Just call me Harry. (Everything Harry & Meghan)

[antmanb]

I am both sad and relieved that I missed the “crying over bridesmaid dresses” story.

It's not as good as crying from a bathroom in Grenoble

I know panoramic or panorama is a perfectly good word to talk about getting a wide view, and it would be a great name for a news program. However, the way the word "panorama" just sounds and I guess, to me, the sort of nature of her interview with the lowest common denominator interest fodder (I get it, higher-end programs call them "human interest stories") makes it all sound so tabloid. Like "Don't miss tomorrow's episode of PAN-O-RAMA! It's juicy!"

I think @millyskate has already addressed this but Panorama has been a long standing very well researched investigative documentary series that has covered loads of really important issues, and often not just covered them but broken the story. From fraud in student loans, to some of the workings of the tobacco industry, the FIFA bribes scandals. The programme has resulted in hundreds of arrests and countless more investigations into really important issues.

The fact that something more low brow like the Diana interview was done on the show was specifically to give the interview more gravitas so the fact that it was all set up on the basis of forged documents and lies makes it even more ironic.

 

[Coco]

@Karen-W you are cracking me up. None of us were there, so 'facts' just mean which media outlet you choose to trust.

 

[Karen-W]

@Karen-W you are cracking me up. None of us were there, so 'facts' just mean which media outlet you choose to trust.

I didn't say that the "facts" of what actually happened are known - and made it clear, fwiw, that I've seen/read multiple versions of who made who cry and why. All any of us who were not in the room can do is speculate on the who, when, where, and why of what may have been multiple people crying.

What IS known is when the reports first surfaced in the media about the crying incident. The first documented report was a good year and a half before @canbelto claimed. In addition, she made an erroneous claim that Kate cooperated with Tatler for their "Catherine the Great" article, something which has been flatly denied by Kensington Palace. So, yes, there are some "facts" that can be verified and sourced and it doesn't have anything to do with choosing to trust one media source over another. Or are you now, somehow, calling time itself into question?

 

[canbelto]

nvm

 

[canbelto]

Prince Harry reportedly slept through call about Prince Philip’s death

The Duke of Sussex won’t be putting his phone on silent again anytime soon.

pagesix.com

 

[MacMadame]

In addition, she made an erroneous claim that Kate cooperated with Tatler for their "Catherine the Great" article, something which has been flatly denied by Kensington Palace.

And the Sussexes have denied they cooperated on that book about them which you don't believe. So what makes something a fact vs. an opinion other than what you choose to believe?

 

[canbelto]

I didn't say that the "facts" of what actually happened are known - and made it clear, fwiw, that I've seen/read multiple versions of who made who cry and why. All any of us who were not in the room can do is speculate on the who, when, where, and why of what may have been multiple people crying.

What IS known is when the reports first surfaced in the media about the crying incident. The first documented report was a good year and a half before @canbelto claimed. In addition, she made an erroneous claim that Kate cooperated with Tatler for their "Catherine the Great" article, something which has been flatly denied by Kensington Palace. So, yes, there are some "facts" that can be verified and sourced and it doesn't have anything to do with choosing to trust one media source over another. Or are you now, somehow, calling time itself into question?

Are you Kate's lawyer?

 

[Parsley Sage]

And the Sussexes have denied they cooperated on that book about them which you don't believe. So what makes something a fact vs. an opinion other than what you choose to believe?

It came out in the court case about the letter Meghan wrote to her father that one of Harry and Meghan's staff members, Sara Latham I think it was, reviewed the book for accuracy before it was published.

 

[MacMadame]

It came out in the court case about the letter Meghan wrote to her father that one of Harry and Meghan's staff members, Sara Latham I think it was, reviewed the book for accuracy before it was published.

Which is quite different than them giving interviews and feeding information to the author beforehand.

Reviewing a biography -- when the subject is still alive -- for accuracy is quite common.

ETA it's a liability thing. The author wants to give them an opportunity to object so that the lawyers can decide if it needs to be changed to avoid being sued. It's not a guarantee that the subject gets their version out.

 

[kwanfan1818]

Did they tell Latham to?

 

[MLIS]

There are a lot of details in that book that only Harry or Meghan could have known (things that happened when they were alone). So if they didn't cooperate, someone very close to them who knows intimate details of their private lives did. And given how quick they are to sue, or issue statements denying or countering stories they don't feel are accurate, I have to believe they would have been more forceful in denying or trying to block publication if they hadn't at least tacitly approved the content. Maybe they didn't speak to the authors themselves, but they authorized people close to them to speak on their behalf.

 

[overedge]

There are a lot of details in that book that only Harry or Meghan could have known (things that happened when they were alone). So if they didn't cooperate, someone very close to them who knows intimate details of their private lives did. And given how quick they are to sue, or issue statements denying or countering stories they don't feel are accurate, I have to believe they would have been more forceful in denying or trying to block publication if they hadn't at least tacitly approved the content. Maybe they didn't speak to the authors themselves, but they authorized people close to them to speak on their behalf.

