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?

The trouble is that the "handful of inaccuracies" are in relation to facts we can check. How inaccurate is his recollection in relation to events that aren't so easily checked, like his conversations with members of his family?

I do think this can be a problem with extensive therapy when memories are formed to fit a narrative. The queen mother stands out as being skiing would be a significant anchor in a memory. It’s worrying not that he got a few details wrong but that his memory fits his narrative of being abandoned by his father

Exactly - why should we believe his version and memory of anything.

I'm not surprised it's being reported that seniors Royals don't want him near them in case he misremember and misreports any even minor innocuous conversations they might have with him.

I used to have a team leader who'd throw us all under the bus to make himself look better so despite being 2 desks away I'd e-mail so I had a paper trail and record of everything said.

Harry's ghostwriter tweeted this from the Prince Of Wails.

He and everyone else should read the work of Elizabeth Loftus on the science of memory.

Basically, anything you remember that cannot be corroborated in an independent way should be treated in a sceptical manner. That corroboration can come through relatives, newspaper articles, photos and so on. But it has to be independent of the person, in this case Harry himself.

Given this and the lies, misrepresentations and distortions the Sussexes have been caught in, nobody should be taking a word they say at face value.

What you believe about your life is NOT on the same level as objective facts and evidence. Nowhere near.

So is he trying to say 'Don't blame me for this shit show'?

We’re hearing from the ghost writer that it is emotions that are more important. So the section of Harry being left alone for hours, is that emotional or physically because there is a difference and one that puts the other people in a bad light and the reader is unable to know. I can be held accountable for my actions but I cannot always control how someone feels. Feelings cannot be truth alone.

Well of course we often remember things differently, and often exaggerate something to make it more interesting in the telling.

But if a fact can be checked-such as where you were when something happened-best to take a little more care I would say.

Especially if you are wanting to be believed on everything that you say!

Also from the ghostwriter

If there are inaccuracies in the verifiable facts then it does naturally make you sceptical of the rest

Probably reacting to all the why wasn't something so obvious and quick to check - fact checked.

Eye witness accounts of same events are frequently different and and often inaccurate throw in time erosion - and yes memories are an issue - but if you then claim your book is a historical record but has glaring and obvious errors - it means credibility is lost.

Perhaps the ghost writer has real fear of blow back on his reputation.

Perhaps the ghost writer has real fear of blow back on his reputation.

So he should have. His fact checking on this has been beyond sloppy.

I don’t think the ghost writer should fact check, he’s not there to form Harry’s memories. He also had to trust Harry and Harry trust him, that Harry was coming from a place of honesty and that would be broken if he began contradicting his account. It would also influence his writing if on fact checking he began viewing Harry is a negative way.

It’s not his job to check facts. It’s the editor’s.

Do we know who the editor was?

So now it’s not an important historical record of the truth?

It sounds as if the ghostwriter is saying "Yes, he got things wrong, but he admitted his memory might not be correct". So he's essentially covering his own back. It still leaves a massive problem for Harry and all his claims that only his version of the facts can be trusted because everything is being twisted by the press and his family.

What does it matter? Whoever it was is an employee of the publisher who none of us will ever have heard of.

What does it matter? Whoever it was is an employee of the publisher who none of us will ever have heard of.

Well they're clearly a shit editor, so why cover up their role or name?

i think the publishers knew to an extent and why Harry memory problems are addressed in the book.

It’s not “covered up”. It’s not customary to name the team that works on every book. Your view is unimportant, if they’re shit at their job it’s between them and their employer.

It's about as historically truthful as Mel Gibson's Braveheart.....🤷‍♂️

I wonder if Netflix were the one's that bought it to the publishers attention.

No I agree, I was wrong, they haven't covered it up. I guess what I'm saying is why is J. R. Moehringer copping so much flack if an editor is actually to blame for not picking up the errors?

So Harold knows that his truth isn't true but that he tells the truest untruths which are not twisted, as only others twist the truth, by not telling the truth?

Because he’s been paid $1 million and the editor hasn’t, I guess. I don’t blame anyone. Having seen the petulant reaction in the interviews when the journalist has the temerity to even slightly question Harold, it was probably decided that it wasn’t worth raising with him.

I wonder if Tom Bradby regrets hitching his horse to the H&M side and, by all accounts, losing William’s trust in him.