Why are interviewers not calling Harry out on his "version" of events?

[Kateforqueen]

The interviewers are very soft on him. Is he hand picking who interviews him & are they getting a list of off limit questions. Eg the Queen mother story

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11620265/Pictures-place-Prince-Harry-Switzerland-Queen-Mother-died-NOT-Eton-recalls.html

Why isn't he challenged?

Memoirs seem to be prone to a blurring of fact and fiction. Some have been called out as entirely fake, while others have taken great liberty with the truth or been embellished to create an entertaining book to read.

A memoir is not an autobiography. An autobiography is factual and accurate account of events in someone's life. A memoir is a non chronological, can focus only on certain events (and leave out other events and perspectives) and is based on emotional recollections of experiences and is told as a narrative (story).

I noticed the ghost writer has been posting a lot about how this is a memoir and a story as told by Harry and not an autobiography of his life.

Because 99% of interviews is about telling people what they already know, speaking of Harry or any celebrity what was the last interview you saw where you learnt something not actually already known?

Actually he says his memory is patchy after his mother died - that he has incomplete recall and that things he remembers are disproved sometimes. He’s pretty clear on that in the book itself. He doesn’t really talk about his early childhood in order to say or not say anything - he says his memories of his mother are unclear. I suspect this is grief, and also a protection strategy. He can’t write about her. The book begins when he is 12 and Diana dies - it’s all about his grief and the difficulties this caused him. Including a selective memory.

Or a form of PTSD? Complicated grief? Whether you like him or not, approve of his life and decisions or not, he’s had some uniquely traumatic things to deal with or bear.

How would he do this in a memoir of his life? I am genuinely curious how anyone thinks that might be achieved.

'Objective Facts' otherwise known as 'Arse Covering.

In every interview he has done this week he has made sure to lay the groundwork be it 'Objective Facts' 'Unconscious Bias' 'Dodgy memory' 'Media Spin' or just the very flaky 'People' leaking 'Things' that he can then pull out to absolve himself of any accusation of wrong doing that he may be challenged on now or in the future (we already saw it with Tom Brady who came the closest to challenging him on the 'Racism' and he was very prickly at points during that).

His lack of awareness at the complete 'off the chart' irony of his words is quite astounding. I can't believe that the US market buys into this, but it may go some way with regard to suggestion of cultural differences with MM.

My point being that Queen mother could have died any other day but that. I suspect the announcement of the actual date of her death had to be PR'd somehow.

Charles did a photoshoot with the boys that day as an airtight alibi that he was a loving father doing his fatherly duties.

The statement even goes further to say 'the queen wanted this news out immediately'.

As much as people think H has been scathing, I suspect he went light on the family. There are more sinister things there. Including ofcourse Andrew and how much has been covered up for him - now if they cut him off, he would no doubt show us how rotten the rest of his family is. They were fine with mistreating H because they figured he was too young to understand everything and thought they fooled him and brainwashed him enough for him not to realise what was going on.

I wish someone would ask him about the inconsistencies, but I suppose he would just refuse to be interviewed by anyone likely to ask difficult questions. I'm concerned about the birth story; the baby had crowned, the head was out but ...oh no, not tangled up, please no (umbilical cord around neck? It's not clear)... she might need an emergency c section. Ay? How? (I've had to lean forward and cross my legs thinking about that, does he think you can pull a baby back up?) And two epidurals at the end of labour, but home within 2 hours of the birth - and home is over an hour's drive away.

I wish he was asked about this, because some people actually believe him. Yet none of it makes sense.

He said his memory is patchy since his mother died, and his truth differs from factual truth, but it’s his truth he is telling Ie what he believes, which might not be the actual factual truth

It’s my truth that last night you assaulted me at the Black Horse Pub on the Old Kent Road, and in that you’ve assaulted me on multiple previous occasions over the past ten years. I’m contemplating going to the police or at least sharing my truth on social media in the meantime, with your photo. Sound ok?

My point being that Queen mother could have died any other day but that. I suspect the announcement of the actual date of her death had to be PR'd somehow

Errm…. Why?

He’s saying it now, someone even linked it. He is saying it in regard to the errors

People with patchy memories should maybe not write books that can have negative impact on other people! And perhaps some questions should be asked of the publishers? Basic fact checks at least!

Massive "alternative facts" vibe here.

Huge.

I think the people that feel they are negatively affected by Harry’s book can write their own books. Any day of the week. I wish they would. I’d read them.

Alas, they choose not too.e

*not to.

People with patchy memories are entitled to write books, and then deal with the consequences. That’s all that will happen here.

I suspect the publishers might have pressed on various points (seems highly unlikely to me they wouldn’t) and potentially got the ‘this is my truth’ line back from him. And at the end of the day it’s his book, it’ll sell in bucketloads even if some facts are incorrect, so they won’t have done more than advise he should change and then say ‘up to you’ if he insisted on keeping something. The author is the final arbiter of what’s in their book, and if it’s not going to cause the publisher a legal problem then they’re happy to let things stand.

Sometimes when I hear my grown child recollect specific memories, there are what I know to be factual errors (of no consequence or personal significance to me, so I have no vested interest in disagreeing with their recollection, which I haven't bothered doing because it doesn't matter). I'm not sure if this is just because memory can be unreliable or the recollections have blurred with other events or because of their age at the time of the event. So I can totally understand how there can be muddling or mistakes without it being done deliberately.

Haha! Me too. As I suspect others would.

It’s a fascinating book, and a fascinating cultural moment.

But he's also saying that it's the actual truth, and that we should believe him on everything else. The question that needs to be put to him is: how can we?

For one, the interviewers aren't doing so out of the goodness of their hearts - they want to make money. The promise of Harry's information - true or false - is what's bringing the money. Unless their interviewing shtick is being confrontational to get to the truth, they're simply there to entertain and make money.

Secondly, most celebrities vet their interviewers and questions are usually approved. Go rogue and the person is out (and you may face legal repercussions).

I reckon he’ll never be interviewed properly because he wouldn’t agree to it.

Even journalist Anderson Cooper was assisting him and allowing vague statement after vague statement, the questions clearly having been approved in advance.

This means that believing his many ‘narratives’ becomes an act of faith; and my cup runneth dry.

Where’s he saying everyone has to believe him?

Fuxake, are you seriously saying you will always believe Harry unless there is a video showing something different? You do know that there are indeed videos showing Harry in Switzerland at the relevant time, and that Eton was closed, don't you? How can his version possibly be correct?

Presumably he would agree then that there's just as much truth in other people's memory of events, like the staff who remember being bullied or the Kennedy Foundation remembering them tackling structural racism in the royal family?

I will believe Harry over any carefully curated Royal spin. Where is the video of Harry receiving this call in a chalet?

Hm yes, well there is photographic evidence of him being in Switzerland the day before she died and photographic evidence of him flying home just after. So you are suggesting that he went on holiday, came home to study at Eton on Easter Saturday when the school was closed, took the call about the QM death, flew back to Switzerland and then flew home again with his father and brother?

This is not royal spin - readers of the book have noticed that his "truth" does not tally with what happened.

My point being that Queen mother could have died any other day but that.

How does this one work? So the QM died during term time, Harry found out via a phone call, then they went on holiday, then the news of her death was announced and they came home early? Can you see how ridiculous your suggestions are? Everyone is laughing at you.