Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
The royal family
Original poster

Kate's 'resentment' : Princess was denied a final goodbye with the Queen

641 replies

RYGO · 17/04/2023 12:53

"Kate's 'resentment' : Princess was denied a final goodbye with the Queen because she had to stay away from Balmoral to ensure Harry's wife couldn't come, royal author claims"

Kate 'resents' not having final moment to say goodbye to Queen | Daily Mail Online

According to book from Robert Jobson. Charles doesn't come of good in this book....

Kate 'resents' not having final moment to say goodbye to Queen

Kate, 41, remained in Windsor to look after her children while the immediate family headed to be at the late monarch's bedside - says Robert Jobson in new book, Our King.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11981061/Kate-resents-not-having-final-moment-say-goodbye-Queen.html

OP posts:
Thread gallery
19
mixedrecycling · 19/04/2023 10:18

choose to believe or not believe

Well, that 'choice' is based on comparing it to other possibilities, surely? Given my experience of people in general for the past 50 years. So, framed by my viewpoint/experience of what is likely and unlikely, which will never entirely coincide with anyone else's viewpoint/experience.

So we have one person's statement, and then imagine other possibilities, and then come to a conclusion about what is most likely.

So, my neighbour's string of cats that die might be because they are a multiple cat murderer. On the other hand, they might take in elderly and unwell cats to provide them with a comfortable life for their last weeks, under the supervision of a responsible vet.

In reality my neighbour has had the same cat for the several years I've lived next door, it seems healthy and terrorises my scaredy-cat of a dog!

But you only have word for it...

mixedrecycling · 19/04/2023 10:27

MrsMaxDeWinter · 19/04/2023 10:14

Your cat murdering neighbour example @mixedrecycling proves the fact that nothing you say can be taken on trust. Anyone can say anything.

I could also say that Charles berated Harry, blew his top, called Meghan "an American bitch who does not know her place".

That would all be speculation, as much as it is speculation for you to say what you did.

The only person who has gone on the record to say what happened is Harry. Until others do the same, all we have is speculation, which, yes, is ultimately a longer word for gossip.

Of course. Charles might have done that. On the other hand he might not.

How many threads on MN don't qualify as gossip? Why are you on MN if not to gossip?

Are you as opposed to gossip about any other members of the RF? I don't remember seeing you push back about anyone else, but I don't read every thread and could easily have missed it.

MrsMaxDeWinter · 19/04/2023 10:28

mixedrecycling · 19/04/2023 10:18

choose to believe or not believe

Well, that 'choice' is based on comparing it to other possibilities, surely? Given my experience of people in general for the past 50 years. So, framed by my viewpoint/experience of what is likely and unlikely, which will never entirely coincide with anyone else's viewpoint/experience.

So we have one person's statement, and then imagine other possibilities, and then come to a conclusion about what is most likely.

So, my neighbour's string of cats that die might be because they are a multiple cat murderer. On the other hand, they might take in elderly and unwell cats to provide them with a comfortable life for their last weeks, under the supervision of a responsible vet.

In reality my neighbour has had the same cat for the several years I've lived next door, it seems healthy and terrorises my scaredy-cat of a dog!

But you only have word for it...

Precisely. I only have your word for it.

In this case, the only word we have is Harry's word.

I will take that over any tabloid gossip, or Mumsnet "speculation".

He is his own source. Works for me.

Whaeanui · 19/04/2023 10:29

So we have one person's statement, and then imagine other possibilities, and then come to a conclusion about what is most likely.

Most likely based on your pure fantasy, largely based on media reports like this. Gossip. As you just said, imagined. You can’t say anything is most likely when you’re entirely making stuff up! If that’s how you lead your life, that’s how you judge others including people you know, that’s very sad and unreasonable. I don’t make conclusions about what goes on in other peoples or their families lives based on stuff I’ve made up. Not since I was young anyway.

mixedrecycling · 19/04/2023 10:29

I've just re-read what I said. I haven't claimed to know what Charles said to Harry. I have said it could have been an explosive ridden rant - details as filled in by @MrsMaxDeWinter - or it could have been something that wasn't disrespectful but that Harry didn't want to hear.

mixedrecycling · 19/04/2023 10:30

MrsMaxDeWinter · 19/04/2023 10:28

Precisely. I only have your word for it.

In this case, the only word we have is Harry's word.

I will take that over any tabloid gossip, or Mumsnet "speculation".

He is his own source. Works for me.

Show quote history

OK, so you believe everything Harry says. That explains it.

I don't believe anyone so uncritically.

mixedrecycling · 19/04/2023 10:32

Do you believe my neighbour is a cat murderer, if I say they are? Or do you think/gossip/speculate that there may be other explanations, even if you haven't been informed of them by a person directly involved?