^^This. After having read the book, IMO there is no way that they weren't involved with it, even if it was in feeding information to the authors through third parties.

 

[kwanfan1818]

Maybe. Or maybe it's like when Balanchine's longtime assistant, Barbara Horgan, went to Suzanne Farrell's and Paul Mejia's wedding. He thought she was being disloyal and was angry, but calmed down when she said she was there to bear witness and tell him what actually happened. And I'm sure that some behavior at that wedding (among the guests) was different, because they knew someone who knew a lot, was watching. Someone who was privy to many of the details about subjects about which they did speak and others about which they might have spoken, but didn't.

 

[MacMadame]

My point is not to rehash this argument over how much M+H were involved in the book. My point is that stuff you believe when the truth isn't known are no more facts than what other people believe when the truth isn't known. These are opinions.

 

[overedge]

If anything in that book wasn't true, at least in H&M's perceptions, they would have been in court about it. If they could take on the powerful and wealthy UK tabloids, they would have no hesitation in taking on a book publishing company.

 

[jenny12]

I agree that Harry has lots to be grateful for and in no way did I exclude him from my comments of love support and beautiful children. He is also free to express his viewpoints, and he is. I don't have to find it all classy or deserving of my respect. Many others do . So there we differ.

I don’t find the royal family classy or deserving of my respect overall so Harry, I guess , fits right in.

 

[MsZem]

My point is not to rehash this argument over how much M+H were involved in the book. My point is that stuff you believe when the truth isn't known are no more facts than what other people believe when the truth isn't known. These are opinions.

Yes. Everyone who's that high-profile (and that includes William and Catherine) will be working with professionals to cast themselves in the past possible light (and leak things as needed).

 

[taf2002]

If anything in that book wasn't true, at least in H&M's perceptions, they would have been in court about it. If they could take on the powerful and wealthy UK tabloids, they would have no hesitation in taking on a book publishing company.

Dontcha love all the people who know for a fact exactly what H&M would do in every situation? BTW re the crying thing, after the Oprah interview I read something where Kate or someone close to her (can't remember) said something like why bring that up, it was settled. Ya rite, it was settled to Kate's benefit, not Meghan's. IOW don't rock the boat even if the perception is wrong.

 

[Barbara Manatee]

Dontcha love all the people who know for a fact exactly what H&M would do in every situation?

Yeah, they are reaching. Not like the people who read somewhere that someone said something - that is definitive!

 

[MsZem]

BTW re the crying thing, after the Oprah interview I read something where Kate or someone close to her (can't remember) said something like why bring that up, it was settled. Ya rite, it was settled to Kate's benefit, not Meghan's. IOW don't rock the boat even if the perception is wrong.

It was settled in the sense that nobody was talking about it and nobody cared. So why revive such a dumb story? As Karen-W mentioned upthread, whatever happened, Meghan was just about to get married, Kate had just given birth - of course emotions were running high, and it's possible that both women ended up in tears at some point. If this quote that Karen posted is the original report, it's really not casting blame on anyone (except maybe Prince Louis for being born):

But the talk of a growing froideur between Kate and Meghan really ramped up following rumours of an apparent falling out between the pair in the run up to the Sussexes’ wedding in May.

The Telegraph has spoken to two separate sources who claim Kate was left in tears following a bridesmaids dress fitting for Princess Charlotte.

“Kate had only just given birth to Prince Louis and was feeling quite emotional,” said one insider.

Even the Tattler article canbelto linked to, which is very pro-Cambridge, doesn't say anything about Meghan making Kate cry; it mentions an argument that Meghan apparently won, and then has some catty comments from unnamed sources.

‘Then there was an incident at the wedding rehearsal,’ another friend of the Cambridges’ claims. ‘It was a hot day and apparently there was a row over whether the bridesmaids should wear tights or not. Kate, following protocol, felt that they should. Meghan didn’t want them to.’ The photographs suggest that Meghan won. Kate, who has impeccable manners, sought the opportunity to put Meghan in her place, reprimanding her for speaking imperiously to her Kensington Palace staff.

Personally I don't think Meghan is the one who comes off badly here.

To me the Sussex interviews, both the joint one and Harry's more recent appearances, are an odd combination of clearly legit grievances mixed together with trivial stuff and misrepresentations (e.g., there was plenty of racist commentary about Meghan in the UK, it was not necessary to pull in newspaper headlines from other countries). What are they trying to achieve, other than keeping themselves in the public eye? What is the ultimate goal here?

