Harry's new interview 2

[Viviennemary]

I just thought I would start second thread since I noticed the first one is full. It has certainly dominated media reporting. I saw a snippet on Sky news earlier. A document from Harry saying its a dereliction of duty to stop his security. Erm who just whizzed off to the USA and left all the duties behind. I havent watched the whole interview. I wonder if he'll appeal again.

I don't know how this would stack up regarding the court embargo, @bluegreygreen, but then I don't know what the penalty for breaking it is either

Either way I do wonder if they - who let's face it must be sick of the sight of him - would want to action anything even if it was justified?

Pré recorded does not mean days before. It just means it is not going out live

I imagine a séries of questions was agreed as he had a clearly prepared séries of talking points.

I think the american interviewer was a bit wet neverthless

Sorry for typos. Am un well and cannot be bothered to correct

I forgot about that!!! Can’t believe they were all in the same room. Was that post Oprah?

I have been wondering this since watching it, bluegreygreen! If pre-recorded how could he possibly done so without letting the BBC know the content of the draft judgement, and breaking the embargo?

And yet, crickets from the Court of Appeal. Imagine if any other litigant did this… 😬

No, pre Oprah. The late Queen was just trying to keep the door open, so she suggested they try it for a year. The door was left open.

Thanks, Serenster - I hoped you would comment!

What would be the usual penalty? Would it be directed to the legal team as well as the litigant?
Perhaps the CoA thinks there has been enough publicity and just wants it all to go away ...

Normally the court would require a witness statement to be filed by all parties who were involved n the breach, and explain exactly how it happened, and why. The court can proceed against the person breaching the embargo for contempt of court - but that is rare. They are publicly named and shamed though.

Here’s an article discussing how an embargo was breached in another case by a PR firm providing details of the draft judgement to the media, including the BBC.

https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/high-court-criticises-city-firm-for-breaching-judgment-embargo

I would definitely choose Ashley Cole any day of the week. He’s better looking and probably better off.

I know they hurried into the marriage but if they wanted children, and they did, they really couldn't have waited several more years to see how they got on. If Harry wanted Meghan and marriage and children he needed to get on with it. If he'd waited until he was 40 to try and find a naice English gel of 30, with time for babies ahead of her, just imagine the criticism he would have got for that. Others have married in haste and had long, happy marriages. I don't defend him on much but I can't blame him for wanting to settle down into being part of a happy family. I think he's a mess at the moment but I hope it will settle down and that he will become more sorted and happier-seeming.

That interview was ridiculous. It was essentially a speech with prompts. It's the only kind of 'interview' Harry can bring himself to do.

Well yes, but in this case it was really important that Meghan understood the enormity of what she was doing in marrying Harry. I think that is what the other family members were trying to caution Harry about. They probably got the feeling that Harry and Meghan were just paying lip service to this, which would be backed up by the half-arsed way they have gone in to their subsequent ventures. They both think that they know best and that they can wing any situation because of their inner star qualities. They are wrong by and I think other people could see that a mile off

Exactly my point. So much for 'selling your own story and selling someone else’s story.' It wouldn't sell if if was called ;Haz' or smth

Too true.

The interviewer may as well have been a nodding dog on a dashboard.

Yes, I think he was. Giving the interview to the BBC meant it couldn't be ignored by the major state broadcaster that still receives a large amount of public trust and definitely viewership. I am also wondering if he thought he would get the sympathetic hearing that Catherine received little over a year ago when she went to the BBC to make her own announcement about her health. A big exclusive on the BBC is not something the RF could ignore as they could one of his half baked interviews on a US network.

Whether by intention or by accident, the interview was completely uncritical, as has been the BBC's own analysis of its "exclusive" and therefore the BBC has leant further credence to Harry's claims. Had it been on ITV or on a US network, I am sure the BBC would have been all over his words with a fine tooth comb. However, the BBC is not going to criticise its own journalist for a poor interview. And whilst I initially thought it was a poor interview - and still believe it was - I am in agreement with others that allowing Harry to talk has shown him up for the complete selfish man-child that he is, so it's backfired on him spectacularly. Backfired on both Harry and the BBC who have been long testing the patience of the public (especially after their coverage of the Supreme Court decision in the Equality Act case a couple of weeks ago).

I'd also say that I don't think the BBC are covering the RF in the way they did when QEII was alive. It might just be me, but I think they have definitely cooled in attitude towards the RF over the last couple of years. It might just be that the more sycophantic reporters like Nicholas Witchell have left, so the reporting doesn't sound quite as deferential!

As I understand it, the BBC are expecting a ten minute interview but Harry spoke for much longer. I wonder if they had known up front how long they would have with him whether they would have organised a more experienced and less deferential journalist. It did seem like the journalist was under prepared and unwilling to push back on some of his statements.

Quote from one of today’s paper : “If he is still able to go to friends’ houses and allow Deliveroo to turn up at the door and then have the audacity to moan about his lack of security that is a very unintelligent thing to do.”

Harry is all about the appearance of his status to others and how he feels others must perceive him. It’s always someone’s fault and only Harry has the correct truth. The staff who only stay a few months, the bullying allegations, the charity changes, the men in grey suits, the RF, RAVEC, the last government - the list is endless.

The interview is just a continuation of his perpetual sulking victim role.

Cressida Bonas, his last serious girlfriend before Meghan Markle, came to feel he was a damaged and self-obsessed young man. “He’d rant and complain about paparazzi lurking where clearly there were none, she said.”

Oh my god. Red flag....

??? Sorry I’m not understanding.
you said he was his own spare?
he was selling his own story and that of his family and close acquaintances.

I think you and @LindaDarrah are saying the same thing, @jeffgoldblum . She was sarcastically replying to the poster who was claiming Harry wasn't selling other peoples' stories.

Harry must have the memory of a goldfish.
This is what he said about the BBC's Martin Bashir interview.

Princes William and Harry have spoke of the hurt caused by the interview.
Prince William said Diana "was failed not just by a rogue reporter, but by leaders at the BBC who looked the other way rather than asking the tough questions". He said the interview made a "major contribution to making my parents' relationship worse".
Prince Harry said the "ripple effect of a culture of exploitation and unethical practices" ultimately took his mother's life

His memory does appear to be severely impaired, @Profhilodisaster . For whatever reason 🚬

Oh I see cheers Randy! Apologies @LindaDarrah!