Whaeanui · 19/04/2023 10:33

I don't believe anyone so uncritically

No, you just invent things and judge him by those fantasies instead.

I haven’t said what absolutely must of happened . I’ve said repeatedly we don’t know. We have what Harry said, which is not really some major drama. They had words in a single phone call. Others have said he had a tantrum, based on what some imagine he said and he stopped people from seeing the Queen before she died. Both those things are imagined. Harry’s words are real. You can not believe them, fine. But the rest is total gossip.

Sudeko · 19/04/2023 10:34

Harry’s words are real.

😂😂😂

MrsMaxDeWinter · 19/04/2023 10:35

Why are you on MN if not to gossip?

Sorry if you missed it but I have repeatedly stated that I am on Mumsnet to push back against the tide of mailing engulfing Meghan and Harry but especially Meghan. I don't spread gossip, speculate or imagine funny scenarios. I challenge and push those who do though, as you were doing, but are now changing the subject to make it about me.

Are you as opposed to gossip about any other members of the RF? I don't remember seeing you push back about anyone else, but I don't read every thread and could easily have missed it.

The only gossip I have commented on that's not about Meghan was on a recent thread about William's affair with Rose Hanbury, to say that it was precisely that, gossip. I have no real interest in the others to be honest. Just interested in the discriminatory treatment between the other royals (especially Kate) and Meghan.

Hope that answers you.

MrsMaxDeWinter · 19/04/2023 10:36

Tide of MALICE, not mailing!!

mixedrecycling · 19/04/2023 10:36

I have not said Harry had a tantrum, or that he delayed the flight. You must be mixing me up with someone else.

I have said none of us know what was said between Harry and Charles, or whether it was disrespectful to Meghan.

mixedrecycling · 19/04/2023 10:44

What malice?

Harry published a book, which contained various claims about what happened between him and his family. He put that in the public domain. As a member of the public my only means of knowing that there was a conversation about whether Meghan did or did not go to Balmoral as QE2 died was from his book.

He said in the book, which he chose to 'write', that Charles had been disrespectful to Meghan in that conversation.

I have said that I don't automatically believe him in that claim. Maybe Charles was disrespectful, and maybe he wasn't but Harry didn't like what Charles was saying. My experience of human nature is that we have all sorts of ways of defending ourselves from unpleasant truths.

On the other hand, maybe Charles was disrespectful. We don't have the info to know.

MrsMaxDeWinter · 19/04/2023 10:55

mixedrecycling · 19/04/2023 10:30

OK, so you believe everything Harry says. That explains it.

I don't believe anyone so uncritically.

Show quote history

Let's see. Do I believe?

A. Harry's own book, in his own words. This is what in historiography would be called a primary source.

A. Tabloid writers who rely on unnamed "sources", "palace insiders" ,"body language experts" etc, who, incidentally, declared in a press panel that Harry and Meghan "can expect no mercy" after they left, and who all write wildly inconsistent versions of the same story. This is what in historiography would be called a secondary source.

B. The speculative posts of Mumsnet posters who read the stories by tabloid writers who rely on unnamed "sources", "palace insiders" ,"body language experts" etc, who, incidentally, declared in a press panel that Harry and Meghan "can expect no mercy" after they left, and who all write wildly inconsistent versions of the same story. This is what in historiography would be called not a flaming chance of being a source for anything meaningful.

Given the choice between A and B, I will believe A until another primary source contradicts him.

LadyMuckingabout · 19/04/2023 10:55

I hope some people on here don’t get called for jury service. Accused: “The razor just flew into my hand!” Defence:”But we have circumstantial evidence!” Poster on jury: “Innocent! He has spoken his truth!”

Viviennemary · 19/04/2023 11:02

If only one person says something happened do we believe it, Take the dog bowl incident. Di mit happen. We don't know. We have only Harry's word for it. William has neither admitted or denied it. Do I believe it. Yes. Maybe a little embellished by Harry but I don't think it's entirely made up. Is it speculation. Yes. Is it gossip. Probably. But we wouldnt know about it if Harry hadn't written the book and it was also discussed on TV.

MrsMaxDeWinter · 19/04/2023 11:03

LadyMuckingabout · 19/04/2023 10:55

I hope some people on here don’t get called for jury service. Accused: “The razor just flew into my hand!” Defence:”But we have circumstantial evidence!” Poster on jury: “Innocent! He has spoken his truth!”

I think you mean:

Accused: “The razor just flew into my hand!”

Defence:”But we have circumstantial evidence!”

Poster on jury: “Innocent! It was Meghan Markle who did it, and if Meghan Markle did not do it, then Meghan Markle made him do it, and if Meghan Markle did not make him do it, then it was somehow Meghan Markle's fault!”

