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?

And Harry seems to have zero venom for USA as well as Australian media racism towards his wife.

In the Oprah interview, these were passed off as being UK articles when they weren't. ITV removed several of them from the UK broadcast. The American broadcast, however, kept this misrepresentation in.

Surely Harry should be pissed at non-British racism too?! He only ever talks about the UK ones....🤷‍♂️

Goodness me, X Box, Air New Zealand, TK Max, Elizabeth Arden, one might think Harold was touting for future sponsorship deals! Also just discovered this little nugget

fashion.telegraph.co.uk/beauty/news-features/TMG10491141/Prince-Harry-takes-Elizabeth-Ardens-Eight-Hour-Cream-on-his-South-Pole-expedition.html

Joking aside, getting it so wrong on where you were when you receive news that your beloved Great Grandma passed is a whopper. I can only assume Harold preferred the narrative of lonely, neglected boy at boarding school receives the news via telephone by faceless courtier over recieving news by heartbroken and caring Pa, in a swanky hotel suite, in one of the most prestigious ski resorts in the World.

The inaccuracies are coming in thick and fast and there will be more to come, this book needs to be read with a massive dose of salt!

Exactly, the Oprah interview had at least one headline from the US supermarket type mags, the other Australian but everything is attributed to the red tops and the little oiks that consume such media.

As relatable as politicians telling us how their favourite football team is Birmingham United.

I thought that too.

I doubt he managed to go from rack to rack pulling out what he liked and trying it up to him, then paying and leaving all in 15 mins.

Amusingly, Air New Zealand have recently tweeted:

Introducing #SussexClass. Apparently coming soon 👀

Imagine being an airline steward in #SussexClass 😱

You’d have to go down on your knees and thank every passenger for their service. 😂

@Blossomtoes 🤣🤣

I would like to bet that the vast majority of it is absolute nonsense made up between him and his ghostwriter

Most likely. I imagine some of it has grains of truth but this parts probably don't make for good stories or interesting anecdotes so he's vastly elaborated or made bits up to suit his narrative.

The thing I find most frustrating is those defending his lies and let's be honest they are lies, not mis truths or his truths etc would be the first in line slating any other royal if they had released such a work of fiction and claimed it was fact.

The problem is when they hurt of the people. Like in the James Herriot stories there is an awful lot of fiction but there is no harm done as there is nobody hurt. Alf Wight obviously romanced a lot of his stories but they are done with affection and humour and no harm done. But this biography is downright harmful and aimed at his own family. So if you are going to say things you have to get them exactly right else keep your mouth shut.

To me the man is made himself a laughingstock among anyone who is intelligent

The Mail has compiled a (long) list of inconsistencies

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11633705/Talk-recollections-vary-Harry-Meghans-truth-doesnt-match-elses.html

Wow that list of inaccuracies / lies is amazing

For all his going on about press intrusion, he does seem to have forgotten that the press has documented his whole life as it’s happened. Photos at events and on holiday and days out with both parents, together or separately. Tales of his antics as he’s grown up. It’s all archived somewhere, everything can be verified or dismissed.

What about the claim in his interview: “The distorted narrative is that we wanted to leave to go and, you know, make money. We were dedicated to a life of service, as is proven by everything that we’re doing now with the work that we do.”
No Harry, all your recent behaviour has proved is your lack of commitment to a life of service to anyone other than yourself and that commitment is to make money even if it means destroying your family and everyone else.

'Work they do' ?

What work. Plus they didn't want to be royals because most of the work isn't glamorous

Hmm. I actually think the Daily Mail have gone a bit far there. If they'd concentrated on the whoppers fair enough, but not everything in that long list stacks up in the way its presented. Which of course, is Harry's argument.

Take the claim that the Queen didn't attend Charles & Camilla's wedding. The Mail are claiming Harry was incorrect as HM attended the blessing at Windsor & the reception. Except that she didn't attend the registry office wedding.

If the legal marriage ceremony is important when discussing Harry's wedding, surely the same applies to C & C?

I think the way Harry has described others is awful. In mumsnet parlance, he has shown us who he is - a tetchy, not very bright guy who is used to the world being the way he wants it and who has no time for people he considers to be inferior to him, which is most of the planet it seems.

But I'm starting to see that his version of truth really does matter to him. I'd be interested to know what mental health professionals make of it. I don't think he has purposely lied, he just doesn't have a reliable memory which combined with a huge chip on his shoulder has contributed to his inaccurate version of events.

Incidentally I don't read his version of killing the taliban as boasting. It was an incredibly silly thing to include, but I have met many people who don't realise the impact of their actions & words on others - again one for MH professionals.

Even though the consequences will be worse for him - though not considered - I can find it possible that for Harry, telling his story was more important than the money.

Which brings me to Meghan. She seems to be driven and I suspect her truth is more creative than Harry's. I also suspect that Harry lacks imagination. Although H is far from accurate, truth as he sees it obviously matters and this may explain his facial expressions at some of M's more fantastical claims.

This is all just musing, but the TLDR question for me is whether Harry purposefully lied and Im not so sure that he did.

Hmm. I actually think the Daily Mail have gone a bit far there.

Take the claim that the Queen didn't attend Charles & Camilla's wedding. The Mail are claiming Harry was incorrect as HM attended the blessing at Windsor & the reception. Except that she didn't attend the registry office wedding.

But if you just say the queen didnt attend their wedding, it makes it sound like the Queen didn't approve, didn't give her blessing and didn't show up on the day. Which would give a completely wrong impression over the Queens involvement on the day. Instead it's clear by her going to the church blessing and hosting the reception that she was giving her approval of the marriage.

This is all just musing, but the TLDR question for me is whether Harry purposefully lied and Im not so sure that he did.

I think Harry has said he doesn't have a great memory and both he and Moehringer have said that impressions or beliefs of what have happened, hold the same importance as what actually did happen.

And that's all fine if you're just writing about yourself but when you accredit actions and words to others which are as a result of your unreliable memory, then it becomes unacceptable, regardless of whether you know its a lie or not.

The oft quoted "The Moons a Balloon" by David Niven was clearly exaggerated and packed with over-egged situations about famous and non-famous people. But Niven never portrayed anyone else as being stupid or mean, instead he always put himself in the position of being laughed at. The opposite of Harry, who is the only person who does no wrong, including his adored wife.

Agree Marsha - he shouldn't have published / allowed to be published anecdotes about other people without considering the consequences for them. I'm not defending him for this.

I suppose what I am coming to though is that through the eyes of a damaged / unwell individual his truth probably does make sense - to him. Other people with similar Mental Health conditions don't have the opportunity to spout to a worldwide audience.

Harry also may not have the ability to consider other people.

Times correspondent Valentine Low on Harry's claim that Meghan received no newspaper coverage on her case against the Daily Mail, and that she received negative newspaper coverage on her post honeymoon day trip with The Queen. He's gone back and looked at the coverage and concluded these claims are not accurate:

So, is this a thing now? You can recount events in any way you like, with little regard to the actual facts of the matter and that's OK because it's how you felt?

And people are swallowing this shit?

It would seem so...

The class element came to mind for me when I read this section of his book, about a female journalist who went on TV to discuss Harry & Meghan leaving Britain as:

One of this lot, who’d written a book about me and thus provably depended on me to pay her rent

He really does come across as incredibly self-important and snobby through the whole book.