Bookclub for Spare

[BornBlonde]

I know there are loads of threads, but thought it may be useful to set up a bookclub thread ahead of the release date fir those interested. I've ordered the audiobook as struggling to find time to read at the moment but love I can listen to an Audiobook while cooking etc

A telling incident which was reported at the time was that her private meeting with William was leaked.

If you're saying it was deliberately fed to the press for some nefarious reason, that is not true. One of Camilla's staff told someone who told someone and it ended up in the papers. The staff member resigned over it.

Your example of the leak of meeting William is an example of the mire and my frustration. There seems to be totally objective evidence of where that leak came from and the resulting resignation. Which undermines the validity of every example he references.

Yes, at the time, Camilla's aide took the flak for a leak that benefitted Camilla. Have you really not heard the phrase "plausible deniability" before? I dontthink anyone is suggesting that Camilla called up the papers. Of course it was done by one of her aides. Mark Bollard, their main fixer, he submitted this in a court document:

The Prince viewed the media as a useful vehicle for getting across to the wider public his views on issues that were important to him. He used the media in two ways: he would directly deal with the media, mainly by writing articles, but also, for example (though this was before my time with the Prince, but is a matter of public record) by co-operating with Jonathan Dimbleby in his authorised biography of the Prince, by participating in the 1994 documentary (again before my time) in which he admitted adultery during the term of his marriage; or by "briefing" the media by authorising friends and employees such as myself to make the Prince's views known.

Briefing, or leaking, is part of the job description of these aides. Camilla's aide was caught out, and resigned, because the story became embarssing to Camilla. But the objective was met: the public got to know about the meeting.

www.theguardian.com/media/2006/feb/22/pressandpublishing.politicsandthemedia

I was only imagining the replies I would get. That's all, I was right!

Book sales do mean something... they are bought by those that either love to hate them, love them, or are just plain nosy!

Any old way, the book is popular

@MrsMaxDeWinter Very interesting from Andrew Marr, I'm glad he acknowledges the media in all of this. A very measured narrative from him.

@fruitstick
He makes valid points about the way newspapers operate. Obviously newspapers will do everything they can to discredit him

This from you, is so true.

Background to the witness statement here. The Palace tried to keep it out of the papers at the time.

As for the media, Mr Bolland said the prince would sometimes authorise friends or employees to "brief" on his behalf. He pointed to an incident in October 1999, when the prince did not attend a banquet at the Chinese embassy held to mark a state visit by the then Chinese president, Jiang Zemin.

"He did this as a deliberate snub to the Chinese because he did not approve of the Chinese regime and is a great supporter of the Dalai Lama, whom he views as being oppressed by the Chinese," Mr Bolland said.

He said he was given "a direct and personal instruction" to draw the media's attention to the prince's "boycott". He said he had briefed the Telegraph to run a story "as the prince wanted" and added that Charles was "delighted" by media coverage of the incident.

www.theguardian.com/media/2006/feb/21/pressandpublishing.themonarchy

I was watching Sky papers review and Kevin Maguire was on there, as anti monarchist as they come, and he acknowledged that it wasn't a Camilla leak. I think he knew James McManus. Said it was something to do with him playing tennis with other journalists.
To me, if Kevin Maguires thinks there's nothing to it, I'd think that's the case. He would say if he disagreed with that.

Any old way, the book is popular So was the Tiger King documentary

Did any of you know that Prince Charles as he was then sued the Mail on Sunday for publishing his private diaries? He won the case. Makes me wonder why he was not more supportive of Meghan's suit. Same defendant, same issue, publication of private material.

www.theguardian.com/media/2006/dec/21/mailonsunday.pressandpublishing

Why do you think he wasnt supportive?

Why is everyone judged according to how much they supported Meghan? Why aren’t we asking why Meghan wasn’t more supportive of Charles as his father lay dying in hospital? Why weren’t Harry and Meghan supportive of Charles as he lost both parents? Why did Harry think it was a good idea to harass and harangue his own dad after he’d buried prince Philip?

And why did Meghan collude with knauf when drafting the letter to her dad? In anticipation that it would be leaked, and why did she leak the contents of the letter to her mates for them to leak to people? Why did she allow them to skew the contents of the letter (making out it was an attempt at reconciliation, but then admitting in court that actually wasn’t the purpose of the letter) so that her dad then felt compelled to take the bait, answer back and show other parts of the letter to prove her and friends were deliberately misrepresenting the truth. Funnily enough, the well connected rich celebrity won that trial, the much maligned everyday poor person, Thomas markle, without connections money and a decent lawyer, lost. Says it all, what an unfair society we live in. Money talks.