Seriously, it's a good analogy as far as it goes but what you forget is that in a trial the evidence is tested. In this case, the "evidence" is being tested through the speculation of tabloid writers and Mumsnet posters. Until more solid evidence is brought forward to test Harry's "testimony", I will believe Harry.

Case closed!

mixedrecycling · 19/04/2023 11:10

Well, fair enough. I think there is sufficient incentive for Harry to be selective with the facts he chooses to present to not fully believe him.

As a history graduate I have written endless essays about the value of primary sources and the dangers of taking them as gospel😂

custardbear · 19/04/2023 11:11

Sudeko · 18/04/2023 19:37

[during the Queen's life]
"Let's collaborate!"
"Keep her away"

[during the Queen's death]
"Lets collaborate!"
"Keep her away" 😂😂😂

I thought MM had refused invites to visit the Queen ... then suddenly wants to arrive at her deathbed. The only person they needs supporting in this instance is the queen

MrsMaxDeWinter · 19/04/2023 11:15

mixedrecycling · 19/04/2023 11:10

Well, fair enough. I think there is sufficient incentive for Harry to be selective with the facts he chooses to present to not fully believe him.

As a history graduate I have written endless essays about the value of primary sources and the dangers of taking them as gospel😂

Primary sources are of course problematic in as far as they can be subjective etc. You are right there.

But my understanding is that you disprove a primary source with another primary source, or with extremely reliable secondary and other sources. Nothing convinces me that whatever subjectivity may be in Harry's account can be countered by speculation from Mumsnet posters based on tabloid reports, whether or not said posters live next door to alleged cat murderers.

mixedrecycling · 19/04/2023 11:16

mixedrecycling · 19/04/2023 11:10

Well, fair enough. I think there is sufficient incentive for Harry to be selective with the facts he chooses to present to not fully believe him.

As a history graduate I have written endless essays about the value of primary sources and the dangers of taking them as gospel😂

Thousands of words, and hours of my life I won't get back!

WHY did the writer choose to write this? Who was their intended audience? What were they trying to achieve? How did this account survive and others didn't? What does that mean for the validity of what was written? What perspectives might have been left out?

All speculation gossip. Or, as we historians say, analysing the sources 😂

mixedrecycling · 19/04/2023 11:19

MrsMaxDeWinter · 19/04/2023 11:15

Primary sources are of course problematic in as far as they can be subjective etc. You are right there.

But my understanding is that you disprove a primary source with another primary source, or with extremely reliable secondary and other sources. Nothing convinces me that whatever subjectivity may be in Harry's account can be countered by speculation from Mumsnet posters based on tabloid reports, whether or not said posters live next door to alleged cat murderers.

Show quote history

It's not as straightforward as prove/disprove.

You come to a conclusion of 'this is of value in illustrating XYZ, but with the proviso that this is the point of view that does not take into account ABC'.

No source is 'proved' or 'disproved'.

Harry's account is of value as a historical record, subject to understanding the context in which it was produced, and the varying motives for producing it.

mixedrecycling · 19/04/2023 11:22

Well, sources can be 'disproved' as not being what they claim/appear to be. But then they are evidence in a different way. Why did someone produce them? For what audience? Why at that time, not before or after? etc

MrsMaxDeWinter · 19/04/2023 11:23

I am using proved and disproved because that's the subject here.

You are using your OWN speculation to prove that Harry, the primary source, is wrong.

You want us not to believe this primary source, and instead, believe the speculation you are throwing out there.

And I am saying it will take a lot more than that for me not to believe Harry, or to disprove him.

custardbear · 19/04/2023 11:26

Whaeanui · 18/04/2023 21:03

Harry wrote in Spare about the argument. That’s how we know about it. And, I reiterate, trying to force your company upon people

You have no idea if this happened at all. Who said she forced herself on anyone? Why would you jump to this conclusion? He didn’t say that In his book, his father immediately disrespected his wife and he didn’t tolerate it. Accepted the decision for not too many people and that was it.

I just can’t fathom this blind support for H&M. No one, no one is that perfect.

It isn’t ‘blind support’ to not believe what the tabloids and media print. It isn’t blind support not to follow the consensus here and incessantly criticise Meghan for imagined wrongs. Nobody has to be perfect in order for me to not want to join in on gossip and nasty and endless criticism. Nobody is perfect. We don’t need to be.

Imagined wrongs ... good grief!

How about all the lies spilled on telly? Trying to blow apart the RF, the Queens family, and her institution, airing dirty washing on telly. Then ...THEN having the cheek to say 'oh it's not about the Queen and Philip' ... sucking up like school kids after blasting them and all they've worked for on telly across the world