Inconsistencies in Spare over hearing about Queen Mother's death

[Ridemeginger]

Harry writes that he found out about the Queen Mother's passing away (in March 2002):

"At Eton, while studying, I took the call. I wish I could remember whose voice was on the other end. A courtiers I believe. I recall that is was just before Easter, the weather bright and warm, light slanting through my window, filled with vivid colours. "Your Royal Highness. The Queen Mother has died." "

News reports at the time reported he was skiing in Switzerland with Charles and William. The Queen Mother died on 30 March 2002. Easter Saturday. He wouldn't have been at school.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/622457.stm

Recollections may vary, indeed! I doubt very much Harry would have taken the call if he's been with his father.

Didn't the editors do any fact checking?

I don't think you understand if you are contending that your personal experience is universal to all people hearing about all deaths. Unless your great grandmother and your great aunt acted as in loco parentis, their deaths are never going to hit you the same as the deaths of your parents.

I wasn't going to dignify your ignorant drivel with a response but I will. I can recall pretty much every detail of being told - aged 13 - that my father had died, even to what my mother was wearing, and being comforted by a nurse at the hospital while she and my GM did the paperwork, despite the fact that it's over 50years ago. Ditto the day my much loved grandfather died.

But no, I don't understand death.

Show your evidence that he is confused about the two deaths. You are always asking for evidence on these threads. Let's see yours.

That's to BradfordGirl, BTW

@Patineur Harry's mother died when he was 12 years old, five years before. A second bereavement often brings up earlier grief from a significant bereavement. Very common.

I think they'll survive fine, they have after all survived worse. It's Harry who has shot his own reputation to pieces.

But that’s not the issue.
The issue is that if something so easily demonstrably incorrect has been presented as fact, surely that means either : there has been no fact checking whatsoever by anyone with oversight of this publication, and therefore it would be completely understandable to them not believe anything else in it.
Or he has mixed this up in his mind but then, as above, how can we trust anything he says in the book?
Sorry for your loss btw

@MrsDanversGlidesAgain I apologise.

I don't think many people pose for press photos at a ski resort when a death is announced or attend publicly documented funerals. I imagine that might jog your memory a little bit when remembering which death was which.

Also if it were a minor detail, why include it in the book?

What's batshit crazy about writing about a proven untruth in his book?

Thank you.

I'm just glad we will be spared extracts from @BradfordGirl's book

I suppose that where it all started. The fish biro led to a life time of disappointment.

Actually, maybe that led to the obsession with writing about one's todger, come to think of it. Phallic objects and all that.

And now we hold the book in our hands and marvel.

Yes quite. Anything is excusable. I'm surprised at the utter lack of fact checking by the editors though. Very unprofessional.

😂

How much do you imagine Harry was grieving for his great aunt? I doubt he grieve that much for the QM either, he's unlikely to have known her that well.

Well, not knowing him personally, I'll wait until I've finished reading the book to make any judgement. You clearly read a lot faster than I do. My comment was merely one that questioned why it was so difficult to imagine this could have happened. I guess, maybe, I'm more generous with giving the benefit of the doubt than some.

Both of my parents, two grandparents, and an aunt died between 1999 and 2001. I don't have a problem remembering things about their deaths and the surrounding incidents. Maybe you do, but that's not universal.

I’d love to see a book that corrects all the mistruths and misremembered events - I’d buy that

In a family with a well-established tradition of giving each other silly, cheap presents, no it isn't.

I do find the tone of the reaction to all the Prince Harry stuff very odd. I mean, who'd have thought the average Mumsnet member could be THAT interested in the Royal Family, either for or against? Or anyone really. Plenty of folk have observed how odd and eccentric the Royals are, it's been tabloid fodder for decades. What suddenly makes all these claims so different?

You could argue Diana's book threw up the same kind of stuff.

It's like a hysterical party political 'debate' with all the Brexit, Covid, face mask implications tied in, combined with a soap opera. With numerous threads going on for pages and pages.

What's strange to me is there seems to be nothing here at stake for anyone. If you think he's going to undermine the Royal Family, well, is that really so terrible? Is anyone THAT much of a fan? Perhaps they are. Even if Harry is a demented weirdo who bends the truth I'm still not quite sure why anyone is personally aggrieved, is it on their own behalf or that of the royals? @JemimaTiggywinkles

He’s such an embarrassment.

someone needs to buy him a large notebook for his birthday so he can start writing down all the lies he tells. He can then refer back before each new interview, book, tv show, whatever to ensure he doesn’t keep showing himself up.

I want to read the 40 pages the lawyers removed

Again, as I've said, not knowing him personally. And, not having read more than a few chapters of the book, I'm not really able to comment on that

Millions of people all over the world will read comments either they read the book, or a piece in the papers, or on a forum,
Lots of us will fact check events because it is so easy.
The more H&M spill forth their truth, the more chance they get i t worng and are proven as telling untruths.
Why are they this stupid.
By saying nothing the Royal Family give H&M no feed back to fight against.
it is such a one trick pony show.