 

[barbk]

Yes, I do find it admirable that Harry is saying what he is saying. If Wills and Kate would respond, I would think more highly of them, frankly. Saying that Wills or Kate or even the Queen are showing some sort of admirable responsible restraint, while Harry and Meghan are not, is contrary to the facts as I see them. ETA: They could answer if they chose. If they choose to live within the constrictions of "the firm" that doesn't make them more responsible. Now, I don't follow the BRF's every move, but from what I see, they are all equal.

And I walked 10 miles uphill both ways barefoot in the snow to school, so I know from responsibility

Harry and Meghan may have made mistakes in their life, no doubt. So have Wills, Kate, and even Elizabeth. I just don't see one side as more responsible or classy or whatever words could be used than the other. I think they are all doing the best they can do with the life they have.

Except Andrew

I'm still waiting for the article decrying the Queen for failing to visit her husband while he was hospitalized for more than a month. That says something (and not something good) about the family dynamic and relationships there.

 

[MacMadame]

I'm still waiting for the article decrying the Queen for failing to visit her husband while he was hospitalized for more than a month. That says something (and not something good) about the family dynamic and relationships there.

Was she allowed though? Because of C0vid, visits to hospitalized people are often curtailed.

 

[Karen-W]

I'm still waiting for the article decrying the Queen for failing to visit her husband while he was hospitalized for more than a month. That says something (and not something good) about the family dynamic and relationships there.

She rarely (maybe once) visited Philip during previous hospitalizations, pre-C19. It was said that she didn't want to make a fuss for the hospital staff and other patients with the additional security that would be required for her to visit him while there. I don't think it says much of anything about their family dynamic and relationship.

 

[marbri]

I'm still waiting for the article decrying the Queen for failing to visit her husband while he was hospitalized for more than a month. That says something (and not something good) about the family dynamic and relationships there.

Um, maybe because when Charles was the first to visit him this happened:

Prince Charles sparks fury for Prince Philip hospital visit

PRINCE CHARLES' visit to a central London hospital to see Prince Philip has sparked fury on social media, with many people questioning why the father-son meeting was permitted while thousands of fellow patients are not allowed to see relatives.

www.express.co.uk

And you know covid...

 

[barbk]

Um, maybe because when Charles was the first to visit him this happened:

Prince Charles sparks fury for Prince Philip hospital visit

PRINCE CHARLES' visit to a central London hospital to see Prince Philip has sparked fury on social media, with many people questioning why the father-son meeting was permitted while thousands of fellow patients are not allowed to see relatives.

www.express.co.uk

And you know *********...

And the last part of that article says, "The latest Government guidance says people are allowed to leave home "to visit someone who is dying or someone in a care home (if permitted under care home guidance), hospice, or hospital, or to accompany them to a medical appointment."

 

[Barbara Manatee]

Elderly people like the Queen were advised to stay in their bubble.

 

[millyskate]

I'm still waiting for the article decrying the Queen for failing to visit her husband while he was hospitalized for more than a month. That says something (and not something good) about the family dynamic and relationships there.

That was not possible. In fact, if she’d been allowed there would have been a massive national scandal. Hospital visits were strictly prohibited in nearly all circumstances and even this week, now restrictions have lifted slightly, a friend was not allowed to visit her dying mother in hospital (in the end the mother made it out of the hospital to the care home where she was allowed to see her).
Some hospitals were allowing end of life visits but only in the very last moments. Many hospitals banned visits full stop. Partners are now also allowed to attend births.

Most hospitals were organising FaceTime for dying patients.

You cannot bring anyone into a random medical appointment - when I was hospital last week I snuck out into the car park to see mr millyskate but he sure could not come into the building. Patients in my ward who were elderly and not mobile hadn’t seen relatives in weeks and were suffering from it. The lady next to me had her husband bring pyjamas and toiletries to the door and they were collected for her - it was heartbreaking for her to know he was close but she wasn’t allowed to see him.

 

[el henry]

I do not have strong opinions on whether the Elizabeth should have visited Phillip. That is up to her (just as whatever Harry says is up to him). Equally classy, equally deserving of respect, equally valid.

But in Pennsylvania, in the past six months before restrictions were eased, end of life visits have most definitely been allowed in the hospital. As well as one labor coach.

No idea what the situation is in England or elsewhere, so I defer to those who know.

 

[skategal]

I do not have strong opinions on whether the Elizabeth should have visited Phillip. That is up to her (just as whatever Harry says is up to him). Equally classy, equally deserving of respect, equally valid.

But in Pennsylvania, in the past six months before restrictions were eased, end of life visits have most definitely been allowed in the hospital. As well as one labor coach.

No idea what the situation is in England or elsewhere, so I defer to those who know.

We have had super strict public health regulations here in Atlantic Canada and that has also been allowed here.

Not sure about the UK.

 

[overedge]

So I'm sure People magazine found out about this guy on their own. Not. https://people.com/royals/prince-ha...r-dean-stott-on-the-harry-people-havent-seen/