queen's death was a moment to pay respects IF you thought that was appropriate, but the weeks and weeks of unrelenting coverage was impossible to escape and totally over the top. Anyone daring to question it was quickly hushed up. Maybe the whole H&M fiasco will make more people question the role of monarchy, but it's quite sad how forelock tuggingly complacent many in this country seem to be.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 8, 2023 22:43:22 GMT
Haven’t really known where to stand on this whole issue. But Harry’s crusade against the tabloid media is something I’d happily stand behind him and support him on. This country has been totally f*cked by the tabloids for decades. The legal cases are where it will get really interesting.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 8, 2023 22:54:31 GMT
. How can you not laugh or mock or despair at a middle-aged man, who, one minute is traumatised by an argument with his brother - who he knows can't reply/defend himself - and the next brags about his Afghan kill total, like some dullard Rambo But neither of those things are true. He has not claimed to be ‘traumatised’ by the argument that he recounted; and nor is the passage about taking accountability for what he did as a soldier in Afghanistan ‘bragging’. To interpret them in that way requires a determination to put the worst possible slant on events, and a total refusal to countenance any interpretation of events that does not condemn him.
|
|