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

[RYGO]

"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....

No, I'm not attempting to 'prove' anything.

I recognise the source of the information - Harry's book - has been written at a specific time for a specific purpose. In coming to a conclusion about it's objectivity (as much as any account is objective) I analyse it as a source. And I have come to the conclusion that Harry's assessment of Charles's comments as 'disrespectful' has a huge margin of bias.

I have said a number of times none of us know what was said between Charles and Harry, and could be anything from an offensive rant to something that Harry objected to because it was painful to hear and he therefore deflected it by seeing it as disrespectful.

Harry's book is an interesting source of information, but all sources of information are selective and partial.

*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.*

I can’t believe we are still going round in circles! This right here. There is only one source. Believe or not believe it. But anything else is speculation/gossip/fantasy.

Yes, one source.

That doesn't mean that source should be accepted as 100% objectively true.

At last - somebody who knows what they are talking about when it comes to the validity of sources.

Whaeanui
Some good posts from you today! Like your common sense, fairness and decency and push back 😎

Earlier I responded to a comment from another user, this one:
*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 (rightly or wrongly) deeply offended - including the dying person - is not just thick skinned but self-aggrandising.

This is ridiculous now. I just can’t fathom this blind support for H&M. No one, no one is that perfect. The juvenile language about “hate” etc is like something you’d expect from rabid Taylor Swift fans.*

I responded to it and that response of mine @mixedrecycling is where you entered the conversation to over analyse it and miss the point. I was never putting forth that Harry’s words are the absolute truth. I was pushing back against the above narrative that 1 they were forcing Meghan on anyone- that’s speculation and 2- he was the first one to talk about it, he wasn’t, tabloids were.

Nobody said that. You’ve deflected from what I was responding to from someone else and created an assertion I didn’t make.

@Whaeanui is an example to us all.

Meticulous, patiently relentless!

Am planning to check out the other thread on the Press, hope it's still there.

When it comes down to it, it is whether you think we should think critically (i.e. try to analyse, not to be constantly negative) about the information we consume.

Should we take what Trump says as 100% reliable? Or Sunak, or Starmer?

Or should we consider why they might have said what they said? Are they making sweeping statements designed to have emotional impact? Are they giving detailed factual information that can be fact checked? Are they being black and white, or are they responding to nuance? What are they hoping will happen next? How does what they say relate to what they hope will happen next?

All speculation gossip. but all essential to reaching a considered point of view.

It really isn't 'there's only one primary source so we must accept it'.

Even if there is only one primary source we can - should - ask questions

Not trusting the primary source could also be a rationalisation for posting disparaging, devalueing and unkind opinions about Harry and Meghan.

And your rationale for saying they are 'disparaging, devaluing and unkind'? All very subjective terms.

I am surprised that any educated adult would say we should accept a single source unquestioningly.

Would you also say we should accept Donald Trump's claims about himself (stable genius) or the election (stolen) unquestioningly?

Would you say the same about a statement put out by Charles or William?

That anyone not believing it 100% was being 'disparaging, devaluing and unkind'?

But this primary source has great form for manipulation, misdirection and lies ... something, in court, would prove them to be a liar and they'd be treated as a liar

But this also shows you're unable to piece together the surrounding bits, look at the wider picture and draw more reasonable conclusions than 'Harry's truth'

@custardbear But this also shows you're unable to piece together the surrounding bits, look at the wider picture and draw more reasonable conclusions than 'Harry's truth'

Surrounding bits are gossip. I don’t go round looking for gossip to ‘piece together’ fantasies about other peoples lives. As I said a number of times, you can either believe the only actual source or not, I haven’t said it must be the truth or anyone must believe it. If you don’t believe Harry’s account is accurate, that’s one thing. But adding in the bits of gossip to justify conclusions that he has had a tantrum, she’s forcing herself on people or whatever else is claimed on the thread, is purely gossip.

Well said, and they wouldn't believe, especially a person who has already lied

Well, you can dismiss 'surrounding bits' as gossip.

A historian would probably think of them as evidence to be critically assessed, just as the primary source should be critically assessed.

All produced for a purpose.

Who has claimed he had a tantrum, or that she forced herself on people?

You have said the only evidence we can rely on is Harry's book as the only primary source, and various people have pointed out the issues with relying on a single source.

Look, so some posters state they are on the rf section to “push back”, defend H&M, etc. Ok. But you only need to look down the thread titles and there is a whole slew of ones which are nasty about the rf - Kate in particular. And it’s no coincidence that the OPs is/are one of the core fans.

I get trying to support your idols, but starting threads to tear down her “rival” as a tactic seems at odds with the holier-than-thou protestations of several posters.

This is the royal topic board. There aren't lots of threads attacking the royal family or Kate.

Many of us don't knock Kate. So you can't say we are all the same.

So I will carry on being 'holier than thou'.

I criticise the Institution yes.

I once years ago mentioned on here that I did not like a dress Kate was wearing. I got accused by many of the Royalists of tearing her down. I backed away from the board at that point back then.

Being critical of the Royal Family is fine. Nobody is saying they hate or despise Charles or Camilla, unlike the current thread where someone posts they despise Harry and Meghan.

@LadyMuckingabout I haven’t said one derogatory negative thing about Kate. I was on more than one thread defending her- and all the woman- and her children. The prominent posters on this thread have not engaged in that sort of thing.