I'm feeling a bit sorry for Harry

[ssd]

I feel like he needs his mum more than ever. To put an arm round him and say "enough son".

He needs guidance, he's never had maternal guidance. Its well documented that Williams life has been really enhanced by Kates parents. Harry has never had that and i feel sorry for him.

Some say brave, or as @Maireas suggested "..... nerve or nuclear strength obliviousness."

Whatever it was, he was there. He turned up.
Such a shame he didn't stay long enough then to be included in the official photos for posterity though.

I couldn't have done it - turned up knowing I have really upset these people. But then I wouldn't have publicly dissed them either.

I'm conflicted in my view of Harry.

Yes it's like the relatives who spend their lives causing trouble and upset yet pitch up at wedding and funerals because they have a 'right'. Of course with Harry's upbringing he was bound to be entitled obviously but he really takes it to another level.

Yes we've heard it a thousand times his dad allegedly wanted him there, but I'm guessing he would have also liked him at the official after do for a a cup of tea too. But noooo that's taking it a step to far for Harold, headlines only thanks none of that pesky make amends crap.

From the article,

• Brooke Shields said she spent hours with Andre Agassi's ghostwriter correcting details in his book.
• "Everything was just off," she told comedian Marc Maron of Agassi's memoir.
• She said she got a typed letter from Agassi afterward saying her suggestions didn't align with his memory.

So, Brooke Shields was consulted. She ‘spent hours’ with the ghostwriter.

Whatever Harry did wrt the coronation would have been wrong in someone's eyes - there was no 'right' course of action.
I think it would have been incredibly difficult to show up there, knowing all eyes are on you, ready for the slightest 'wrong' facial expression, not being part of your own family anymore. Yes, he's brought a lot of that on himself, but nonetheless it can't have been an easy day.
I do think it's brave to show up.

it was a tactic to say ‘she was consulted’
but no changes were made where she provided conflicting opinions.

He was the drug addict, she had the diaries, I know whose memories I would trust must more

Harry’s ghostwriter won a Pulitzer Prize. For ‘Gee’s Bend’. I’ve read that, and I only wish I could write so well.

They’ve also made a movie of his own memoir ‘The Tender Bar’ (as mentioned in the New Yorker article).

He’s a pretty good writer.

it was a tactic to say ‘she was consulted’
but no changes were made where she provided conflicting opinions.

It’s not a tactic, it’s accurate. They don’t have to make changes though, it isn’t her book.

But then the 'consultation' is meaningless and dishonest.

@mixedrecycling

it is, the writers can then say she was ‘consulted’ which implies she agreed with it all.

it’s a dishonest practice in my opinion. They work on the basis that most people won’t bring in the lawyers

I don’t think it’s dishonest at all. It reflects human relationships, they remember their life differently. If there was something libellous then she has enough money to sue.

People are willing to denounce anyone in their efforts to portray Harry as a bad guy. I find that pretty shocking.

Not everyone wants to spend their days in court. Brooke shields is still working as an actress.

I just meant that I take a lot of the revelations in the book with a health pinch of salt as a result.

Some posters on here take them as gospel truths which in light of Brooke’s comments seem rather silly

Some posters on here take them as gospel truths which in light of Brooke’s comments seem rather silly

Which people @Howsimplywonderful i take it as his story and his memories of his own life.

Exactly Whaeanui, people remember life differently. This has long been observed.

'Whatever Harry did wrt the coronation would have been wrong in someone's eyes - there was no 'right' course of action.'

The correct course of action would have been not to have done all the media oversharing in the first place! Of course at some point there was going to be a Coronation to attend and sooner rather than later, his grandmother was 96. He made the whole shitshow bit rich for anyone to say he was 'brave' for showing up. They were perhaps brave to invite him in that case.

He could've left with dignity, yes lash out at the media if he wished but keep the fights and falling into dog bowls private. Keep whatever they think of the Wales' and Camilla private.

I used to take and transcribe people’s oral histories. I take nothing as gospel. I understand that everyone’s memories of a thing will differ. But that doesn’t make their stories invalid.

I think it must be awful for him to see Camilla being crowned and being forced to accept her when she caused so much heartbreak for his mother. I think that is at the root of all his problems. Resentmemt.

Nobody said it did. Brooke has her own memoirs.

I think is more an arranged marriage caused his mother so much heartbreak. If I was H I'd be resentful of Diana's older sisters for knowing how fragile she was and not speaking up, no one said 'absolutely do not consider this she is 19, naive and will not be able to stand the scrutiny and role'. But nope, the Spencers are treated like VIPs yet the rf who couldnt possibly have known what she was really like are the villains.

That’s the whole point, @Whaeanui isn't it? Harry’s book is someone transcribing his memories. That’s all. There’s a HUUUUUGE delta between that and the observable, objective truth. Same applies to every single person. I never bother with biographies or autobiographies. They’re old-school, long form Instagram. Highly curated advertising and/or storytelling with an agenda. (Taking it further, I scrutinize my kids’ history text books also, given how loaded they are). Same goes for this article. Moehringer even says half the job is knowing what NOT to include - think he suspended that for his article?

It’s all highly subjective. Subjective. To do with the subject. Everybody has the right to write about themselves. Only an idiot would read what’s written and consider it anything other than a one-sided story. Sadly, critical thinking seems to be sorely missing in the masses.

I understand that everyone’s memories of a thing will differ. But that doesn’t make their stories invalid.

However valid a story is, whatever that means, it can still be untrue. For example, you might think that Harry's story about hearing about the Queen Mother's death is valid, but that doesn't stop it being a load of old rubbish.

He’s an asshole, through and through. His life has been littered with mistakes, most of which have not been disclosed by the media. He’s not young and foolish anymore and has zero excuses for his utter arrogance and selfishness.

There is not one person I know who thinks otherwise.

Exactly - if you are not willing to make changes then they were not 'consulted' - they were told in advance what was going to be published. 'Consulted' means involved, to some extent, in selecting and presenting the material.

Certainly Agassi can take the line that 'this is my story, so I can say what I like' - but then don't claim to have 'consulted' other people. That's the part that is dishonest. Just say 'I am telling my story the way I see it'.

@Janiie so take away all responsibility from Charles and Camilla for having an ongoing affair and blame the Spencer family. I'm pretty sure most kids wouldn't see it that way.

Diana was fragile but I'm pretty sure she was made more fragile by her husband being obsessed with another woman from day 1 of their marriage and the rest of the royal family looking the other way!