Wasn’t the same issue. Charles wasn’t leaking parts of his own diary to other publications nor was he using his private diaries to bait his elderly dad in the media.

derxa · Today 13:34
‘Any old way, the book is popular So was the Tiger King documentary’

😂

Harry writes that with respect to the lawsuit, Charles said, you can't win against the press darling boy, or words to that effect. Seems a bit strange when he won a similar case against the same defendant. Also seems odd that Jason Knauf would do exactly the same thing to Meghan that Mark Bolland did to Charles in that case, namely, submit an affidavit supporting the defendant. Difference is, MB had been dismissed, but JK worked for William, Harry and Meghan.
It's all very nest of vipers.

I thought he said that in Harry's general complaint how the press treated him and Meghan. What's the quote about the actual court case?

JK knew MM had lied. He gave evidence to the court to correct that.
If someone in a court case said they could not have committed a crime because they were at your house and you knew that wasn't true, would you let the lie stand, or would you inform the court of the truth. One would hope the latter. That's what JK did.

I bought the Audible version. I thought Harry read well.

Other thoughts:

Harry told Meghan to curtsy to Charles but didn’t think it was necessary for her to curtesy to Camilla. I assume that protocol says that Meghan should also curtsy to Camilla? I wondered if this offended Camilla?

Harry made no reference to having difficulty getting help for Meghan when she was suicidal. I thought it was to make no reference to that.

The Christmas decoration and the medium, the Goddess of the hunt painting and Archie, WTF?

Every time he said, “There was such love in that room”, or similar, I cringed. Their belief in their specialness is cloying.

Inconsistencies that have already been pointed out do make me question the veracity of anything he says.

He needs to get off the weed.

One more point, Kate made Meghan cry?

Is it not more likely that the stress of planning a Royal wedding and the problems Meghan was having with her father, and everything else that might have happened in the run up to the wedding, were overwhelming and the bridesmaid dresses issue was the final straw?

Why does no one say that her father made her cry? Or Givenchy?

@EagerReader re: Goddess of the Hunt:

‘Meg introduced him to EVERYTHING , ‘look at this statue’, ‘look at this fountain!’ ‘Look at these humming birds in the garden!’.

He found a random painting ‘especially interesting’ ‘he locked on to it every day’.

’We asked ourselves, WHY?’

Then, Archie duly takes his first steps & makes a beeline for his favourite scene from Ancient Rome…He STARES again & made ‘a gurgle of recognition’ Meg learns in for the FIRST time & notices, ‘Diana, Goddess of the Hunt’!

Tyler can’t BELIEVE this, ‘ it gives me chills’.

’Us too’ say H&M…

This rather descends into parody ? It feels, unfortunately, like an episode of the Windsors…

I noticed this too :).

@EagerReader re. Kate made Meghan cry…

Meg wasn’t reading press at time but ‘heard’ about it:

‘As LONG as I LIVE I will NEVER forget the tone of her voice!’…’

‘Haz, I made her cry? I made HER cry’?

Meg wanted the mistake to be corrected in the papers, the perceived injustice rankled & wanted a summit. ‘Why haven’t you demanded a retraction’ ? Why hasn’t (your office) phoned this woman? Why isn’t your office standing up for me?

Haz is devastated by how upset & wronged M is, he will remember this as long as he lives!

& then we move to ‘avocado toast’ - avocados, ‘bad’ ,in Meghan press, avocados ‘good’ for Kate (dewy skin)this is an orchestrated campaign against M! Says, H!

Look, I get it’s annoying, but meanwhile back in the real world where normal folk have first world problems…

NB: H really believes M is a paragon of virtue & always beyond reproach.

I’ve read parts 1&2.

My takeaway is he’s coming across as very spoilt but also damaged.

Charles is obviously a very caring father.

I don’t like that he doesn’t care about anyone else’s privacy but hellbent on his own.

Just read when he was staying at Courtney Cox home. He has no regard for other people’s feelings but his own.

He’s like a child dredging up every past hurt & amplifying it a 100fold. Be grateful for what you have & your opportunities.

Normal Harry would never have ever got in spitting distance of Courtney’s home!

It’s behind a pay wall.

re: Courtney Cox, it all sounds 15 year old boy-ish, puerile. I can’t imagine she’s thrilled by his recount…

Very good points. Also , why is Harry never considerate of Williams feelings or needs? Or those of his sister in law? Why did he not think it basic courtesy to meet his future father in law before his marriage? He is totally and utterly focused on himself.
Never considers the impact of his behaviour and words on others. No shred of compassion for his father losing both parents within 18 months.

Thats a brilliant review. Bed I have read yet.

Best!

@MonsoonMadness the problem is that Kate wronged his wife. (As he sees it). She made Meghan cry & ‘as long as he lives’ he’ll remember M’s tone as she recounted this. Why no retraction, etc?

This level of worship can’t be healthy. Why should Kate get all the positive press & M, demonised? thinks H.

Head’s Together- they all seemed to be doing good stuff & getting along well?